Gibson Trademarks 335 Shape

LtKojak

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
4,157
Reaction score
3,020
MMR magazine - Seventeen Brands Oppose Gibson's Quest to Trademark '335 Shape'

I... have no words. As the TM will only be applied in US soil, preventing only another US company, exactly to what maker do you think is Gibson going after? Heritage? Collings?

I mean, world's biggest sellers of 335-like guitars are Ibanez and Epiphone. Both are overseas and one is even a Gibson-owned company, so I don't really get what they're trying to accomplish here.

I hope the coalition of guitar makers will prevail and stop this madness!

Any thoughts?
 

paruwi

Kraut-Rocker
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
22,222
Reaction score
32,335
On July 24, seventeen companies filed for extensions to oppose the trademark application by Gibson Brands Inc. for the (two dimensional outline) of the 335 body shape. Peavey, Dean ( Armadillo), JHS, Suhr (JS Tech), Collings, Schecter, Westheimer, ESP, Washburn (U.S. Music), Roman Guitars, Trussart Guitars, Sadowsky, Warwick, Cordoba, Premier Builders, and Guild have filed together represented by Bienstock and Michael, P.C. Fender (FMIC) and Fred W. Gretsch Enterprises have filed separately.

:thumb:
 

in2madness

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
978
Maybe they should have done it in 1958 but why would they not try to protect their designs. Just about every guitar on earth is a copy of a Fender, Gibson or Martin design. Perhaps if other manufacturers had to actually come up with a design of their own rather than the endless copies of the old classic designs we might all be playing something better?
 

jlb32

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
5,301
Reaction score
4,530
If Dimarzio can have a trademark on pickups for the color cream (like they invented that color ????) then why would Gibson not want a trademark on a actual design they created.

I'm actually surprised they don't already have one.
 

warmachine

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
911
Reaction score
293
Does this mean that if Gibson literally waited close to 55 years to seek a trademark for this design, then any of a number of other manufacturers who had been building replica looking designs of a 335 could have applied for a trademark for that shape had they jumped at the chance? I mean ethically that would be wrong, but legally I wonder.
 

S_G_D

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
1,168
Reaction score
1,075
in2madness said:
Maybe they should have done it in 1958 but why would they not try to protect their designs. Just about every guitar on earth is a copy of a Fender, Gibson or Martin design. Perhaps if other manufacturers had to actually come up with a design of their own rather than the endless copies of the old classic designs we might all be playing something better?

They did come up with their own designs... The cork sniffing guitarists wouldn't buy most of them.



Posted from Mylespaul.com App for Android
 

dspelman

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
11,838
Reaction score
8,691
Does this mean that if Gibson literally waited close to 55 years to seek a trademark for this design, then any of a number of other manufacturers who had been building replica looking designs of a 335 could have applied for a trademark for that shape had they jumped at the chance? I mean ethically that would be wrong, but legally I wonder.

Gibson lawyers have never been the sharpest. It's far too late for them to apply for a trademark for that shape, given the number of people out there producing it now. It would be like trying to patent the wheel.

And the fact that there's a coalition of manufacturers opposing it eliminates any attempt they might have made to bully and deep-pocket their way into getting anyone to stop using the shape.
 

chuckymack

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
259
Reaction score
34
It's their intellectual property. Good for them. The companies copying their designs will adjust (if this holds up). Maybe somebody will come up with an even better semi-hollow design.
 

paruwi

Kraut-Rocker
Joined
Dec 24, 2009
Messages
22,222
Reaction score
32,335
Gibson lawyers have never been the sharpest. It's far too late for them to apply for a trademark for that shape, given the number of people out there producing it now. It would be like trying to patent the wheel.

And the fact that there's a coalition of manufacturers opposing it eliminates any attempt they might have made to bully and deep-pocket their way into getting anyone to stop using the shape.

:hmm:

It seems the Gibson lawyers had been pretty successful in the last time....:lol:

You hardly find 'LP-shaped' guitars, not produced by Gibson or Epi, still be called LesPauls on any of the big retailerswebsites worldwide......

not even here on the forum...:naughty:
 

rabidhamster

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
7,281
Reaction score
7,982
Its too late for them they didnt protect it soon enough. At least thats what the courts told Fender.
 

RaSTuS26

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2011
Messages
3,064
Reaction score
2,287
I thought trademarks were for company names and logos, patents for design and copyright for intellectual property, ya' learn something new every day.
 

cybermgk

“Happiness is the most insidious prison of all"
Gold Supporting Member
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
16,331
Reaction score
24,778
Gibson lawyers have never been the sharpest. It's far too late for them to apply for a trademark for that shape, given the number of people out there producing it now. It would be like trying to patent the wheel.

