A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a brand of electric guitar with a cutaway shape does not infringe on the trademark of the famous Les Paul electric guitar manufactured by Gibson Guitar Corp.

The ruling by the 6th U.S. District Court of Appeals reverses a lower-court ruling that barred Paul Reed Smith (PRS) Guitars, a Maryland guitar manufacturer, from making and selling its Singlecut model.

Nashville-based Gibson Guitar Corp. had sued PRS for trademark infringement, claiming that the public could easily confuse the PRS cutaway model with the Les Paul Single Cutaway model, which is trademarked.

The Les Paul, considered by many to be the classic of its type, has been made since 1952. PRS, which also makes a double cutaway model guitar, introduced its Singlecut design in 2000. Both brands have cutaway areas between the neck and the lower part of the body to allow players to access the higher frets.

In July 2004, U.S. District Court Judge William Haynes Jr. sided with Gibson and issued an injunction against PRS, citing market confusion. But the appeals court disagreed and ordered the lower court to lift the ban.

“Gibson essentially argues that the shape of the PRS guitar leads consumers standing on the far side of the room in a guitar store to believe they see Gibson guitars and walk over to examine what they soon realize are PRS guitars,” Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote in the appeals opinion. “We decline to adopt such a broad reading … of doctrine. Many, if not most consumer products will tend to appear like their competitors at a sufficient distance.”

The case had such chilling implications that several guitar manufacturers and related companies — including Taylor Guitars, Peavey Electronics Corp. and J. D’Addario & Company Inc. — banded together to support PRS in its suit.

William Coston, attorney for PRS, said the case has been widely watched in the guitar manufacturing industry and is precedent-setting.

“The significance is that companies can make singlecut-style guitars and compete fairly with each other, including Gibson,” he said.

That wasn't successful either.

------------------

www.genejones.com

PRS makes super guitars, and not knock offs, This is why Gibson was threatened.
But MANY other companies made cheap copies of Les Pauls for years, without a lawsuit.

Only when a REAL guitar maker invaded Gibsons market share did they act.
Too little, too late.

I can see why the other companies joined up. It would have been a shame to let Gibson suddenly "control the industry" for "useful" guitars,
after ignoring the same design copying for literally decades.

They just need to lower prices and raise quality back up again.
Rather than depend on Name Recognition to get their too high prices.

PRS guitars smoked Gibsons the last several years ;
quality for comparable cash value.

Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone would pay the amount of money that they charge for guitars that aren't any better that the ones that they have made in Asia!!

That's why I don't have ANYTHING with the name GIBSON on it. My $.02

[This message was edited by Jack Francis on 19 September 2005 at 05:18 AM.]

Bash a company that actually makes guitars here in the US and employs workers in Nashville, Bozeman and Memphis. The instruments made by Gibson since Henry J. took over are better than anything built from the mid 60s through the 80s.

Steinar

------------------
www.gregertsen.com

If I were the head of Gibson, I would have sued my Mother in order to protect my business.

There are several details that seperates it from a Gibson Les Paul. Gibson sued because of the single-cutaway design,- what's next? Fender suing anybody who builds a guitar with a double-cutaway?

Steinar

------------------
www.gregertsen.com

It seems that interpetation of our laws has lead to frivilous lawsuits.

Steinar

------------------
www.gregertsen.com

I believe the Les Paul double cut is strikingly similar to a PRS Custom in many ways. I think it's all fair game - these guitar designs have been around for a very long time. Hamer initially adapted the double-cut LP Special shape in the 70s. PRS refined this with a carved top and other unique design features in the 80s. Gibson followed in the 90s with a double-cut, carved-top LP. Any possible patent protection on these design features would have ended a long time ago. This is the same as Promat making a P/P guitar - entirely legal, since any patentable designs expired a long time ago. People are free to support this design adaptation by buying the guitars - or not - but I don't think the courts should get into this at all.

But Gibson was arguing even more - that the single-cut LP body shape was their trademark, and not just a design feature. A decision in their favor would throw the guitar-building business in a complete tizzy, with old-name makers asserting trademark rights on old expired-patent designs.

Seriously. We can buy american
and still have the same issues;
as we see above.

But the guitars made overseas,
have had the same design duplication for decades,
and WERE NOT SUED.

