Another "Look-alike" Lawsuit

[Mike Rivers]

I hate to start another thread similar to the "this mixer looks like
that mixer so it's an obvious copy" but I thought this one was
particularly outrageous.

Quick summary - Gibson won a trademark infringement judgement agianst
Paul Reed Smith guitars for making a guitar with a body that looked
too much like the (trademarked in 1999) Les Paul shape.

What's next? Stratocasters? U47 microphones?

I couldn't find a link to the press relase on Gibson's web site yet,
so I'll just hog some bandwidth and repost the text here:



GIBSON GUITAR WINS LANDMARK CASE AGAINST PAUL REED SMITH

Incontestable Registered Trademark of Les Paul Guitar Cited

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE... Nashville, Tennessee, March 12, 2004...
Gibson Guitar Corp. in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee has won a landmark trademark infringement case
against manufacturer Paul Reed Smith. The claim involved Gibson's Les
Paul single cutaway guitar with a body design which Paul Reed Smith
used without permission or compensation to Gibson. This case declared
that Paul Reed Smith infringed Gibson's valid trademark.



Gibson Guitar claimed that the Paul Reed Smith "Singlecut" guitar
infringed on the company's trademark which is registered for its Les
Paul single cutaway guitar. Included in the claim is the fact that the
Paul Reed Smith model unjustly used the Les Paul design and would
cause confusion in the marketplace and damages to Gibson Guitar, the
amount of which now will be determined in the next phase of the
proceedings.



Gibson Guitar has manufactured guitars and other musical instruments
for more than 100 years, and its premier product, the Les Paul guitar,
has been sold continuously since 1952. The Gibson Les Paul is named
after the successful recording artist of the same name, who has been
the leading proponent of the electric solidbody guitar since the early
1940s. Les Paul, the artist, and Gibson Guitar hold a long standing
relationship. Gibson Guitar also sells lower-priced versions of its
Les Paul guitar under the brand name Epiphone.



Gibson's Les Paul single cutaway guitar is traditionally shaped with a
portion removed from the body of the guitar where the lower section of
the fingerboard meets the body of the guitar. The term "single cutaway
guitar" denotes that portion of the guitar between the neck and its
lower part, that appears to be missing from the natural, round body
contour. The removal of this portion forms what is often referred to
as the "horn."



Gibson's application to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to
register its "Guitar Body Design" in July 1987 was approved. In March
1999 Gibson filed a "Declaration of Use and Incontestability of a
Mark" and the USPTO approved that filing in September 1999.



Gibson claimed that Paul Reed Smith began production of its "single
cutaway" guitar called the PRS "Singlecut" in January 2000 in an
effort to market a guitar that looked just like the Gibson Les Paul.



Paul Reed Smith advanced multiple arguments as to why its guitar
design did not violate Gibson's registered trademark shape. None of
the arguments succeeded in convincing Federal District Court Judge
William J. Haynes. In a 57-page decision Judge Haynes ruled "that PRS
[Paul Reed Smith] was imitating the Les Paul" and gave the parties
ninety days "to complete any discovery on damages or disgorgement of
PRS's profits on the sales of its offending singlecut guitar."



"We are very pleased with the Court's decision acknowledging Gibson's
rights in the Les Paul body shape design trademark," said Henry
Juszkiewicz, Gibson's Chairman and CEO. "Gibson has fought long and
hard to protect its rights to the Les Paul guitar and our other
classic designs, and we will continue to do so. This decision is a
gratifying vindication of those efforts."



"The exemplary performance undertaken by our outside counsel John
Triggs, Esq., and his team at Greenberg Traurig's New York office,
along with Wayne Beavers, Esq., of Nashville's Waddy & Patterson was
an example of superb skills," added Joel Cherry, General Counsel for
Gibson Guitar. "The compelling presentation of our legal position led
to this landmark decision."

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[JWelsh3374]

<< I thought this one was
particularly outrageous.

Quick summary - Gibson won a trademark infringement judgement agianst
Paul Reed Smith guitars for making a guitar with a body that looked
too much like the (trademarked in 1999) Les Paul shape. >>


Odd because after looking at a pic of a single cut PRS I notice two things. One
is that it somewhat resembles a Les Paul and two that I think it is, at best,
an ugly single cutaway. I never found them good looking.