And the fact that there's a coalition of manufacturers opposing it eliminates any attempt they might have made to bully and deep-pocket their way into getting anyone to stop using the shape.

Yep. Not only is the "cat out of the bag", its been caterwaulling on the fence for decades.

Even if they had trade-marked it in 58, they still needed to aggresively protect said trademark, That has been part and parcel in Trademark law. If one has not progressively protected the trademark, they lose it. It's why they can't protect anything but the Les Paul name, script, headstock shape and I think exact horn, any more. They didn't aggressively protect the LP shape back when. Now they can't.

Hard argument to make now, considering they haven't even tried for over half a century.
 

old mark

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
3,512
Maybe they should have done it in 1958 but why would they not try to protect their designs. Just about every guitar on earth is a copy of a Fender, Gibson or Martin design. Perhaps if other manufacturers had to actually come up with a design of their own rather than the endless copies of the old classic designs we might all be playing something better?

I agree with most of this and I have read a lot of posts by people saying the same thing - where are the NEW, DIFFERENT DESIGNS for guitars...the problem is that most guitar BUYERS want something that at least looks like the old, established guitar designs that people have been playing since the '50's, '60's and '70's...

Different, new designs do not sell. Ask Hartley Peavey.


mark
 

grim83

Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2013
Messages
322
Reaction score
146
I agree with most of this and I have read a lot of posts by people saying the same thing - where are the NEW, DIFFERENT DESIGNS for guitars...the problem is that most guitar BUYERS want something that at least looks like the old, established guitar designs that people have been playing since the '50's, '60's and '70's...

Different, new designs do not sell. Ask Hartley Peavey.


mark

This is very true there is a reason I'd say 75-80% of all electric guitar sales fall within 6 general styles strat, Tele, les Paul, sg, 335, or metal types. The last May be stretching it but the other 5 are the most prevelent styles I see from any retailer or manufacturer it is what sells and it's what the people want unless some new big shot comes in with an odd ball like Jack white with his airplane which creates a niche market.
 

st.bede

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
10,387
Reaction score
5,429
There are plenty mass produced different body style guitars out there. If we were to just look at Gibson, I could come up with three off hand: V, Explore, and Firebird. When you include Fender, PRS, Steinberger (Gib owned), Parker, and Ernie Ball, you have many more strange shapes. Sure you can come up with new shapes but at this point it would difficult to not have it look like another guitar.

Just take a look at the selection of different shapes that Warmoth offers: Warmoth Custom Guitar Parts - Custom bass and guitar bodies and necks
 

kysrsoze

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
662
I never understood how so many companies were able to directly copy the Tele, Strat and even Flying V shape (of course the headstocks are a different story). I know Warmoth is licensed to make Fender parts. Did Fender and Gibson just not aggressively guard those designs?
 

rockstar232007

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
18,113
Reaction score
16,691
I never understood how so many companies were able to directly copy the Tele, Strat and even Flying V shape (of course the headstocks are a different story). Did Fender and Gibson just not aggressively guard those designs?
It has nothing to do with "guarding" their designs. It's about not being able to hold a monopoly in the guitar market.

If Gibson/Fender had it their way, they would be the ONLY two players in the game. Fortunately, when it comes to design patents/trademarks, it's all about the details. Just look at all of the Rickenbacker copies out there.
 

old mark

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
3,825
Reaction score
3,512
It has nothing to do with "guarding" their designs. It's about not being able to hold a monopoly in the guitar market.

If Gibson/Fender had it their way, they would be the ONLY two players in the game. Fortunately, when it comes to design patents/trademarks, it's all about the details. Just look at all of the Rickenbacker copies out there.

Fender already OWNS Gretsch, Charvel, Jackson. Tacoma, Sunn Amps, DeArmond, Guild, and a few more...

FMIC Brands | Fender®

Gibson owns Epiphone, Baldwin, Kramer, Tobias, Slingerland and a few more...

http://www.gibson.com/press/brands.html

They would rule the world if left to themselves...
 

rockstar232007

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
18,113
Reaction score
16,691
Fender already OWNS Gretsch, Charvel, Jackson. Tacoma, Sunn Amps, DeArmond, Guild, and a few more...

FMIC Brands | Fender®

Gibson owns Epiphone, Baldwin, Kramer and a few more...
Yeah, but I'm talking about the companies themselves. In other words, having ONLY guitars with "Gibson" or "Fender" on the headstock.
 

BEACHBUM

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
580
Reaction score
773
Perhaps Ibanez should sue Gibson since Gibson is taking credit for the 339 concept when in actuality Ibanez designed and produced that concept many years before Gibson. In fact (other than the mouse ears) the 339 has the exact same body dimensions as this 83 Ibanez Artist AM 205.

83 Artist in a 339 case.

 

Latest Threads



Top