Gibson loses a trademark in Europe

[Dave W]

GIBSON LOSES FIREBIRD BODY SHAPE TRADEMARK IN THE EU

I hope the trend will continue.

[doombass]

And on to the good news:

The company still has a trademark on the Firebird body shape in relation to a vast array of other areas, including clothing.

Hooray! Time for JC to drag Henry's Lifestyle Division out of storage. It can still be successful !!

[Pilgrim]

So...is Rick destined to be up next?

[Dave W]

So...is Rick destined to be up next?

That's possible but they took steps a lot sooner than anyone else.

It's a long way from one loss in Europe to attacking all of Gibson's trade dress marks in the US, but it's a start, and it bodes well for Dean and their allies who are trying to get those marks cancelled.

Hooray! Time for JC to drag Henry's Lifestyle Division out of storage. It can still be successful !!

You never know, that might even come to pass.

[Highlander]

Were there earlier copies of the "Thunderbird-Firebird" pattern than Peter Cook...?

[planetgaffnet]

Perhaps this might prompt Spector into 4X production.  Me, last week - not mine, the two behind me are two of mine:

[BTL]

I haven't heard anything new on the status of any claims against the Gibson trademarks in the U.S., but our system tends to be a bit opaque in that regard.

It seems that when somebody "wins" a dispute, there is very little information that is made available to the public.

I will say that I had one reverse and several non-reverse FB body shapes at my Summer NAMM booth, and several Gibson employees or guests paid me a visit.

To date, I haven't received any unpleasant notes in the mail.

[Basvarken]

Dingwall have.
They had to change their D-bird design.

From this:


Into this:

[BTL]

Dingwall have.
They had to change their D-bird design.

I heard about that.

In the scheme of things, tweaking or discontinuing a design altogether can be easier and cheaper than litigation, especially for a small operation.

[TBird1958]

I haven't heard anything new on the status of any claims against the Gibson trademarks in the U.S., but our system tends to be a bit opaque in that regard.

It seems that when somebody "wins" a dispute, there is very little information that is made available to the public.

I will say that I had one reverse and several non-reverse FB body shapes at my Summer NAMM booth, and several Gibson employees or guests paid me a visit.

To date, I haven't received any unpleasant notes in the mail.

Gibson can rattle the legal sabre with the best of them, I asked Mike Lull about this when he was starting his T4/T5 project, his response was that Gibson had already lost this case, the shape was not trademarked. Dingwall blinked, just that simple.
http://mikelull.com/site/instruments/basses/bass-T4_T5.html
 

[BTL]

Gibson can rattle the legal sabre with the best of them, I asked Mike Lull about this when he was starting his T4/T5 project, his response was that Gibson had already lost this case, the shape was not trademarked. Dingwall blinked, just that simple.
http://mikelull.com/site/instruments/basses/bass-T4_T5.html

Ironically, I don't believe the 'Bird shape had been registered as a trademark when Lull first started building the T4/T5.

However, it is now, as are others.

How any builder responds to a C&D letter is their own business.

Doug Kauer chose to tweak his Banshee design, as have Dingwall and others.

Warmoth elected to stop offering 'Bird shapes altogether. 

By contrast, Nash Guitars builds vintage-style replicas with in high volume and sells through major retailers.

I can say this for certain based on my own experience...win or lose, a fight will get expensive quickly.

[uwe]

I can't gloat about this - I think both Flying V and Firebird/Thunderbird (as well as the Explorer) were iconic and idiosyncratic Gibson shapes that stood out from any other bass or guitar shape. I don't agree with the Court's assessment at all that only a few guitar nerds might be able to see the difference. They were/are radical designs.

And that Herr Wilfer, the ole Spector and Steinberger-copy cat who defends his own (butt-ugly) Warwick headstock design so zestily and ruthlessly against the smallest luthiers, is behind this now leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Do as I say, don't do as I do, quite right.

[Dave W]

I can't gloat about this - I think both Flying V and Firebird/Thunderbird (as well as the Explorer) were iconic and idiosyncratic Gibson shapes that stood out from any other bass or guitar shape. I don't agree with the Court's assessment at all that only a few guitar nerds might be able to see the difference. They were/are radical designs.

And that Herr Wilfer, the ole Spector and Steinberger-copy cat who defends his own (butt-ugly) Warwick headstock design so zestily and ruthlessly against the smallest luthiers, is behind this now leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Do as I say, don't do as I do, quite right.

Of course they're iconic and idiosyncratic designs, but trademark law, as it stands, doesn't take that into account. As Fender found out, you can't let others copy your designs for years and then expect a trademark to stand.

They're all hypocrites. Gibson started using Fender shapes in the mid-80s at Epiphone, and then there was the notorious Gibson Hendrix Strat.

I don't know what Herr Wilfer is doing to smaller luthiers, but the headstock shape seems to be pretty secure for trademark holders. Besides, Wilfer was libeled for years by Stuart Spector after he sold his company to Kramer. Wilfer changed the headstock shape of the Streamer and that satisifed Kramer but Spector couldn't let it go. Then when Kramer went belly up, years before he bought his name back out of the Kramer bankruptcy, Spector started making his old designs under the name Stuart Spector Design even though he had argued for years that they belonged to Kramer. At the same time, he was making a doublecut Les Paul shape guitar. And when that consortium of 20 companies challenged Fender's body shape trademarks and got them cancelled, Spector was the lead company of the consortium. The ultimate hypocrite.

[uwe]

Dingwall have.
They had to change their D-bird design.

From this:


Into this:

The original was much purdier! Though I am always in two minds about non-neck-thru basses aping the "elevated middle body with wings"-look on a TBird. On a bolt-on or set neck it has no sensible function other than copying a certain look.

[Basvarken]

Agreed. It should be neck through.
The elevated part on the Dingwalls is quite high. It can be used as a ramp, which some bass players find comfortable.