# General Mandolin Topics > General Mandolin Discussions >  Gibson opposes Collings' headstock trademark registration, citing

## Mandolin Cafe

Read about it *here*, on Guitar.com.

From the sub-headline:

"Gibson claims the headstock shape trademark, for which Collings filed last year, will “impair the distinctiveness” of three of its own trademarks."

----------

Eric Platt, 

lflngpicker, 

trodgers

----------


## MikeEdgerton

There were bowlbacks using the open book headstock shape before Gibson was incorporated. This is ludicrous.

----------

Bill Kammerzell

----------


## sgarrity

Another day, another litigious action from Gibson.....what would happen if they put all this energy into building quality guitars???

----------

DavidKOS, 

doc holiday, 

Glassweb, 

j. condino, 

Jill McAuley

----------


## brunello97

For posteriority here's the headstock profiles under discussion.  Collings on the left.

As Mike says, the one on the far right... the "open book" headstock....was closely associated with Vinaccia mandolins and from there to their many descendants in Italy and the US...Vega in particular. 


Mick

----------

DavidKOS, 

Jess L.

----------


## Louise NM

The Collings design is asymmetrical—that alone makes it different. I've seen it referred to as the "haircut" headstock, which is exactly what it looks like. Gibson needs a few less lawyers on the payroll.

----------

DavidKOS, 

Jess L., 

lflngpicker

----------


## Austin Bob

"I'm soooo confused!" "I bought this guitar thinking it was a Gibson, but now I find out it's a Collings!" "I guess I should have read what was on the headstock, instead of going by the shape."


When is THAT ever going to happen?

----------

Jess L., 

lflngpicker, 

Nbayrfr

----------


## rcc56

You know, the day that Ares Management decides that it is no longer to their advantage to keep Guitar Center alive as a tax write-off, Gibson's goose will be cooked.

Not that it matters to Gibson, but I will not buy a new Gibson product of any sort while the company retains its present ownership and management.  While they do not need any income from poor little me to stay in business, neither do I need anything that they make to stay in business.

----------


## Aaron Bohnen

I hope somebody at Gibson understands how embarrassing this is becoming. The Collings headstock is intentionally asymmetric in part to establish their own brand identity and distinguish their product *from* Gibson's or anyone else's. 

There's no danger of mistaking a Collings mandolin or guitar for a Gibson, because Collings has their own brand to protect and is deliberately avoiding the confusion between their products and those of other builders. That's the entire point of trying to register their headstock shape as a distinct trademark in the first place.

I'd like to say "Enjoy!" but honestly it's hard to enjoy this silliness. I agree wholeheartedly with Shaun above - Gibson could do much better by putting their energy into making guitars rather than making legal hassles for others.

Jeez...

----------

Jess L.

----------


## Jess L.

Mind-boggling. The headstocks in question don't look anything at all alike. 

Why doesn't Gibson just trademark the whole 8-string idea while they're at it, make everyone else go 7-string or 9-string unless they pay fees to Gibson for permission to build an 8-string instrument. Gibson has shown that just because someone else did it first, doesn't mean that Gibson can't still trademark it as their own and prevent use by others. I mean we wouldn't want customers to get confused as to whether they had a Gibson or some other brand. 

Heck Gibson should just *trademark* the concept of *audio frequencies*. All audio frequencies produced by any Gibson that was ever built and all Gibsons that may be built in the future, those entire frequency spectrums would be prohibited from use by any other musical instrument manufacturer without a licensing arrangement with Gibson.

----------


## Mandobar

This is just part of the process in licensing a trademark.  I’d have been surprised if they didn’t contest it, or any application from any other builders.  It just seems to be their MO.  However, I’m not sure that their management has a really well-thought out plan for the survival of their business.  They lost plenty of copyright and trademark property under Henry when they defaulted on loans to various lenders, and they’ve never gone back to reclaim them.  

Perhaps they should be spending less money on legal fees and more on quality control and research and development.  There’s more to business than trying to control your market through legal gymnastics.

----------


## BrianWilliam

Like Mike E, I taped my mandolin to hide The Gibson. Maybe thats not enough....