The Gibson Name is a trademark, and the Fender name,
and each's type of font design and layout.
The headstock while identifiable is not a trademark,
but is a product desgin element.
Gibson has different heaqdstocks on different Gibson instruments. Fender has a bit of variatiopn too.
Tell me a Stringmaster and Tele look the same : but the Fender logo is close on both.

So why go after the other american company making quality instruments,
and not the Korean knock off artists??

1) because they are taking your market share at home,
by building a better product.
( oh the horror od it all)

2) Because the lawyers can get at the money easier in the USA,
and in a shorter time frame.
(and know they will get THEIR cut win or lose...)

Win, Win, for the lawyers, and lose, lose for us consumers.
But hopefully not for Bill's mom!

[This message was edited by David L. Donald on 19 September 2005 at 07:08 PM.]

Smithsonian magazine did an article on Gibson a few years back, quoting Henry J., who said (and I think this is dead on) "we've learned that the more we raise our prices, the more guitars we sell." I stopped stocking their instruments shortly thereafter- that's not a philosophy I can "sell" to my customers in Johnston County, NC.

Friend of mine here in Raleigh had been a loyal Gibson dealer for over 20 years. Last year, they called up and asked him for a NINETY THOUSAND DOLLAR order, and IT HAD TO BE PLACED THAT DAY. If not, he wouldn't be a dealer anymore. He declined. So did scores of other small dealers in the country who were given the same ultimatum. Why would Gibson lop off all their Mom'n'Pop dealers? My understanding is that there are only about ten Gibson dealers in the nation now... catalogs and big box stores.

With the current rate of mergers and acquisitions, it's just a matter of time until there they only have one or two customers. When you only have one or two customers, the customers dictate policy- and price.

I got a fax recently from the Gibson rep, saying that if I wanted to be an Epiphone dealer I should call him. Yeah, right. I'd rather have exploratory rectal surgery. If I sell a Korean guitar here, it won't be a Pretender.

[This message was edited by Rick McDuffie on 19 September 2005 at 08:10 PM.]

quote:

---

....I suppose Gibson banjos would be next.

---

You jest, but it's going on as we speak, er, or type. Gibson vs Elderly Instruments....yep

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email this story to a friend | Printable Version
Published July 12, 2005
[ From the ]

Gibson Guitar sues Old Town music shop
Elderly's chief hopes to reach a settlement

By Stefanie Murray
Lansing State Journal

Gibson Guitar Corp. is suing Elderly Instruments because of a knockoff banjo.

Gibson claims Elderly committed trademark infringement when it advertised it was selling a banjo touted as a copy of one made by Gibson Guitar.

Gibson also is suing Elderly for violating an agreement to sell only Gibson-made banjos and mandolins, according to a 16-page suit filed in Nashville, Tenn., last week.

Advertisement

In the suit, Gibson - a global instrument manufacturer most well-known for its acoustic and electric guitars - asks for damages and that Elderly stop carrying its products altogether.

"Basically, this is a misunderstanding," said Stan Werbin, president of Elderly, 1100 N. Washington Ave. in Lansing.

"What happened in this case was there was an error made in acquiring this banjo in the first place and putting it out for sale, and it got by us."

Werbin said he's hopeful Elderly and Gibson can work out a settlement before a hearing scheduled for Aug. 18 in Tennessee.

Officials with Gibson were unable to be reached late Monday.

Specifically, the suit says Gibson learned in June that Elderly was advertising for sale a banjo it called in its ads a "Gibson Copy."

The suit says Gibson sent Elderly a cease and desist letter, but that Elderly only changed the heading on the ad to "Famous Maker Copy" and later to "Classic Bluegrass Banjo Copy."

It claims the ad, posted on Elderly's Web site, was still active as of July 5.

However, Werbin said, Elderly had stopped selling the banjo by then.

Elderly - a nationally known music shop specializing in used instruments that's noted for it's unusual and wide variety - has carried Gibson products for more than 30 years. It's one of only nine distributors that carry the company's bluegrass instruments nationwide, Werbin said.

"We are one of their top dealers in the country," said Werbin, who employs 100.

"We have a long-standing relationship that we would certainly like to continue."

While Gibson makes up only a small percentage of Elderly's sales, "it's an important percentage because it's Gibson and we think Gibson makes a fine product, and we'd like to continue carrying them," Werbin said.

Will Mr. Werbin's pathetic boot-licking be enough? Tune in next week!

[This message was edited by Rick McDuffie on 19 September 2005 at 08:39 PM.]