Gibson vs. Dean update

[Dave W]

Dean must stop producing V, Z and Gran Sport electric guitars after latest ruling in Gibson trademark infringement lawsuit

So even though the ruling in May determined that the past damages to Gibson were minimal, Dean will have to discontinue these models. Dean could always appeal, though. Stay tuned.

In the meantime, this is going on at Dean. 

[uwe]

Meanwhile, somewhere in Brighton, UK, where a certain German Axemensch permanently resides, the seismic waves are being registered and he will soon be calling for ze Doctor, Doctor ...



Seriously: They've been building these guitars (V and Z) for more than four decades now; that's a long time for someone all of the sudden telling you you had no business doing so all along, but then American courts sometimes do establish new positions as we've only recently learned.





That Dean headstock stands out a mile anywhere you play one of their guitars. It's difficult to envisage someone being tricked into buying a Dean believing he was really buying a Gibson. V/Flying V and Z/Explorer are niche models catering to a niche hard & heavy crowd very much aware of what they want and buy. If you want to "look Gibson" convincingly yet not buy one, playing a Dean with its tell-tale headstock wouldn't be the first thing on my mind. To my mind that headstock - depending on you view: either proud or garish, but certainly not inconspicuous - stamps anything it is equipped with as unmistakably DEAN.

[Basvarken]

That Dean headstock stands out a mile anywhere you play one of their guitars. It's difficult to envisage someone being tricked into buying a Dean believing he was really buying a Gibson. V/Flying V and Z/Explorer are niche models catering to a niche hard & heavy crowd very much aware of what they want and buy. If you want to "look Gibson" convincingly yet not buy one, playing a Dean with its tell-tale headstock wouldn't be the first thing on my mind. To my mind that headstock - depending on you view: either proud or garish, but certainly not inconspicuous - stamps anything it is equipped with as unmistakably DEAN.

That is not the point Uwe. And I'm quite sure you being a professional in the legislation knows that.
The design of the Flying V is undeniably Gibson's. Anyone commercially copying that, knows he is treading on thin ice.

[uwe]

NOT  A  LEGAL  COMMENT !!!

Wrong, I'm not an IP lawyer at all, not my sphere. And I find most of the legal conclusions of my learned IP colleagues at my firm totally counter-intuitive, they're just like tax lawyers, living in their own world where most things are upside down.

So no, I was writing as Uwe/Joe Blow, the non-slapping bass player that never grew up with a penchant for Flying V and Explorer shapes and owner of both Gibsons and Deans plus a general "live & let live" outlook on life. Of course, DEAN are copying shapes once (albeit unsuccessfully) introduced by Ted McCarty for Gibson, I'm not denying that (nor have I lost any sleep over it in the last 65 years). The question is should they be prohibited from doing so today and after having forged an identity with it for 40 years for their pronounced rock/heavy metal customer segment? IP law might find a path to that (as it finds to lots of things), but I can't see any higher justice being dealt here. It's not exactly a Philadelphia moment for me.



I'm happy if Gibson is commercially successful, more so if they do it without needing to trip DEAN. And somehow, I can't imagine him



suing DEAN for the legendary DEAN Girls (perhaps as purloined conceptual art?). He must have been the "live & let live"-type too.

[Basvarken]

Sounds like the logic of trailer trash in the Netherlands:
"I'm not a tax evader! I haven't paid taxes in 40 years. Why would I need to pay taxes now all of a sudden?"   

[uwe]

Ouch! I hate tax dodging, I've never participated in a tax avoidance scheme and drive my tax advisor to tears ("But you're giving money away!"), my socialdemocratic dad instilled in me "If you earn well in this society, be grateful, consider yourself lucky and humbly pay your taxes ungrudgingly for those who weren't as lucky." I've kept it that way. My complete school and university education (three years in Zaire excepted when GM payed the school fees of the local American School as part of my dad's secondment package there) was paid by the state, I'm fine with taxes, the education of others needs to be paid for. A state feeding on capitalism, yet committed in principle to social balance (irrespective whether post-war Germany had a middle-left or middle-right administration) created and supported the platform I stand upon.