Also not really that close in actual appearance in my view... must be bad blood
betwixt Mr. J and Mr. S.




searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido

http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Also not really that close in actual appearance in my view... must be bad blood
> betwixt Mr. J and Mr. S.

I'm sure there is. I'll bet that a lot of people who want a solid body
guitar in that price range prefer the PRS over the Gibson for feel and
build quality, and like the sound, too. Surely they don't sound
identical, and that should be what counts. But any port in a lawsuit,
I always say.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Paul Rubin]

That's nuts, cutaway guitars have existed forever. Probably every
guitar manufacturer makes some, right? And if the shape was only
trademarked in 1999, how on earth can they go after anyone who was
using it before then?

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> jwelsh writes:

> > Also not really that close in actual appearance in my view... must be
> > bad blood betwixt Mr. J and Mr. S.

> I'm sure there is. I'll bet that a lot of people who want a solid body
> guitar in that price range prefer the PRS over the Gibson for feel and
> build quality, and like the sound, too. Surely they don't sound
> identical, and that should be what counts. But any port in a lawsuit,
> I always say.

I consider a misapplication of trademark law, but I'm no lawyer. Seems
to me about a thousand guitar makers worldwide are making nearly
_identical_ body shapes to the original Les Paul, the design patent for
which must have run out by now. And look at all those "strats".

PRS is a higher quality product than any Gibson Les Paul of recent build
that I've seen; hell, even the Epihpone copies have been better fit and
finish than the Pauls, and for a fraction of the cost.

Gibson once made guitars; now they only make money. So be it. If all
things must pass, **** must be included.

--
ha

[steve]

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> I hate to start another thread similar to the "this mixer looks like
> that mixer so it's an obvious copy" but I thought this one was
> particularly outrageous.
>
> Quick summary - Gibson won a trademark infringement judgement agianst
> Paul Reed Smith guitars for making a guitar with a body that looked
> too much like the (trademarked in 1999) Les Paul shape.
>
> What's next? Stratocasters? U47 microphones?
>
Fender went after ESP and Gibson after Ibanez because of headstock
designs. This is the first body design lawsuit I'm aware of. If it
keeps going, musicians will be suing each other for copying licks.

[sjjohnston]

"Paul Rubin" > wrote in message
...
> That's nuts, cutaway guitars have existed forever. Probably every
> guitar manufacturer makes some, right? And if the shape was only
> trademarked in 1999, how on earth can they go after anyone who was
> using it before then?

Presumably, it was only *registered* in 1999 (which kind of surprises me).
Obviously, Gibson has been using it since the '50s.

Whether the shape of a Les Paul qualifies for trademark protection (and
whether the PRS even infringes, if it does) is another question entirely.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> That's nuts, cutaway guitars have existed forever. Probably every
> guitar manufacturer makes some, right? And if the shape was only
> trademarked in 1999, how on earth can they go after anyone who was
> using it before then?

Apparently they didn't. They went after a specific guitar that PRS
introduced in 2000 as I read the press release. I'm sure it was a
grudge match.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I consider a misapplication of trademark law, but I'm no lawyer. Seems
> to me about a thousand guitar makers worldwide are making nearly
> _identical_ body shapes to the original Les Paul, the design patent for
> which must have run out by now. And look at all those "strats".

I don't know what they did to convince the judge. Maybe they showed
pictures of shadows of both guitar bodies.

The idea of a look-alike suit isn't all that new. Neumann won such a
suit against ADK (as I recall only in Germany only) because their
microphone was too close in appearance to the U87. You'll notice that
there aren't a lot of microphones today that look just like a U87.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Michael R. Kesti]

pH wrote:

>What *I'd* like to know, is - htf did they get a trademark on the **** in the
>*first* place? What's next? Houses? This **** is *so* out of f*cking
>control... it defies (adequate) description.

It's what comes from graduating too many lawyers and not enough engineers.

--
================================================== ======================
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make
| two, one and one make one."
| - The Who, Bargain

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Whether the shape of a Les Paul qualifies for trademark protection (and
> whether the PRS even infringes, if it does) is another question entirely.

Asked by Gibson (apparently anything can be registered as a
trademark), and answered by a judge (who agreed with their
infringement claim).


