Gibsom vs. Paper Jams

ext1jdh

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
9,521
Reaction score
6,200
Why do you think a Les Paul costs $2k? American manufacture can only go so far.
 

GibsonByBirth

Banned
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
6,435
Reaction score
1,483
Gibson can maintain trademark without resorting to lawsuit....

In any case, Gibson's previous lawsuits were against makers of actual guitars, not children's toys. For the record, these things are not actually made of paper. They're plastic, but very thin. They're toys, plain and simple.

How? The first step is to object to others infringing upon the trademark. There is no suit for money. They have a suit to have them stop making a product that uses their trademark. Definition of a trademark:
a symbol, design, word, letter, etc. used by a manufacturer or dealer to distinguish a product or products from those of competitors: usually registered and protected by law


It doesn't matter if it is cardboard cut outs or sand paintings. They are trying in court their range of their trademark. If they lose, then this product would have no effect on reducing their trademark to public domain.

You who are complaining about Gibson's move are reacting without thinking. Gibson is not wrong here.
 

ext1jdh

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
9,521
Reaction score
6,200
You who are complaining about Gibson's move are reacting without thinking. Gibson is not wrong here.

:rolleyes: Gibson has already lost this matter. There are plenty of other Les Paul shaped guitars on the market.

Once again, they are suing Wowwee based on the shape of a toy which does not compete with Gibson's guitar.

If Wowwee were producing a guitar in the same shape as a Les Paul, they would have a leg to stand on.

If Gibson is doing this just to get their name on the product, they could have done it without suing. In fact, if Gibson had any desire to actually compete, they could produce their own toy guitar using their own logo and finish designs. To be honest they would probably outsell the Wowwee product.

Lets not forget that Gibson has already tried this, and failed. They went up against PRS regarding the shape of the guitar.

God forbid any company bother to compete anymore...why not just bring lawsuit instead :rolleyes:
 

GibsonByBirth

Banned
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
6,435
Reaction score
1,483
:rolleyes: Gibson has already lost this matter. There are plenty of other Les Paul shaped guitars
Once again, they are suing Wowwee based on the shape of a toy which does not compete with Gibson's guitar.

If Wowwee were producing a guitar in the same shape as a Les Paul, they would have a leg to stand on.

If Gibson is doing this just to get their name on the product, they could have done it without suing. In fact, if Gibson had any desire to actually compete, they could produce their own toy guitar using their own logo and finish designs. To be honest they would probably outsell the Wowwee product.

Lets not forget that Gibson has already tried this, and failed. They went up against PRS regarding the shape of the guitar.

God forbid any company bother to compete anymore...why not just bring lawsuit instead :rolleyes:

They still have no choice. If Gibson loses, then Wowwee doesn't copy Gibson's trademark and Gibson is still protected from public domain. If they win, Gibson is protected from public domain and their trademark is in tact. If Gibson does nothing, then their product loses value by losing its trademak to public domain. They did not fail in the PRS suit. They had a ruling that PRS was not infringing on Gibson's trademark. That is a favorable outcome for Gibson.

This has nothing to do with the other company. It is to keep the trademark shapes out of public domain. Arguing the merits of the Wowwee or say that Gibson is not bother to compete, shows a misunderstanding of lawsuits and business.
 

DRF

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,849
Reaction score
3,063
I agree on principle,its like an unlicensed product. No different than walmart making and selling Justin Beiber T-shirts and not paying his cut.
 

GibsonByBirth

Banned
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
6,435
Reaction score
1,483
I agree on principle,its like an unlicensed product. No different than walmart making and selling Justin Beiber T-shirts and not paying his cut.

The trademark that Gibson is protecting is their shape. It does not matter what someone else uses that shape for. Gibson must prevent ity from passing into public domain where anyone can use it. That is the purpose of the suit. The court either stops the use or rules that it does not violate trademark. Either way the shape stays property of Gibson.
 

FLICKOFLASH

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
24,841
Reaction score
8,597
The point of the lawsuit sends out a message & keeps copycats away from Gibson designs or to get licenced with the Gibson Brandname

Guitar hero in May of 2009 ( keep this in mind is a year and a half ago ) Made well over 2 billion $$$. Gibson probably made a 10th of that. This is also why Axel Rose went after them as well.
 

DRF

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,849
Reaction score
3,063
Instead of using Bieber as an example I shoulda said something like -make a boatload of unlicensed Darth Vader halloween costumes or Luke Skywalker t-shirts for sale and see how far Lucas enterprises crawls up your a**.
 