----------


## seankeegan

So Gibson are concerned they may be mistaken for a superior product? 

 :Wink:

----------

DavidKOS, 

Nbayrfr

----------


## Brandon John Foote

Ugh.

----------


## JEStanek

This shouldn't even be a case but it will be. If you have eyes, you can see it is distinctly different!

Jamie

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> This shouldn't even be a case but it will be. If you have eyes, you can see it is distinctly different!
> 
> Jamie


Could be an issue

----------

JEStanek

----------


## rcc56

I wonder how much longer the company will survive under the current leadership.  They don't play well with others.  Their dealership policies are no better than they were under the previous management, and they are not attracting many new dealers.  The market for new electric guitars has decreased.  Their marketing policies seem to be centered around pop "icons" whose names are of limited interest to younger buyers.  Their legal policies are not helping their public relations.  Contrary to their public statements, they are not developing a spirit of co-existence and cooperation with the rest of the industry.

In short, little has changed since before the bankruptcy, except for the closing of the Memphis plant and the construction of a new corporate office.

"New boss, same as the old boss."

----------


## Dale Ludewig

Their company is really a piece of work. I just contacted them a few days ago to see if they could supply a bridge for a Gibson Hummingbird that I have to work on. The email I got back was kind of "snarky". They could do the work but wouldn't assist. Fine. I'll make a new bridge. Their general tone wasn't at all cordial.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

I'm surprised they didn't send you to Stew-Mac or All Parts. Over the years when I have been looking for parts from them I usually got that as an answer.

----------


## rcc56

Dale, they are not smart enough to realize that they just lost a sale.

That sale would have covered the better part of a day's wages for one of their floor workers.
And the potential loss of future income from a spurned customer.

A brilliant way to keep the bills paid.

Anyway, a Hummingbird bridge will be easy to make, and that way you get paid for the work rather than sending money to Gibson.

----------

Glassweb

----------


## Mandobar

This is what happens when people have more money than brains.

----------


## danb

This is not a company that is interested in making anything, this is simply a soulless corporate husk trading on a purchased name. 





Owning a brand name like this and trading on successes over 100 years old is absurd to me. Equally strange to me is how some people truly put weight in that name knowing the stories of who bought the trademarks, where production was moved, how all the people changed so many times etc etc.


Do they even make more than a handful of mandolins a year now?

----------


## rcc56

"Do they make more than a handful of mandolins now?"
No.  And they don't even list mandolins as an available product on their website.

Intentional thread drift:  Marty, if you haven't already tried it, the Micro-plane 2" rotary cutter can be chucked up in a drill press with a fence for thicknessing a bridge blank and cutting the wings.  It works much faster than a drum sanding wheel.  Take light passes, and then you can use a drum sanding wheel just to take out the tool marks.  It's a real time saver and well worth the $15.

----------


## mtucker

Goliath getting his ass kicked by little David...then crying about it by bullying....instead of nutting up and trying to build better stuff. Totally misdirected energy and speaks volumes about their priorities.

----------

sgarrity

----------


## Strabo

I have a 1922 A Junior that i respect very much. I am disappointed by the behavior of the current Gibson people.

----------

Joey Anchors

----------


## Luna Pick

Wonder what the luthiers and other craftspeople at Gibson, the heart of the company, think about all this. 

BTW Gibson, as you take all these naps and during your episodes of delirium a whole bunch of really good alternatives have come along over the last couple of decades.

----------


## Murphy Slaw

But it's okay to patent a pick?

----------


## Buck

> But it's okay to patent a pick?


This is a trademark claim, not a patent dispute.  I think the reason this tends to irritate people is that Gibson didn't claim this and similar trademarks for decades, then after they become more or less standard shapes used by many makers, Gibson just seems heavy handed in their approach to these claims.  In this specific case, the Collings headstock is distinctly different, at least to my eye.

Assuming you're talking about Blue Chip, they started the patent process as soon as they started making picks.  A patent was granted, which to me is an entirely different thing than if they'd made picks for decades, then tried to say they owned the color brown.  As far as I'm concerned, they deserve the patent and I'm happy for them.