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Roger W. Norman]

How is it out of control? A Les Paul is a definitive piece of work and can
easily be trademarked, probably having been done when Les Paul's patent was
due to run out. Let's face it, who doesn't call their guitar a Les Paul
even if it's from some other manufacturer? Ibanez was sued years ago for
making an exact copy of the Flying V and Les Paul. There has to be
something like a 15% variance between products before one can get sued over
it. Plus, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Gibson hadn't or at least had
wanted to make an offer to Paul in order to purchase his company. This may
be a response towards making that offer more acceptable. I don't know this,
but it does seem to make a certain amount of business sense.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"pH" > wrote in message
...
> On 12 Mar 2004 12:53:19 -0800, Paul Rubin >
wrote:
>
> >That's nuts, cutaway guitars have existed forever. Probably every
> >guitar manufacturer makes some, right? And if the shape was only
> >trademarked in 1999, how on earth can they go after anyone who was
> >using it before then?
>
> What *I'd* like to know, is - htf did they get a trademark on the **** in
the
> *first* place? What's next? Houses? This **** is *so* out of f*cking
> control... it defies (adequate) description.
>
> Jeff
>
> http://www.jefftturner.com
>
>

[chetatkinsdiet]

That's the way I remember it, that the old Gibby/Ibanez suit was for
the crowned, headstock design. Well, being that the flying V body is
so unique, that might have been body as well, I'm not sure.
I also seem to remember Fender suing, or threatening to sue Gibson for
their original Firebird bodies looking too much like their Jazzmaster
or Jaguar body. That's when Gibby reversed the body...to the better
look if you ask me. This sort of thing goes on all the time. I don't
blame Gibson, with the way their CQ has been slipping, again, their
reputation is really what they've got going for them. It nearly seems
like if you get anything other than the custom shop or heritage
models, you better really check the frets and other things like that
out. They're known to let a lot of sloppy work slip through. I can't
tell you how many brand new Les Pauls I've seen with badly finished or
even loose frets hanging on the wall of Guitar Center.
But that's another story...
later,
m

[Cary Altschuler]

I missed the first part of the thread, but I assume the guitar in question
is the PRS Singlecut. I just happened to buy one a few months back (a gold
top no less). I went to the store wanting a Les Paul, but was impressed by
the workmanship and quality of the PRS. I also bought it as an investment
rather than buying an Epiphone or another Asian made guitar. Hopefully,
this will mean it will eventually appreciate in value. FWIW, it sounds
great and plays like a dream. It also has more sustain than the other PRS
models. I personally, think it looks different enough from a Les Paul to
avoid a lawsuit, but I guess others don't think so.

CA

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1079111276k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > Also not really that close in actual appearance in my view... must be
bad blood
> > betwixt Mr. J and Mr. S.
>
> I'm sure there is. I'll bet that a lot of people who want a solid body
> guitar in that price range prefer the PRS over the Gibson for feel and
> build quality, and like the sound, too. Surely they don't sound
> identical, and that should be what counts. But any port in a lawsuit,
> I always say.
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers )
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Les Cargill]

Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > Whether the shape of a Les Paul qualifies for trademark protection (and
> > whether the PRS even infringes, if it does) is another question entirely.
>
> Asked by Gibson (apparently anything can be registered as a
> trademark), and answered by a judge (who agreed with their
> infringement claim).
>


Did Gibson not sue Ibanez for some very Les Paul looking
bolt neck designs in the late '70s/early '80s? I know
two people who own one, and both claim this.

> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers - )
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo


--
Les Cargill

[S O'Neill]

Roger W. Norman wrote:

> How is it out of control? A Les Paul is a definitive piece of work and can
> easily be trademarked, probably having been done when Les Paul's patent was
> due to run out. Let's face it, who doesn't call their guitar a Les Paul
> even if it's from some other manufacturer? Ibanez was sued years ago for
> making an exact copy of the Flying V and Les Paul. There has to be
> something like a 15% variance between products before one can get sued over
> it. Plus, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Gibson hadn't or at least had
> wanted to make an offer to Paul in order to purchase his company. This may
> be a response towards making that offer more acceptable. I don't know this,
> but it does seem to make a certain amount of business sense.
>

Can you imagine Martin doing this with the Dreadnought? On guitars, the
"trademark" was traditionally the head shape. Gibson's is shaped like
Orville's mustache.

