I think we're saying the same thing, Gibson abandoned its trademarks when it abandoned the RD, just as Vox supposedly did.
If Gibson trademarked the reissue, they would still have to keep producing it for it to remain valid. The problem, of course, is that they can still intimidate others with the threat of litigation, since fighting a trademark infingement suit supposedly costs around $1 million these days.
I'm not sure how it works. Ford hasn't made a Thunderbird in about a decade but I'd bet their trademark still applies to cars. Other car companies have come up with vehicle model names only to find out that they were owned by other car companies even though they hadn't used the name for years.
Vox probably never HAD a trademark on Phantom; either the name or shape. It's just that BS US intellectual property laws allowed it to be trademarked by someone with zero connection to the original idea or product. That crap only flies in the land of the 'free'. Thank you, Disney!
If there's a conflict and some lawyer can figure out how to make money off it you can be sure somebody is going to get sued.
Eastwood knows what they're doing, they've been walking that line for years. Gibson getting pissed off will just be free publicity. Yay for the little(r) guy.
BTW, China is hard at work on LFTR nuclear reactors based on technology developed in the US but turned down as 'too expensive' in the 50s. They've already given fair warning they will strongly defend their intellectual property. Those Chinks, they copy EVERYTHING!