Gibson Guitars Loses Flying V Lawsuit

[Mandolin Cafe]

[dhergert]

Hmmm, judging from history, I'd say Gibson's mistake with this case was letting it be tried outside of Nashville.

[allenhopkins]

So -- a German court found in favor of a German company being sued by an American company.

I understand that most experts predict the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, and that little puppies and kittens will be cute. Breaking news...?

[sunburst]

“It’s possible that Gibson might have really shot themselves in the foot with this”

They have a tradition to uphold after all...

[royco]

Hmmm, judging from history, I'd say Gibson's mistake with this case was letting it be tried outside of Nashville.

Hi, I'm new here and don't know where to post this: I notice a few guitar-related posts but thought this was a mandolin (or family)-only forum.
Doesn't worry me as I used to build electric guitars and basses, so just curious.

Don't think I will be able to add much value here as I stopped building a few years ago, probably as a result of building a violin for my daughter. Insanity. And mandos look even more intricate!

Best, royco

[Jeff Mando]

Is Framus really a threat to Gibson? I can't think of the last time I heard of Framus-- maybe 30 years ago? Probably just me....

Ya gotta love the "journalist's" hair, though.......

[Bob Buckingham]

So -- a German court found in favor of a German company being sued by an American company.

I understand that most experts predict the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, and that little puppies and kittens will be cute. Breaking news...?

Germany is where Warwick is, but Gibson has dropped too many balls lately, like producing really great instruments that compete well with the other builders. Not just guitars but mandolins as well. They've already lost the banjo part of their market.

[jaycat]

Is Framus really a threat to Gibson? I can't think of the last time I heard of Framus-- maybe 30 years ago? Probably just me....

Well, they used to say, "You'll never be famous, playing a Framus." I'm not sure how well that rhymes, but there may be some truth to it.

[Mark Gunter]

Salient points: Gibson’s lawsuit-happiness has been losing both in the court of public opinion and in the actual courts.

[mandocrucian]

End-stage parasitic capitalism. The legal leeches and investor vampires take over businesses and proceed to extract every last drop of blood from their acquisitions (and suing their competitors, and customers, on flimsy pretenses as well.) Absolutely no different than the sleazy ambulance chasing lawyers that advertise at 1:00 AM in the morning.

The name "Gibson" has nothing to do with the original company anymore (unless it's on the headstock of a vintage instrument). If they went under, it wouldn't bother me a bit. Good riddance.

[Jeff Mando]

OTOH....

Frivolous lawsuits won't win you any friends, but is it actually frivolous to defend your brand? IMHO, it is obvious that Gibson owns the body shape of the Flying V, Explorer, F-style mandolin, and probably others. How to enforce this some 60-100 years later seems to be the issue. Did their "ownership" suddenly expire?

In the case of Fender's body and neck shapes, they have been copied since the mid 70's by import brands and also by the booming "parts guitar" market and then later by "boutique" makers. Fender has prevailed at least to a small degree in getting the parts makers to license their brand and now aftermarket necks are stamped "licensed by Fender." FWIW

[mmuller]

Can I recommend Gibson put out a new bass model?

[maxr]

The way I see it is the Flying V is the first oelectric guitar you can stand against a wall without it falling over and breaking off the 'accident-waiting-to-happen' headstock joint. This was a design move of breathtaking practicality, unfortunately it put loads of hard working guitar techs out of business, so they had to go work for companies that made proper guitars that people wanted to play, which could fall over and break the head joint. This was a move out of long tradition - for over 50 years the company had been making F style mandolins which have bits to break off when they fall over, so why stop now?

[jaycat]

The name "Gibson" has nothing to do with the original company anymore (unless it's on the headstock of a vintage instrument).

Neither does Hotpoint or Maytag. Welcome to the 21st century.

[walter carter]

OTOH....

Frivolous lawsuits won't win you any friends, but is it actually frivolous to defend your brand? IMHO, it is obvious that Gibson owns the body shape of the Flying V, Explorer, F-style mandolin, and probably others. How to enforce this some 60-100 years later seems to be the issue. Did their "ownership" suddenly expire?

In the case of Fender's body and neck shapes, they have been copied since the mid 70's by import brands and also by the booming "parts guitar" market and then later by "boutique" makers. Fender has prevailed at least to a small degree in getting the parts makers to license their brand and now aftermarket necks are stamped "licensed by Fender." FWIW

Trademark law is not cut and dried. One would think that if you are granted trademark status on something - such as the body shape of a guitar - then no one else can use that "mark" on their product. Wrong. Through various court cases a set of rules and guidelines has evolved, one of which has to do with confusion. In Gibson's suit against PRS for infringement of the trademarked Les Paul body shape, the court acknowledged that the PRS Single-Cut body shape was essentially the same as the trademarked Les Paul shape. However, because the "trade dress" of the PRS - placement of electronics, inlays, headstock logo, etc. - was different enough to eliminate any element of confusion in the mind of a potential buyer, the court decided in PRS's favor. In other words, if you make every other element of a guitar different, then you can copy the one element that is trademarked. That seems to be what the German court ruled in the Flying V case.

Fender "licensed" necks are another story of convoluted logic and interpretation of trademark law.

[Greg Connor]

I own several Gibson guitars and one mandolin. I wish the company would stop trying to bully retailers and other manufacturers and refocus on making good quality guitars. In my opinion … they are not setting the standard anymore … but they could be again.

[dhergert]

The other legal complication is that many of Gibson's "unique shapes" through the years were not trademarked, they were patented instead. Generally patents expire in 20 years from application, while trademarks are forever, but must be renewed every 10 years.

Intellectual property law is very complicated. It's hard for someone not directly involved with it to judge the appropriateness of protection actions that are taken. Every business that has intellectual properties has to decide the value of protecting them.

My only observations with Gibson is that they appear to have a legal department that is very willing to try to prove their worth to the company, and that historically they've had a lot of successes with cases tried in Nashville courts.

[allenhopkins]

...IMHO, it is obvious that Gibson owns the body shape of the Flying V, Explorer, F-style mandolin, and probably others. How to enforce this some 60-100 years later seems to be the issue. Did their "ownership" suddenly expire?...

Just because you design something, doesn't mean you "own" it, unless you've taken steps to copyright or register it as a trademark. Gibson never did that with the F-model mandolin silhouette, and that horse is a long way out of the barn after 125 years or so. If they could get a $1 licensing fee for every F-5 clone produced world-wide, their bottom line would be a good bit healthier.

It's like the path across your lawn that everyone uses to get to the sidewalk; allow that use long enough, and you lose the right to prohibit it. A local company had a little "short cut" beside their parking lot; one day a year they'd barricade it so no one could use it, just to preserve their private property rights.

If you can prove that someone is deceptively counterfeiting something that you've designed -- representing it as your product, when it's a knock-off -- you have a good case. But that's not what Framus did; they weren't trying to fool buyers that their guitar was a Gibson. So it was the same shape; how many guitars on the market are shaped like Martin D-models, or even Gibson J-200's? Gonna sue 'em all?

Interestingly, the Boston Red Sox have trademarked the five-pointed letter "B" that they use on their uniforms, so no one else can sell "gear" with that emblem. Lots of caps and shirts with the letter "B" on them, but only ones licensed by the Sox can have that particular one. Note to Gibson: you shoulda done that with Orville's F-model.