I think, though, Henry's just trying to alienate the entire planet.

[Paul Rubin]

"Roger W. Norman" > writes:
> How is it out of control? A Les Paul is a definitive piece of work and can
> easily be trademarked,

Their trademark claim seems to cover every guitar with a single cutout.

[hank alrich]

S O'Neill wrote:

> Can you imagine Martin doing this with the Dreadnought? On guitars, the
> "trademark" was traditionally the head shape. Gibson's is shaped like
> Orville's mustache.

Last year I saw one of very few Gibson tenor banjos with that headstock
shape. It was a prototype, really rare, really beautiful. I've never
wanted a tenor but if I'd have had spare money then I'd have bought it
immediately.

> I think, though, Henry's just trying to alienate the entire planet.

Given their QC for years now, I'd think so. But plenty of folks are
buying with their eyes only, and not even looking closely at anything
but the shape and the brand name.

PRS's big problem was well outlined in this thread, where a guy went to
buy a Gibson and found the PRS a superior piece of work. Sad when higher
quality gets your ass kicked in court over something as obvious as a
cutaway. I bet Gibson's own L5CES's impinge more on the "Les Paul"
trademark than did PRS's guitar. A trademark is supposed to be used
consistently to hold.

--
ha

[ryanm]

"steve" > wrote in message
...
>
> Fender went after ESP and Gibson after Ibanez because of headstock
> designs. This is the first body design lawsuit I'm aware of. If it
> keeps going, musicians will be suing each other for copying licks.
>
http://www.scoopthis.com/411/met_uf/stc_met_uf_mtv.htm

Of course it was a hoax, but a funny one...

ryanm

[Roger W. Norman]

Seems to me that a company has the right to try to protect product line any
time they want. The wherewithal about it is that no one had come up with a
design like Les Paul's except for Les Paul. That gave him some options, but
the use of the trademark by Gibson gives them the ability to protect their
product. Remember, Apple tried to trademark the "look and feel" of a
product they essentially stole from Xerox, so let's put the bad guys into
one pile and the good guys into another. PRS saw an option to make a guitar
that had better quality than the Gibson and chose to make it. It's
reminiscent enough of a Les Paul to have been hauled into court for
trademark abuse, and the court decided that Gibson was right.

I don't see it as abuse of the system and I don't believe that Gibson should
sit on something rather than actively protect a trademark. Has nothing to
do with other Big Business that cooks books or Martha Stewart and her
personal financial gaff. Gibson's move was actually good for Gibson's
stockholders and any public company has that responsibility to their
stockholders.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"pH" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 06:55:13 -0500, "Roger W. Norman"
>
> wrote:
>
> >How is it out of control?
>
> How is it *not* out of control? "It", refers to our twisted mass of
> inter-connected co-dependent machines... from the ones which
> have been hemorrhaging jobs to the one giving them its blessing
> (with*out* ours, of course).
>
> > A Les Paul is a definitive piece of work and can
> >easily be trademarked,
>
> *Should* it be, though? Of course I'm not talking about making
> replicas without due recompense, but come on; something so
> functionally basic as a simple guitar body style... with a cutaway...
> What's next? Facial expressions? Colors? Sex positions? Me
> me me, more more more... UGH!
>
> > probably having been done when Les Paul's patent was
> >due to run out. Let's face it, who doesn't call their guitar a Les Paul
> >even if it's from some other manufacturer? Ibanez was sued years ago for
> >making an exact copy of the Flying V and Les Paul. There has to be
> >something like a 15% variance between products before one can get sued
over
> >it. Plus, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Gibson hadn't or at least had
> >wanted to make an offer to Paul in order to purchase his company. This
may
> >be a response towards making that offer more acceptable. I don't know
this,
> >but it does seem to make a certain amount of business sense.
>
> And that's exactly the thing which is out of control. Business sense
> (but most *especially* when it ;looks more like "political sense"), at
> the expense of common sense. Did you own any Enron? Worldcom?
> Hey, but thank *good*ness they went after that nasty ol' Martha Stewart,
> though, huh. Yessindeedy, that'll show 'em they better walk the straight
> and narrow, and it sure reaffirms my faith in the SEC (not to mention the
> GOP in general... oh man... I can't even *type* this without wantin' to
> puke).
>
> Hey, don't mind me... (I'm a Strat man anyway, so...<g>)
>
> Jeff
>
> http://www.jefftturner.com
>
>

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Seems to me that a company has the right to try to protect product line any
> time they want. The wherewithal about it is that no one had come up with a
> design like Les Paul's except for Les Paul.