Where were we? Trailer trash DEAN did not produce Vs and Zs in secret in some crystal meth kitchen in the swamps of Hicksville until they got caught, they did it - proud of what they made - for almost half a century in plain sight of Gibson which didn't give a damn/could not be bothered. Noteworthy, even Henry J avoided litigation with them - for whatever reason. Now Gibson  has new owners and in an investment banker's world harm to the competition is almost as good as own success, but I don't subscribe to the game theory.

[Dave W]

US trademark law should never have been extended to product shapes.

[Basvarken]

US trademark law should never have been extended to product shapes.

Why? As if 3D designing is not a profession?!
If anyone designs a new shape for a product (a lamp, a chair or a guitar) it is their brainchild. And therefor it should be protected against plagiarism. It's as simple as that.

[Dave W]

Why? As if 3D designing is not a profession?!
If anyone designs a new shape for a product (a lamp, a chair or a guitar) it is their brainchild. And therefor it should be protected against plagiarism. It's as simple as that.

If the design is unique, the designer can get a design patent, which is good for a certain number of years. In the US, per the Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Federal trademark law didn't exist here until 1870, and it was limited to actual trade marks. Product shape trademarks didn't exist in the law until 1988, and somehow the world was just fine. Now it's a race to lock up culture, and the only winners are the companies that can spend big bucks to bully people.

Talk about ridiculous, here's a local story from yesterday: Maker of Prince's Cloud guitar reaches agreement with Paisley Park estate. Dave Rusan took out a trademark on the guitar he created, to prevent Prince's estate from claiming rights to it, and they sent him a cease & desist anyway.

[uwe]

I could live with it if DEAN paid a non-prohibitive licensing fee to Gibson for using the shape on every item sold, that's ok. I find it unfair if Gibson can stop DEAN production (via not granting a license) just to get a competitor out of the way, yuck.

And protection can't go on forever, those shapes were designed in 1957, whatever shape protection there is should run out after 20 to 25 years I think, in this fast-moving day and age that might even be too long, I'm no expert. That's plenty time enough to make money on it without competition and establish a brand mystique.

Intellectual property deserves protection, but we're a social species too and rely on sharing know-how since we climbed down from the trees.



The two goals need to be balanced out. I have the impression that IP litigation is being used for ulterior purposes more and more, just think of all those patent trolls out there.

[lowend1]

Sounds like the logic of trailer trash in the Netherlands:
"I'm not a tax evader! I haven't paid taxes in 40 years. Why would I need to pay taxes now all of a sudden?"   

There's trailer trash in the Netherlands? Who knew?

[uwe]

Everyone knows!

[morrow]

Well now I do .

Trailer Park Boys is a local production .

[lowend1]

Everyone knows!

I take umbrage at the stereotypical of American cars in the front yard. At least when we do that type of show, it's based on the premise that the backwoods people can suddenly and unexpectedly get rich and be courted by the establishment. And get a nifty Flatt & Scruggs theme song to boot.
Y'all come back now, hear? (Skip to :30 mark)

[uwe]

I unfortunately have to confirm that in Europe American muscle and sports cars, oversized SUVs and - worst of all - pick-up trucks do not have the best image, sigh ... People will generally assume that you are either (i) a pimp, (ii) a drug dealer/organised crime person or (iii) a gym/body building shop owner, fresh out of his most recent insolvency proceeding. 

But there are exceptions: My little brother (a car mechanic and enthusiast) drives a Dodge Challenger (and before that a Ford Mustang, he says the Mustang was more sporty, the Challenger, even though double the horsepower really isn't agile), he used to own Jeep Wranglers as well, one of my favorite law professors had a 70ies Corvette (never a good car with the undercarriage issues on European roads, but it sure looked the part) which in academia was unheard of  and one of my tax partners kept in the Noughties a yellow customized Corvette which - legend has it - "preyed on unsuspecting Porsches". But for the most part, American cars are deemed a little, how shall I put this, loud? Or as a buddy of mine put it when we first laid eyes on a Dodge Viper: "If Pamela Anderson was a car, this is what she would look like." (Pam must have thought the same as she would soon after own one herself.)

The good news: Once American cars reach a certain age, a couple of decades, it's socially acceptable to like, protect and collect them! The wife of a friend had a 50ies Thunderbird Roadster Convertible, it would always draw spectators fawning on it, it just wasn't very reliable to get from A to B!

And people just love my Harley-Davidson! I get compliments all the time.