----------

ccravens, 

Eldon Dennis, 

Jess L., 

John Soper, 

SlowFingers

----------


## Joey Anchors

Oh come on.. thats not even closely the same! 

Gibson is stretching it on this one with Collings.

----------


## Murphy Slaw

> Assuming you're talking about Blue Chip, they started the patent process as soon as they started making picks.  A patent was granted, which to me is an entirely different thing than if they'd made picks for decades, then tried to say they owned the color brown.  As far as I'm concerned, they deserve the patent and I'm happy for them.


I use and like Bluechip picks. However, for them to patent making picks out of a material they don't make (in shapes they also didn't create) seems a bit of a stretch to me. It's like Budweiser getting a patent on beer bottles made of glass.

So, there we are.

But, business is business and lawyers need work too...

----------

j. condino

----------


## red7flag

This whole thread makes me sad.  I remember when in the past administration they took on one of the truly respected individual and organization in Stan Werblen and Elderly Music.  That event left a really sour taste in my mouth.  From the time I was little, I respected Gibson as being an authentic brand.  Loved the sound of BB playing Lucille.  Now...

----------


## Bill McCall

I first noticed Gibson in the Norlin era, so for me they’ve mostly been awful.  It was later I learned their earlier banjos and mandolins were mostly fine.  Didn’t pay attention to their electric instruments.

I’m not a shareholder so I don’t care if they succeed or fail as a company.  I do respect the current mandolin builders there.

----------


## allenhopkins

Where the hell were the Gibson legal eagles, when everyone in the world started building F-model mandolins?  If they weren't smart enough to slap a patent or copyright on the scroll-and-points silhouette, which was absolutely a Gibson creation (in fact, an _Orville_ Gibson creation, I believe), they aren't gonna make up for it by suing Collings for what appears to be a clearly identifiable different headstock profile.

So now they worry over the shapes of headstocks and truss rod covers, when they've allowed open use of much more distinctive features: body shapes, inlay patterns, finish colors, etc.  I've seen import guitars with stone copies of Hummingbird inlaid pickguards and finish colors, for example.  Once you permit open and long-duration use of features you've developed, without legal challenge, you can't then decide _ex post facto_ to apply for legal protection.

Like many of us, I shed no tears for Gibson -- but it's a shame that a company so identified with the development of world-class American stringed instruments, is in the shape it's in now.  Other iconic US companies like C F Martin and Fender seem to have figured out 21st century reality better.  It's too bad that the people who invented the F-5 mandolin, the Mastertone banjo, and the Les Paul electric guitar, are in such straits today.

----------


## mtucker

> Other iconic US companies like C F Martin and Fender seem to have figured out 21st century reality better.


Fender’s custom shop and a smaller subset of 10 Master Builders out in Corona are actually kicking ass doing custom spec’d to order guitars and basses. Everybody seems very happy out there and the product is high quality and competes well with the boutique builders. They’ve been through their share of body and headstock shape battles too, but for last several years they’ve buckled down with steady management and got to business with their dealer and artists programs. The brand has never been stronger.

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## slimt

I would Never buy a New Gibson Acoustic or electric again.  I bought a few used.  But a New one.  Not a chance.   There trying to think there it ,in the building of musical instruments.   Collings guitars are far more superior than Gibson any day.   I own a Collings CJ35 and many old Gibson acoustics.  The Collings is just better.

----------


## slimt

I might have what you are looking for.. I have a few Gibson acoustic bridges from a friend that worked there. .   send me a picture.

----------


## slimt

> Their company is really a piece of work. I just contacted them a few days ago to see if they could supply a bridge for a Gibson Hummingbird that I have to work on. The email I got back was kind of "snarky". They could do the work but wouldn't assist. Fine. I'll make a new bridge. Their general tone wasn't at all cordial.


Look at above thread

----------


## sblock

> I use and like Bluechip picks. However, for them to patent making picks out of a material they don't make (in shapes they also didn't create) seems a bit of a stretch to me. It's like Budweiser getting a patent on beer bottles made of glass.
> 
> So, there we are.
> 
> But, business is business and lawyers need work too...


