Gibsom vs. Paper Jams

purevilpleasure

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
4,647
Reaction score
1,575
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.

For your Daughter you say? Hmmm mmmm tell us another story. :laugh2:
 

Phoenix59

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
2,291
Reaction score
1,339
For your Daughter you say? Hmmm mmmm tell us another story. :laugh2:

:laugh2:

No, really.

She actually wants a Daisy Rock star shaped guitar or something like that, but she's the type to fiddle with something for two weeks and never touch it again.

Oh, and she's 11, not 12. Brainfart.
 

GibsonByBirth

Banned
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
6,435
Reaction score
1,483
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.

I guess I wasn't clear. THAT IS a ruling that Gibson wants the courts to make. That "It is NOT the Gibson open book style. Neither does it say "Gibson."" Such a ruleing provides Gibson with protection for their trademark. It means that it has not be freely used. It is not closer to public domain. I hope that I have explained it better. Lawsuits like this are really about the suer's protection. They are covering their butts. In such, Gibson is not wrong.
 

Phoenix59

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
2,291
Reaction score
1,339
I guess I wasn't clear. THAT IS a ruling that Gibson wants the courts to make. That "It is NOT the Gibson open book style. Neither does it say "Gibson."" Such a ruleing provides Gibson with protection for their trademark. It means that it has not be freely used. It is not closer to public domain. I hope that I have explained it better. Lawsuits like this are really about the suer's protection. They are covering their butts. In such, Gibson is not wrong.

Uh... so according to what you just said, Gibson wants the courts to verify that the Paper Jams headstock design does NOT infringe on Gibson's copyright?

That makes such little sense that I can't verbalize it.
 

ext1jdh

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
9,521
Reaction score
6,198
THAT IS a ruling that Gibson wants the courts to make. That "It is NOT the Gibson open book style. Neither does it say "Gibson.""

This ham sandwich is NOT a Gibson product, and it doesn't say Gibson on it. Therefore it is not a Gibson guitar"
 

GibsonByBirth

Banned
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
6,435
Reaction score
1,483
Uh... so according to what you just said, Gibson wants the courts to verify that the Paper Jams headstock design does NOT infringe on Gibson's copyright?

That makes such little sense that I can't verbalize it.

That is one outcome that protects Gibson's trademark. I don't see the difficulty with that. But we have had a past of arguing and maybe you are just continuing that.
 

DanW

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
417
Reaction score
77
Uh... so according to what you just said, Gibson wants the courts to verify that the Paper Jams headstock design does NOT infringe on Gibson's copyright?

That makes such little sense that I can't verbalize it.

Phoenix,

While I don't like it, I understand what GibsonByBirth is trying to explain. Gibson has to sue to show that they are activly trying to protect their trademark shapes. If they did not then they would be saying legally that they do not wish to protect their tradmarks thus making them fair game for everyone (public domain).

I would imagine that Gibson expects the court to rule that the paper jamz do not infringe on their tradmarks but they must have the courts rulling to continue to protect their tradmarks.

Dan
 

GibsonByBirth

Banned
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
6,435
Reaction score
1,483
This ham sandwich is NOT a Gibson product, and it doesn't say Gibson on it. Therefore it is not a Gibson guitar"

No one said that it was.

My name is Gibson. Can I make a guitar and use my name on the headstock?:hmm:
 

GibsonByBirth

Banned
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
6,435
Reaction score
1,483
Phoenix,

While I don't like it, I understand what GibsonByBirth is trying to explain. Gibson has to sue to show that they are activly trying to protect their trademark shapes. If they did not then they would be saying legally that they do not wish to protect their tradmarks thus making them fair game for everyone (public domain).

I would imagine that Gibson expects the court to rule that the paper jamz do not infringe on their tradmarks but they must have the courts rulling to continue to protect their tradmarks.

Dan

I couldn't have said it better! :thumb:
 

ext1jdh

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
9,521
Reaction score
6,198
No one said that it was.

My name is Gibson. Can I make a guitar and use my name on the headstock?:hmm:
You can. If you try to sell it as a Gibson branded Les Paul (AKA, Fake) and you use their logo, then expect a lawyer on your doorstep. If you're selling it as a Bob Gibson original guitar (replica), then Gibson hasn't got a leg to stand on.
It comes down to the fact that you're selling it. If the customer is aware that this is not a Gibson guitar made by Gibson Guitars in Nashville, but made by Bob Gibson in his garage, that's not taking any money away from Gibson Nashville.
If you build a guitar and use your own name (even if it is "Gibson") and do not sell it, then it could be an exact replica of a Gibson guitar and you can't get into trouble.

WowWee doesn't build guitars. They build toys. They are not a competitor to Gibson. Even if Gibson were "protecting their trademark" they have not lost a customer to WowWee...because it's not competing with Gibson. If Gibson were making a plastic toy Les Paul or Explorer or V that made noise like a guitar, then I could see it being a problem.

How about the idiot in a hurry test? If you put a Gibson Les Paul next to a WowWee plastic les paul shaped toy, would the idiot know which one was the guitar? Unless they have massive brain damage, it's likely they can tell which one has strings and costs too much.

From the twisted legal system that exists in the States, they'll probably burn this small company to the ground in legal fees. It just makes Gibson a bunch of bullies.

If Gibson wants to "protect their trademark" then why can't they apply for trademark status on the shape?
 

Latest Threads



Top