FLICKOFLASH

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
24,841
Reaction score
8,597
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvhqOGhvyCQ&feature=related[/ame]
 

FLICKOFLASH

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2007
Messages
24,841
Reaction score
8,597
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO8jC0-9q4E&feature=related]YouTube - Paper Jamz Guitar - How to play Lady Gaga & Judas Priest -Full on metal![/ame]
 

Phoenix59

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
2,291
Reaction score
1,339
This has nothing to do with the other company. It is to keep the trademark shapes out of public domain. Arguing the merits of the Wowwee or say that Gibson is not bother to compete, shows a misunderstanding of lawsuits and business.

That's such crap. What about all the companies that make copies of the Les Paul, the SG and the 335 which are often near-perfect duplicates of the Gibsons except for slight differences in the headstock, not to mention the many Explorer lookalikes that have the SAME hockey stick or inverted V headstocks as the Gibsons, and yet never wind up in court?
 

TeleDog

Pain in the Rear!
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
8,979
Reaction score
2,931
Is there anybody they won't file a law suit against? Gibson should spend money making good guitars instead of turning out crap and worthless gimmicks, overpriced signature models, and suing everybody out there.

I still remember their Activision law suit, the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen! Henry and his lawyers should charge admission to witness their freak show!
 

TeleDog

Pain in the Rear!
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
8,979
Reaction score
2,931
That's such crap. What about all the companies that make copies of the Les Paul, the SG and the 335 which are often near-perfect duplicates of the Gibsons except for slight differences in the headstock, not to mention the many Explorer lookalikes that have the SAME hockey stick or inverted V headstocks as the Gibsons, and yet never wind up in court?

If they wanna sell more, hell, HOW ABOUT LOWERING THEIR PRICES? The more I think about it, the more it becomes apparent Gibson's the most arrogant guitar company out there today! They're so full of themselves, maybe they should file a law suit against their own ego!
 

GibsonByBirth

Banned
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
6,435
Reaction score
1,483
That's such crap. What about all the companies that make copies of the Les Paul, the SG and the 335 which are often near-perfect duplicates of the Gibsons except for slight differences in the headstock, not to mention the many Explorer lookalikes that have the SAME hockey stick or inverted V headstocks as the Gibsons, and yet never wind up in court?

Again you are missing the point. Gibson has either had their day in court with those companies and the court had ruled that the head stock shape is the trademarked peice and it wasn't being infringed upon or they felt that the court has made it clear in other cases that the trademark was not being infringed upon. The point is the protection of anything that they have trademarked. If they don't then their trademark shape can be used by anyone for free because it will be concidered part of the public domain. The ruling of the court that these companies are not infringing on the trademark has the same result It keeps it out of public domain.

Gibson was not suing for monatary gain in most of the cases. It was suing to get them to stop using Gibson's shapes that are trademarked or at least to get a ruling that the shapes are not simular enough to be considered infringement. Such a ruling keeps it from becoming public domain.l

Now you can resort to calling this crap or you can listen and learn or maybe do some research. Gibson is not in the wrong here.:dude:
 

Phoenix59

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
2,291
Reaction score
1,339
Again you are missing the point. Gibson has either had their day in court with those companies and the court had ruled that the head stock shape is the trademarked peice and it wasn't being infringed upon or they felt that the court has made it clear in other cases that the trademark was not being infringed upon. The point is the protection of anything that they have trademarked. If they don't then their trademark shape can be used by anyone for free because it will be concidered part of the public domain. The ruling of the court that these companies are not infringing on the trademark has the same result It keeps it out of public domain.

Gibson was not suing for monatary gain in most of the cases. It was suing to get them to stop using Gibson's shapes that are trademarked or at least to get a ruling that the shapes are not simular enough to be considered infringement. Such a ruling keeps it from becoming public domain.l

Now you can resort to calling this crap or you can listen and learn or maybe do some research. Gibson is not in the wrong here.:dude:

Thank you so much for making my point for me. It's so much easier that way.

As you stated, in those past lawsuits it was Gibson's "open book" headstock shape that was in question as far as copyright infringement.

My 12 year old daughter got a Paper Jams SG for Christmas.

This is its headstock:

5321905529_337c95446e_z.jpg


It is NOT the Gibson open book style. Neither does it say "Gibson."

I disagree that Gibson is not in the wrong.
 

Latest Threads



Top