I would push back against this, at least a little.  I don't think it has anything to do with employing lawyers or sharp business practice.  On the contrary.  BlueChip is simply patenting an original invention, to protect against unfair competition.  This is precisely what patents were designed to do!  

BlueChip patented the idea of manufacturing picks from a special space-age thermoplastic material, a form of polyimide.  Contrary to what some folks have implied, they did not patent the shape, the size, or the thickness of the picks (these properties are all in the Pubic Domain). They did not patent the color of the pick, either (absurd!).  What they had was a NOVEL idea -- no one had executed it before -- that resulted in picks with some special advantages for players, at least in the opinion of a great many:  see all the threads extolling BlueChip pick performance on the MC.  Very clearly, their novel concept works, and it works well.  

Also, since no one had used this very expensive plastic for anything involving music production before Matt Goins did the experiment and tried it himself, it was clearly NOT OBVIOUS to do that.  The BlueChip patent applies to the _application of the material to solve a problem_; it does not apply to the special plastic material itself (which, by the way, is the subject of its own set of patents), nor to the form of a pick.

So, IMO, the BlueChip pick pretty clearly passes the twin legal tests of originality and non-obviousness. And the US Patent Office agreed with me about that, since they granted the patent.  I don't think that's unfair.  Or unusual, either.

And, of course, all this has nothing whatsoever to do with Gibson's trademark disputes, so it's not exactly germane to this thread. Sorry.   :Whistling: 

BTW, Budweiser put their beer in glass bottles many centuries after these were first used to store alcoholic drinks.  The application was not novel, and it was entirely obvious, too.  _Not patentable!_  Your analogy does not hold. You can, however, trademark something like a unique (unprecedented) bottle shape.  I would not be surprised if the Michelob bottle shape were trademarked, for example.

----------

Buck, 

CarlM, 

ccravens, 

Eldon Dennis, 

FLATROCK HILL, 

Jess L., 

Lucas, 

PDMan

----------


## rcc56

20 years ago, I was doing repair work for a small shop Gibson dealer who was also a factory authorized Gibson repair center.  We couldn't get bridges either, even though we were factory authorized.

Sounds like not much has changed.
"New boss, same as the old boss."
"New Gibson, same as the old Gibson."

Or to quote the old 1940's Epiphone trade magazine ad, "When Good Enough isn't Good Enough."

----------

Eric Platt, 

Joey Anchors

----------


## Mandobar

This is just part of the trademark process.  It doesnt mean their objection is going to bear fruit.

----------


## Mandolin Cafe

Here's some interesting fodder I heard about but now see evidence of. Apparently Greg Rich had something to do with this, former Gibson employee responsible for bringing "The Loar" brand to The Music Link:

*Gold Tone acquires Mastertone brand*

"Mastertone" trade name has been awarded to Gold Tone! The OB-3, ML-1, OT800, and other select professional isntruments will enter the "Mastertone" line. Click here to see all the Mastertone instruments!

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## Bill McCall

Well, that just shows Gibson’s complete incompetence, even knowing they’ve abandoned the banjo business.  You’d have thought they trademarked that name years ago.

----------


## brunello97

Didn't this issue of headstock shape come up back in the "lawsuit guitar" era?  

I don't have any more than a sketchioso understanding of all that, but iirc Gibson sued a few Japanese companies over headstocks that were perceived as copies.

I'm not proposing this has any relevance to the Collings TM question, just that Gibson has gone after such territory before.

Mick

----------


## MikeEdgerton

There was only one lawsuit, it was filed by Gibson's parent company Norlin against one Japanese manufacturer Hoshino corporation (Ibanez) for copying their open-book-style headstock. It was settled out of court and Ibanez replaced the headstock with a different design. That was it, that's the only one. Now people sell Martin and Fender copies as Lawsuit guitars. They sell anything from the era that was shaped like a Gibson of any kind as a lawsuit guitar. We've even seen lawsuit mandolins even though they were never part of the lawsuit.