If it was the design of the whole instrument that was copied, that
would be one thing. (see Aphex vs. Behringer) However, what Gibson has
trademarked apparently is the cutaway body shape.

The reason why you sue someone for infringement is because you have
suffered damage or believe that you might suffer damage. Gibson stated
in their claim that there was potential for "confusion in the
marketplace." I guess that anyone who goes into a store intending to
buy a Les Paul and sees, plays, and buys a PRS instead is just so dumb
that he deserves to be ripped off. Life is hard sometimes. <g>

> Remember, Apple tried to trademark the "look and feel" of a
> product they essentially stole from Xerox, so let's put the bad guys into
> one pile and the good guys into another.

"Look and feel of an interface" is a different thing and it isn't the
issue here. What they want is that everyone who sees a cutaway guitar
with that shaped body will think "Les Paul" and nothing else. Just
like RCA wanted everyone who saw a dog sitting next to a horn with a
box at one end to think "Victrola."

> I don't see it as abuse of the system

Technically, not. But there have been guitars in that shape made by
various companies for years. I have a guild that looks like that from
a distance and nobody who played it would mistake it for a Les Paul.

They were just exercising their right to protect their trademark, and
they did it in an unpleasant way which may be far-reaching if they
decide to pursue every maker of a single cutaway electric guitar.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Paul Rubin]

(Mike Rivers) writes:
> They were just exercising their right to protect their trademark, and
> they did it in an unpleasant way which may be far-reaching if they
> decide to pursue every maker of a single cutaway electric guitar.

But if they fail to pursue every maker that they think infringes (and
their claim is pretty broad), they can lose the trademark.

[Romeo Rondeau]

"Paul Rubin" > wrote in message
...
> (Mike Rivers) writes:
> > They were just exercising their right to protect their trademark, and
> > they did it in an unpleasant way which may be far-reaching if they
> > decide to pursue every maker of a single cutaway electric guitar.
>
> But if they fail to pursue every maker that they think infringes (and
> their claim is pretty broad), they can lose the trademark.

It's real funny since Gibson made a few strat copies in the 80's (they did
have set necks, though.) They even own the Kramer name and are essentially
making strat copies now (or at least importing them.) If anyone should get
huffy about the whole thing, it's Martin... with virtually every acoustic
guitar manufacturer making copies of their tried and true dreadnaught
guitars.

[Peter L. Pollack]

In article >, Paul Rubin
> says...
> "Roger W. Norman" > writes:
> > How is it out of control? A Les Paul is a definitive piece of work and can
> > easily be trademarked,
>
> Their trademark claim seems to cover every guitar with a single cutout.

Hmmm. In that case, I suppose Leo's old company will have to stop
making the Telecaster. Oh, wait...doesn't the Tele *predate* the LP?
And where does that leave the ASAT?

Pure silliness.

Wasn't there a ruling years back that only the headstock shape could be
trademarked? Like around 1990, when those Start copies were all over
the place?

-Pete Pollack

[Buster Mudd]

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:<znr1079286647k@trad>...

>
> The reason why you sue someone for infringement is because you have
> suffered damage or believe that you might suffer damage. Gibson stated
> in their claim that there was potential for "confusion in the
> marketplace." I guess that anyone who goes into a store intending to
> buy a Les Paul and sees, plays, and buys a PRS instead is just so dumb
> that he deserves to be ripped off.
>

But that's exactly the kind of damage Gibson is concerned with.
Suppose Joey "Guitar Wannabe" Sixpack sees his hero (Jimmy "Guitar
Wannabe" Page) on MTV playing a cool looking guitar...which just so
happens to be a Gibson Les Paul. Joey goes down to Guitar Center
looking for that same axe, Joey sees a PRS Singlecut & thinks "yeah,
that looks like what Jimmy Page was playing", Joey buys PRS, Gibson
loses $3700 that (arguably) is rightfully theirs. The fact that Joey
may be "dumb" is completely material to Gibson's case. Or worse: Maybe
Joey's "smart", he just doesn't have great eyesight. If Joey goes into
Guitar Center looking for that same guitar Jimmy Page played on MTV,
he might spot both a Gibson Les Paul and a PRS Singlecut. *Now* what's
he gonna do? Well, as long as he's there, might as well try them both
out, see which one actually feels & sounds better, right?

