Gibson Loses Its Firebird Guitar Body Shape Trademark in The EU

Pappy58

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
3,812
Reaction score
8,132

Pappy58

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
3,812
Reaction score
8,132
If you think my comments were terse, you don't know what that word means... nor were they sarcastic by any definition. If you think you're making some kind of point by blindly tossing back my criticisms, you're not, it's just lazy and juvenile.

Zora hated the split window, but he didn't kill it; reviewers and the public at large did with their reactions to it, as well as simple labor/production costs from building it. And of course, management above Mitchell only tentatively approved it for the first year because it was such a risk to take.

If you know anything about the development of the Sting Ray, you would know that Duntov did not, in any way, have more power than Mitchell. He was the VP of the entire Design department while Zora was just a staff engineer on a single project that was small beans to General Motors. And I'm glad he didn't; none of the mid-engine prototypes looked half as good as the production Sting Ray.



Beaten to death? I haven't seen a single argument put forth for it yet. Declarative statements are not arguments. Especially not stated in the face of evidence to the contrary with no rebuttal to those arguments put forth. Oy vey....



They never had a claim to any of them, except the SG, which was the only significantly unique and original design of the bunch (and what I've always considered the '63 Sting Ray of guitar designs, coincidentally).

Weren't the original builders of those designs located in Kalamazoo, Michigan? Aren't the original designers all dead in the ground? How does another company building a guitar with the LP body shape affect their legacy in any way whatsoever? That changes the history books somehow? Does anybody actually believe people would suddenly become confused as to who built the original 1950s Les Pauls?
This is bunch of crap...and I'm putting that nicely. Plagiarizing is what it is, and thats what this is!
 

cewilli

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2019
Messages
16
Reaction score
3

Brians Evil Twin

Poophoria Sōtō Zen
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Messages
15,119
Reaction score
44,778
How do you as a guitar manufacturer "lose" your trademark on a design?
Click the link - their application was voided. It was initially granted, but challenged by Warwick/Framus owner Hans-Peter Wilfer in October 2014. That's what needs to happen in the US - a manufacturer who is tired of being bullied and has the financial wherewithal needs to step up to the plate.
 

northernguitarguy

SWeAT hOg
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
36,196
Reaction score
64,321
life must be a blast, checking for reds under the bed.

the EU may be many things, not being a lover of the whole EU sh*t show myself, feel free to call them what you like but its streching things a bit accusing them being communists
Hard leftys see facists everywhere. Hard righties see the commies. Both groups are grossly ignorant of history. Real victims of both 'isms' laugh or shake their heads at the hyperbole.
 

oicu812

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
704
Reaction score
1,430
Click the link - their application was voided. It was initially granted, but challenged by Warwick/Framus owner Hans-Peter Wilfer in October 2014. That's what needs to happen in the US - a manufacturer who is tired of being bullied and has the financial wherewithal needs to step up to the plate.
What is with this "bully" crap? What does that even mean? This isn't the playground in elementary school. Business is business. Gibson is the originator of those designs. Period. Similarly the Coca Cola bottle is protected, so PepsiCo, and smaller soft drink companies cannot use the Coke bottle shape. None of the armchair warrior soda drinkers here are up in arms about the "bully" Coca Cola.

It is readily apparent that some here have little experience in the private sector as they dole out their opinion on the nuances of design, trademarks and/or copyright.

I am certain if any one Gibson basher was in a similar position, they would pursue similar avenues to protect their design or creation. Easy to throw javelins as a spectator from the grandstand.

If whatever claim Gibson filed the suit under here or in Europe had expired for whatever reason, too bad. Nevertheless, this prevailing attitude by some that Gibson is somehow "mean" for trying to protect their undeniable creations is misguided. Whether Gibson has a legal leg to stand on or not and some here say no, it is clear something was amiss as it was initially granted, then EU judges stepped in.

Bottom line and I said it before, the EU judges in this case are gonna protect their own, and it wouldn't surprise me if Warwick/Framus owner Hans-Peter Wilfer had some backdoor payola going on.
 

Brians Evil Twin

Poophoria Sōtō Zen
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Messages
15,119
Reaction score
44,778
What is with this "bully" crap? What does that even mean? This isn't the playground in elementary school. Business is business. Gibson is the originator of those designs. Period. Similarly the Coca Cola bottle is protected, so PepsiCo, and smaller soft drink companies cannot use the Coke bottle shape. None of the armchair warrior soda drinkers here are up in arms about the "bully" Coca Cola.

It is readily apparent that some here have little experience in the private sector as they dole out their opinion on the nuances of design, trademarks and/or copyright.

I am certain if any one Gibson basher was in a similar position, they would pursue similar avenues to protect their design or creation. Easy to throw javelins as a spectator from the grandstand.

If whatever claim Gibson filed the suit under here or in Europe had expired for whatever reason, too bad. Nevertheless, this prevailing attitude by some that Gibson is somehow "mean" for trying to protect their undeniable creations is misguided. Whether Gibson has a legal leg to stand on or not and some here say no, it is clear something was amiss as it was initially granted, then EU judges stepped in.

Bottom line and I said it before, the EU judges in this case are gonna protect their own, and it wouldn't surprise me if Warwick/Framus owner Hans-Peter Wilfer had some backdoor payola going on.
Hi Mark, you're not reading upthread. Gibson is a bully because they don't challenge anyone with any money because they know their IP claims are weak and would be thrown out if anyone gave them a serious run. They just go after little guys to set a precedent and hope that's enough to protect them. They may have made a mistake going after Dean, time will tell.

 
Last edited:

oicu812

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
704
Reaction score
1,430
Nah, you're not reading upthread. Gibson is a bully because they don't challenge anyone with any money because they know their IP claims are weak and would be thrown out if anyone gave them a serious run. They just go after little guys to set a precedent and hope that's enough to protect them. They may have made a mistake going after Dean, time will tell.
Nah, you don't get it. Who gives a rats ass if they have money. Is it right or wrong that a company, large or small, uses another companies design? So in your world, if you don't have a lot money, that absolves you from abiding by any applicable trademarks and/or copyright infringements.

Laws only apply to the wealthy, and if you are less fortunate, you get a hall pass is what you are saying.

Dean doesn't have any money? The founder admitted he stole Gibson's designs, and the only catch there is if the trademarks were not ever filed initially or renewed if necessary. Time will tell.

It doesn't affect me either way, nor does it affect anyone else here, and I personally don't care. I simply find it funny that folks get so up in arms about it, like by Gibson filing a lawsuit, it is a personal affront against them.
 
Last edited:

LtDave32

Desert Star Guitars
Super Mod
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
42,188
Reaction score
139,959
To follow the logic of some statements made in here, it would appear that Gibson owes Fender for their 1965 NR Firebird shape, Fender having coming out with it 1959.
 

oicu812

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2016
Messages
704
Reaction score
1,430
To follow the logic of some statements made in here, it would appear that Gibson owes Fender for their 1965 NR Firebird shape, Fender having coming out with it 1959.
If that is the case, probably so. There are undeniable similarities no doubt. Exact copy, say in the Flying V, which some of the companies are doing? No.


fender reverse jazzmaster.JPG
 

cjpeck

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
5,038
Reaction score
18,672
this thread is gold. GOLD I tell ya.

so much gold I'm going to have to wait until next Thursday to catch up so the stoopid doesn't rub off.


Gold. Gold I say.
 


Latest Threads



Top