My favorite part of this era is actually the L.D. Heater Company of Portland, Oregon (they ended up in Beaverton, Oregon, a suburb of Portland). Heater was owned by Norlin. I bought my Lyle archtop L5 copy that they imported from a local music store. It had the open book headstock shape (actually it probably still does, I sold mine years ago but bought another one a few years back for much more than I paid for the original). I should also note that when I bought it I had no idea that it was a copy of anything, I just liked the way it looked.

I can't argue with the 1977 lawsuit, it made sense. This one doesn't.

What the heck, it's here someplace already but I like it. Here's my Lyle.

----------

brunello97, 

Paul Statman

----------


## Murphy Slaw

> BlueChip is simply patenting an original invention
> 
> 
> And, of course, all this has nothing whatsoever to do with Gibson's trademark disputes, so it's not exactly germane to this thread. Sorry.


Bluechip didn't invent the pick. And they are making them with a plastic they didn't invent and patent themselves. We simply disagree.

I would think a patent/trademark/copyright conversation would fit right into a discussion forum thread about a trademark.

My apologies.

----------


## Mandobar

The patent is not for the pick.

These are trademark patents, which can be seen here:

https://trademarks.justia.com/873/17/blue-87317982.html

And here:

https://trademarks.justia.com/owners...goins-3482155/

The color is dealt with in one filing, their name in another, etc.

This is the general cost/steps in doing business.

From what I understand, there is a period after filing for trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property rights when interested parties can oppose the licensing prior to it being granted as final.  What we are seeing with the opposition by Gibson towards Collings’ filing is Gibson exercising those rights.  

Gibson, along with a lot of companies never paid much attention towards safeguarding their intellectual property until more recently.  Unfortunately, it’s very hard to justify defending it after decades of inattention.

----------


## walter carter

> "My favorite part of this era is actually the L.D. Heater Company of Portland, Oregon (they ended up in Beaverton, Oregon, a suburb of Portland). Heater was owned by Norlin. "


L.D. Heater was a long-established family business in Oregon and was a Gibson distributor in the '50s and '60s. By 1969, M.H. Berlin (head of Chicago Musical Instrument Co., Gibson's parent) decided to fight the import wars by sourcing the Epiphone brand overseas. Rather than negotiate from scratch with a Japanese supplier, Berlin simply bought a business that was already importing guitars from Aria (made by Matsumoko). The sale occurred no later than April 30, 1969, when L.D. Heater was registered in California with the home address of CMI headquarters in Lincolnwood, IL. 

This was slightly before Norlin came into the picture. CMI was taken over by ECL in December 1969 and renamed Norlin in 1970.

For the new Epiphone line of 1970 (or possibly late 1969), the Gibson staff picked a group of models from L.D. Heater's existing Lyle line and slapped the Epiphone logo on them. The Lyle 5102T of 1970, for example, was a double-cut thinbody electric. The exact same model appeared in the 1970 Epi catalog as model 5102. They didn't even change the model number. Both guitars had Gibson's "dove wing" or "open book" headstock shape (which had not yet been trademarked). 

I'm not taking sides here, but it looks like one source of Gibson's trademark problems may well have been Gibson itself. Walt Kelly was talking about the Vietnam war in his Pogo cartoon strip in the 1960s, but his observation seems to apply: "We have met the enemy, and they are us."

----------

brunello97, 

David Rambo, 

j. condino, 

Mandolin Cafe, 

MikeEdgerton, 

sblock

----------


## archerscreek

Collings is trying to trademark a headstock design thats clearly a knockoff of (at least heavily inspired by) previous headstock designs that have long been out there. The picture in the article shows that. The question is whether their little change to the notch in the top is different enough to merit registration as a unique design. Id oppose the registration, too, and let the Office decide if its unique enough.

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> L.D. Heater was a long-established family business in Oregon...


They were, I bought my Lyle in either late 68 or early 1969. I played it that year at my high school senior assembly so that part I know for sure. I was working part time in a local music store and Heater was a supplier. I also had a Lyle Hummingbird (open book headstock, normal pickguard), and two of their other Gibson copy electrics. The lead guitar player in the band we were in had a Strat shaped object that was also a Lyle. It's even funnier to me that Gibson bought them to outsource the Epiphones. I will note that sometime in the early to mid 70's the Lyle guitar headstocks changed, to the most part they looked more like Martin headstocks.

