Henry goes a-hunting - again...

[lowend1]

Not bass related - yet.
http://www.andersonforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=10140&page=2

http://www.andersonguitars.com/product_information/models/bulldog_family/bulldog_over.cfm

[Granny Gremlin]

To be fair, that is just an LP, with a slightly shorter cutaway horn, minor headstock shape change, 2 endpins, and countersunk hardware (a la PRS) - those are pretty minor details.  They are explicitly trading on the LP legacy.

I had to look really hard to spot all that; at a glance (headstock not seen) I could have assumed it was Gibson. ... well maybe if not for the insane high gloss (looks really thick) finish.

.... they even have a flat top 'special' model variant.  Case closed.

[Dave W]

Gibson has separate trademarks on the headstock and body shapes. No one looking at the whole guitar would mistake it for a Gibson, but that body is obviously too close for Gibson's attorneys.

Trademark bullies are usually bigger companies with deeper pockets than the ones they're threatening. They have the edge b/c they know it will cost at least $250K to fight an actual lawsuit. And in Tom Anderson's case, he could easily lose the lawsuit even if he chose to fight it.

[Blackbird]

The money they spend on lawyers would be better used to redesign or make a new model. 

[slinkp]

I wonder how Heritage is still making these?
(I once played a Heritage LP-style guitar... it was really quite nice. It's too bad they don't make basses.)

[drbassman]

The money they spend on lawyers would be better used to redesign or make a new model.

AMEN!

[Granny Gremlin]

Agreed, but I have little sympathy for Anderson.

Good poing re Heritage Slinkster.  I am assuming that there's some complications there regarding the IP due to the nature/origin of that company.

edited to add:  "little", somehow I missed the operative word. Sorry for the doi.

[Dave W]

Not sure about Heritage; I suspect it's because they were making those shapes well before Gibson got its body shape trademarks and even before the Lanham Act was amended to allow product shape trademarks.

I have sympathy for Anderson too, since I think trademark should be strictly limited to names and logos. Maybe someday we'll get back to that.

[Pilgrim]

I have sympathy for Anderson too, since I think trademark should be strictly limited to names and logos. Maybe someday we'll get back to that.

Given today's "Blurred Lines" copyright ruling, you can't even re-use (or approximate) a RHYTHM any longer.  Stupid!!!!!   

[chromium]

The money they spend on lawyers would be better used to redesign or make a new model.

Firebird XI!!!!

Wait...

Nevermind.  As you were, Henry 

[uwe]

To be fair, that is just an LP, with a slightly shorter cutaway horn, minor headstock shape change, 2 endpins, and countersunk hardware (a la PRS) - those are pretty minor details.  They are explicitly trading on the LP legacy.

I had to look really hard to spot all that; at a glance (headstock not seen) I could have assumed it was Gibson. ... well maybe if not for the insane high gloss (looks really thick) finish.

.... they even have a flat top 'special' model variant.  Case closed.

I'm with the little Cannuck here. You know, it's easy to escape Gibson's attorneys. Just don't make your guitar look like a Gibson, simple as that. Yet that is what a lot of these boutique guitar builders consciously do, they copy (approximate) classic shapes, rather than coming up with something new. And why is that? Because their customers want to have something that echoes the Gibson or Fender look, only made of more valuable components, but not at the price of a Gibson Custpm Shop model. If I was Henry J, I wouldn't be pleased about that either.

I'm bored with all these copycats emulating classic guitars and shapes, but I applaud if someone comes up with something new like Parker did with the Fly shape. I bet there were issues with neither Gibson nor Femder regarding its design.

[Granny Gremlin]

I have sympathy for Anderson too, since I think trademark should be strictly limited to names and logos. Maybe someday we'll get back to that.

Sorry for the psyche-ouit there - that was accidental.

I can respect your point of view, as it mimics the nature of what I think about copyright ant patent laws, but it was no secret that this is the way it is with TMs.  I'd have to think it out more to see how valid I think the case for product designs to be valid TMs, but my first thought is, yeah maybe.

[lowend1]

I wonder how Heritage is still making these?

What about the Agile AL series at Rondo Music? In terms of appearance, not very different from the Heritage - maybe Epiphone gets to sue them...

[Dave W]

What about the Agile AL series at Rondo Music? In terms of appearance, not very different from the Heritage - maybe Epiphone gets to sue them...

I seem to remember something about Rondo making enough changes to satisfy Gibson. This was 8-10 years ago.

[Dave W]

I'm with the little Cannuck here. You know, it's easy to escape Gibson's attorneys. Just don't make your guitar look like a Gibson, simple as that. Yet that is what a lot of these boutique guitar builders consciously do, they copy (approximate) classic shapes, rather than coming up with something new. And why is that? Because their customers want to have something that echoes the Gibson or Fender look, only made of more valuable components, but not at the price of a Gibson Custpm Shop model. If I was Henry J, I wouldn't be pleased about that either.

I'm bored with all these copycats emulating classic guitars and shapes, but I applaud if someone comes up with something new like Parker did with the Fly shape. I bet there were issues with neither Gibson nor Femder regarding its design.

If today's post-'88 trademark laws had been in force in the '50s, the market would be controlled by a handful of companies who would have locked everything up. IMHO that would be a very bad thing.

I'm against counterfeiting but the world got along just fine before trademark law was expanded to include product shapes. It's anti-competitive. The whole point of the changes was to stifle competition.