Oops. Gibson just lost another $3700.

[Romeo Rondeau]

> But that's exactly the kind of damage Gibson is concerned with.
> Suppose Joey "Guitar Wannabe" Sixpack sees his hero (Jimmy "Guitar
> Wannabe" Page) on MTV playing a cool looking guitar...which just so
> happens to be a Gibson Les Paul. Joey goes down to Guitar Center
> looking for that same axe, Joey sees a PRS Singlecut & thinks "yeah,
> that looks like what Jimmy Page was playing", Joey buys PRS, Gibson
> loses $3700 that (arguably) is rightfully theirs.

Joey is likely to spend $3700 on an axe that he doesn't know the brand of?
My guess is that he will buy the Epiphone version of the Les Paul and the
money will still go into Gibsons hands. The key to this is really Gibson
losing sales to PRS period. The shape lawsuit is just one way to land a blow
to PRS. Besides that, the market for kids buying because of the shape is in
the $300-$900 range. Right where the Epi guitars are.

The fact that Joey
> may be "dumb" is completely material to Gibson's case. Or worse: Maybe
> Joey's "smart", he just doesn't have great eyesight. If Joey goes into
> Guitar Center looking for that same guitar Jimmy Page played on MTV,
> he might spot both a Gibson Les Paul and a PRS Singlecut. *Now* what's
> he gonna do? Well, as long as he's there, might as well try them both
> out, see which one actually feels & sounds better, right?

I think sounds and feels better is the key here. Gibson has lost a lot of
sales to PRS. This is their way of getting some of them back.

>
> Oops. Gibson just lost another $3700.

Not when they will sell 50 times as many Epiphones which look just like the
Les Pauls. It's real hard for them to claim that it cheapens or diminishes
their brand when copies are made, since they sell cheap imported clones of
the guitar themselves.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> But if they fail to pursue every maker that they think infringes (and
> their claim is pretty broad), they can lose the trademark.

OK, who's next in line?

I don't know if they have to pursue every maker in order to keep their
trademark or if they just have to do what they think is necessary to
prevent "market confusion."

Back in the '60's, Coca Cola was sending people out to little lunch
counters and having them order "a Coke." If they were served anything
else without being told that the restaurant didn't serve Coca Cola,
the establishment got a lawyer letter. I think this was a pretty
effective campaign. They didn't put anyone out of business or halt
sales, they just clarified the brand name.

If PRS was selling a "Les Paul Model" they (and probaby Les, who, I
expect, has his name registered as a trade mark and licenses it to
Gibson) would have a clear case of confusion in the marketplace. But
when it comes to the shape of the body, either the law must allow a
pretty broad interpretation of they did some mighty fine convincing in
front of the judge.

I think of the PRS shape as being a bit different than the standard
Gibson Les Paul - the "horn" is scuplted rather than just sawed
straight. Do they have one that's plain and straight like the Gibson?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Roger W. Norman]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1079286647k@trad...
> They were just exercising their right to protect their trademark, and
> they did it in an unpleasant way which may be far-reaching if they
> decide to pursue every maker of a single cutaway electric guitar.


I'm not saying that the courts should have ruled the way they did, but it's
a fact that Gibson did put a trademark on it and got it through, which means
that if someone makes that shape, not just a single cutaway, but that
"shape", then it's trademarked and some precidence has been set in the court
system to follow. Apparently, since Gibson started the trademark
application process in 1987, if follows that anyone else could have done so,
too, and then the court thing would be up in the air. But if you're in the
market to make a cheap buck with the kiddos that can't afford a $2000 Paul,
then it makes sense for Gibson to kinda swish them off the market because
they have their own, legal inexpensive Paul, which I sometimes find better
ones than those that Gib is putting out for 4X the dollars. And if you're
in the market for a $2000 Paul, the PRS is stepping directly on Gibson's
toes with not only a fairly good resemblance, but a superior product, and
that's definitely going to get Gibson's attention.