I don't know if this article is anything you'd be interested in but I've had this image file for years.

One last observation. The earlier Lyle guitars I bought had the logo painted on below the finish. The last one had a water slide decal with no finish on top of it. easily removed.

----------


## CarlM

> Bluechip didn't invent the pick. And they are making them with a plastic they didn't invent and patent themselves. We simply disagree.


No, you are simply wrong.  Using a particular material for a new, previously untried, application is a legitimate reason for a patent even if you do not make the material.  I have been involved in patents like that on fuel tank, DEF tank and similar applications.  They were granted.  That is the law and not opinion.

----------


## j. condino

I was hanging out at the late luthier John Sullivan's place in Portland back when we were neighbors. One afternoon the mail was delivered and he received a long legal document form the Sullivan Banjo company telling him to immediately stop using THEIR name or face legal threats & consequences. We both laughed out loud as he promptly threw it in the trash.....

----------

EvanElk

----------


## MikeEdgerton

> I was hanging out at the late luthier John Sullivan's place in Portland back when we were neighbors. One afternoon the mail was delivered and he received a long legal document form the Sullivan Banjo company telling him to immediately stop using THEIR name or face legal threats & consequences. We both laughed out loud as he promptly threw it in the trash.....


That's actually funny and sad in so many ways. 

Did you ever see *this*?

----------

EvanElk, 

j. condino, 

JEStanek

----------


## CarlM

> I was hanging out at the late luthier John Sullivan's place in Portland back when we were neighbors. One afternoon the mail was delivered and he received a long legal document form the Sullivan Banjo company telling him to immediately stop using THEIR name or face legal threats & consequences. We both laughed out loud as he promptly threw it in the trash.....


There is famous correspondence between Winston Churchill and Winston Churchill about the possibility of confusion between their names.  They reached an amicable agreement about how to address the confusion though the American Churchill faded from fame after publishing a handful of novels.  It is a lesson on how to handle things with class, respect and humor.

https://kottke.org/19/03/mr-winston-...ston-churchill

----------


## allenhopkins

And when Walter Taylor left the family Taylor Wines business (which had been sold to Coca-Cola, I believe), he wasn't allowed to put his name on the products of his Bully Hill vineyard.  He signed them "Walter S Who" for awhile.  Bully Hill's still going, Coca-Cola took Taylor Wines down the toilet (*article,*) and subsequent ownerships haven't kept Gibson from bankruptcy court.

So it goes.

----------


## brunello97

> And when Walter Taylor left the family Taylor Wines business (which had been sold to Coca-Cola, I believe), he wasn't allowed to put his name on the products of his Bully Hill vineyard.  He signed them "Walter S Who" for awhile.  Bully Hill's still going, Coca-Cola took Taylor Wines down the toilet (*article,*) and subsequent ownerships haven't kept Gibson from bankruptcy court.
> 
> So it goes.


The French folks have worked hard to keep Californians from calling their sparkling wines "Champagne" (or burgundy or whatever) and from mustard made in Finland being called "Dijon".

Greeks get pixxed about weird cheeses being called "feta".  

Don't get started with with folks from Napoli and "Neapolitan" pizza.

Words either mean something or they don't.  I'm on the side of them meaning something but I may be tilting at windmills. 

"The Loar" and "Tex McTucky Mandolins" etc. are simply galling to me. Or reusing "Washburn" for some current Chinese output
.   
If you don't have any imagination, let alone integrity, maybe try to have some huevos.

At least the Japanese called their Calace copies: Suzuki.  

You sell your name (or your soul) for money and you reap the whirlwind.  TFB.

Crocodile tears only for the Walter Taylors of the world.

Grow up and design something of your own.   

_<inappropriate political references. Please take it elsewhere. Thanks, we get it, now keep political leanings off the forum, per our posting guidelines.>_

They may be bumbling or not significantly virtuous for this crowd, but I'm with Gibson on this.