Now the question really becomes why did Paul make a Paul? Particularly at
the time he did? If he'd been making a Paul from 1992 on, he'd already be
grandfathered in, but no, he had to pull out the Singlecut AFTER Gibson had
received the trademark. And I believe that Gibson really went after him
because of this distinction. Why not call Paul and find out the real scoop
and get back to us. Or perhaps Gantt can.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > Seems to me that a company has the right to try to protect product line
any
> > time they want. The wherewithal about it is that no one had come up
with a
> > design like Les Paul's except for Les Paul.
>
> If it was the design of the whole instrument that was copied, that
> would be one thing. (see Aphex vs. Behringer) However, what Gibson has
> trademarked apparently is the cutaway body shape.
>
> The reason why you sue someone for infringement is because you have
> suffered damage or believe that you might suffer damage. Gibson stated
> in their claim that there was potential for "confusion in the
> marketplace." I guess that anyone who goes into a store intending to
> buy a Les Paul and sees, plays, and buys a PRS instead is just so dumb
> that he deserves to be ripped off. Life is hard sometimes. <g>
>
> > Remember, Apple tried to trademark the "look and feel" of a
> > product they essentially stole from Xerox, so let's put the bad guys
into
> > one pile and the good guys into another.
>
> "Look and feel of an interface" is a different thing and it isn't the
> issue here. What they want is that everyone who sees a cutaway guitar
> with that shaped body will think "Les Paul" and nothing else. Just
> like RCA wanted everyone who saw a dog sitting next to a horn with a
> box at one end to think "Victrola."
>
> > I don't see it as abuse of the system
>
> Technically, not. But there have been guitars in that shape made by
> various companies for years. I have a guild that looks like that from
> a distance and nobody who played it would mistake it for a Les Paul.
>
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers )
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Roger W. Norman]

I don't believe that's true. I believe the trademark infringements can only
date from the day the trademark was official.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Paul Rubin" > wrote in message
...
> (Mike Rivers) writes:
> > They were just exercising their right to protect their trademark, and
> > they did it in an unpleasant way which may be far-reaching if they
> > decide to pursue every maker of a single cutaway electric guitar.
>
> But if they fail to pursue every maker that they think infringes (and
> their claim is pretty broad), they can lose the trademark.

[Roger W. Norman]

"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote in message
...
> It's real hard for them to claim that it cheapens or diminishes
> their brand when copies are made, since they sell cheap imported clones of
> the guitar themselves.

It's obviously not hard for Gibson to claim that at all, at least not in
court. A precidence has been established, and that type of judgement will
only fall on anyone that brings a new product on line that has the Paul
look. I don't believe it's a retroactive thing when a trademark is
established. But every new Paul style guitar introduced into a
manufacturer's line from 1999 forward may well be brought to court. And
with their trademark firmly in hand, Gibson will win every one of those
battles.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

> > But that's exactly the kind of damage Gibson is concerned with.
> > Suppose Joey "Guitar Wannabe" Sixpack sees his hero (Jimmy "Guitar
> > Wannabe" Page) on MTV playing a cool looking guitar...which just so
> > happens to be a Gibson Les Paul. Joey goes down to Guitar Center
> > looking for that same axe, Joey sees a PRS Singlecut & thinks "yeah,
> > that looks like what Jimmy Page was playing", Joey buys PRS, Gibson
> > loses $3700 that (arguably) is rightfully theirs.
>
> Joey is likely to spend $3700 on an axe that he doesn't know the brand of?
> My guess is that he will buy the Epiphone version of the Les Paul and the
> money will still go into Gibsons hands. The key to this is really Gibson
> losing sales to PRS period. The shape lawsuit is just one way to land a
blow
> to PRS. Besides that, the market for kids buying because of the shape is
in
> the $300-$900 range. Right where the Epi guitars are.
>
> The fact that Joey
> > may be "dumb" is completely material to Gibson's case. Or worse: Maybe
> > Joey's "smart", he just doesn't have great eyesight. If Joey goes into
> > Guitar Center looking for that same guitar Jimmy Page played on MTV,
> > he might spot both a Gibson Les Paul and a PRS Singlecut. *Now* what's
> > he gonna do? Well, as long as he's there, might as well try them both
> > out, see which one actually feels & sounds better, right?
>
> I think sounds and feels better is the key here. Gibson has lost a lot of
> sales to PRS. This is their way of getting some of them back.
>
> >
> > Oops. Gibson just lost another $3700.
>
> Not when they will sell 50 times as many Epiphones which look just like
the
> Les Pauls. .
>
>