Mick

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## Murphy Slaw

> _<inappropriate political references. Please take it elsewhere. Thanks, we get it, now keep political leanings off the forum, per our posting guidelines.>_


_<inappropriate political references. Please take it elsewhere. Thanks, we get it, now keep political leanings off the forum, per our posting guidelines.>_

----------


## Explorer

> Words either mean something or they don't.  I'm on the side of them meaning something but I may be tilting at windmills. 
> 
> "The Loar" and "Tex McTucky Mandolins" etc. are simply galling to me. Or reusing "Washburn" for some current Chinese output
> .   
> If you don't have any imagination, let alone integrity, maybe try to have some huevos.
> 
> At least the Japanese called their Calace copies: Suzuki.  
> 
> You sell your name (or your soul) for money and you reap the whirlwind.  TFB.
> ...


I'm going to admit, I was following along, and it seemed pretty logical. 

Words mean something... definitely.

Citing aggressive defense of branding titles like "champagne" seems in line with the legal precedent of abandoning trademarks by not defending them. Okay, still logical. 

Living with consequences of previous business actions. That's the windup.

Purchased company and brands being irritating by using previously untrademarked names or purchased trade names... well, not really the law, but could logically fit the previous thinking. That's the pitch.

Then, out of nowhere... a purchased company (Gibson) claiming an unregistered trademark which was previously abandoned to the public domain (shape). Not logical, not fitting the previous reasoning and outrage... and a jarring swing and miss. 

What happened between the set-up and the conclusion, that the set-up was suddenly abandoned? I get if someone says, "Sure, no tears for everyone else, but Gibson gets a pass!," but the set-up was so strong and never walked back. Did something get accidentally deleted?

----------


## Ray(T)

It doesn’t have to be as simple as a headstock shape. In Germany - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53510219

----------


## Bill McCall

> It doesn’t have to be as simple as a headstock shape. In Germany - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53510219


But that was about something of much greater importance, chocolate :Whistling:

----------


## Hobblecreek

Funny that Gibson has its hair on fire over Collings “haircut” headstock.  

I guess a lawsuit aimed at Santa Cruz Guitars is right around the corner for the same reason (except that Santa Cruz’ parted haircut is on the right side of the headstock vs. Collings parted haircut is on the left.)

----------


## Ray(T)

> Funny that Gibson has its hair on fire over Collings “haircut” headstock.  
> 
> I guess a lawsuit aimed at Santa Cruz Guitars is right around the corner for the same reason (except that Santa Cruz’ parted haircut is on the right side of the headstock vs. Collings parted haircut is on the left.)


I forgot to mention that (chocolate aside). My Santa Cruz “F” is just like the Collings. Or is it just like the Gibson or pehaps Gibson is also thinking of registering the letter “F” next!

----------


## MikeEdgerton

Epiphone actually has a similar headstock shape historically and a newer circa 2000 shape that's similar on their E-series. They are the reverse of the Collings more like the Santa Cruz. I didn't see that in any of what Gibson offered as discovery.

----------


## FLATROCK HILL

> Not logical, not fitting the previous reasoning and outrage... and a jarring swing and miss.


Yes..."a jarring swing and a miss"; a glaring lack of logic. 




> Did something get accidentally deleted?


A portion was deleted (edited), but not accidentally.

----------


## EvanElk

Gibson has the copyright on Orville's bow tie design as well

----------


## Mandobar

> Gibson has the copyright on Orville's bow tie design as well



There are rules as to how this can be enforced, which require that a company defend their trademarks, and other intellectual property on a regular and frequent basis.  But this is not about Gibson's trademarks per say, this is about opposing someone else's application for a trademark.  

Hans Brentrup told me, around the time that Gibson started hassling builders back in the early 2000's, that once a company files for a trademark, other individuals have a certain period of time (I want to say several years) to oppose the application for the trademark.  Therefore this is a very long process, and it could take years to finally get a trademark, especially if there is a lot of opposition.  It's a legal process, and as every lawyer I know has told me, the law is about process and procedure.

----------