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> I think of the PRS shape as being a bit different than the standard
> Gibson Les Paul - the "horn" is scuplted rather than just sawed
> straight. Do they have one that's plain and straight like the Gibson?

Do they have one that looks as much like a Les Paul as does a Gibson
L5CES., which Gibson doesn't call a "Les Paul"?

--
ha

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Joey is likely to spend $3700 on an axe that he doesn't know the brand of?

Well, we have people around here who say "I just ordred some new
monitors (the $3,000 kind). Anyone know if they're good for mixing? I
do mostly hiphop."

> The key to this is really Gibson
> losing sales to PRS period. The shape lawsuit is just one way to land a blow
> to PRS.

I'm sure that's entirely what it's about.

> I think sounds and feels better is the key here. Gibson has lost a lot of
> sales to PRS. This is their way of getting some of them back.

I'm sure that's crossed their minds, but what their lawyers did was
get one guitar off the market that was clear competition.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Buster Mudd]

(hank alrich) wrote in message >...
> Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> > I think of the PRS shape as being a bit different than the standard
> > Gibson Les Paul - the "horn" is scuplted rather than just sawed
> > straight. Do they have one that's plain and straight like the Gibson?
>
> Do they have one that looks as much like a Les Paul as does a Gibson
> L5CES., which Gibson doesn't call a "Les Paul"?

....or an L-5S (the solid body) which looks even *more* like a Les
Paul...but of course, ISN'T

[Buster Mudd]

"Roger W. Norman" > wrote in message >...

>
> Now the question really becomes why did Paul make a Paul? Particularly at
> the time he did? If he'd been making a Paul from 1992 on, he'd already be
> grandfathered in, but no, he had to pull out the Singlecut AFTER Gibson had
> received the trademark. And I believe that Gibson really went after him
> because of this distinction.

If Paul had really been on his toes he would've gone after Gibson when
they introduced those double-cutaway guitars that closely resembled
the classic PRS body shape. (DC200? I forget the model#. Ironically,
I think they might be "Les Paul" DC-somethings.) But perhaps at that
time PRS was still too small a company to have developed those sort of
malicious/paranoid instincts? Not any more...

[Buster Mudd]

"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote in message >...

>
> Joey is likely to spend $3700 on an axe that he doesn't know the brand of?
>


Remember, the arguement was predicated on the fact that Joey is "dumb".

[Analogeezer]

(JWelsh3374) wrote in message >...
> << I thought this one was
> particularly outrageous.
>
> Quick summary - Gibson won a trademark infringement judgement agianst
> Paul Reed Smith guitars for making a guitar with a body that looked
> too much like the (trademarked in 1999) Les Paul shape. >>
>
>
> Odd because after looking at a pic of a single cut PRS I notice two things. One
> is that it somewhat resembles a Les Paul and two that I think it is, at best,
> an ugly single cutaway. I never found them good looking.
>
> Also not really that close in actual appearance in my view... must be bad blood
> betwixt Mr. J and Mr. S.
>
>
>
>
> searching for peace, love and quality footwear
> guido
>
> http://www.guidotoons.com
> http://www.theloniousmoog.com
> http://www.luckymanclark.com

Maybe PRS ought to redesign the guitar, make the cutaway sort of
solid, but perforate the wood in the shape of the cutout.

Then after you get it home, you hold it up, punch it with your fist
and the cutaway is there...you take the block of wood that was there
and make a pipe out of it or something.

PRS makes a nice guitar, but most of the PRS's I've seen are bought by
middle aged yuppies, as are Les Pauls (the expensive ones).

It's kind of like the same crowd that goes out and buys an expensive
Harley because "it's cool to own a Harley".

Analogeezer