A wonderful, welcome and long-overdue F-YOU to Gibson (Dean Lawsuit Update)

[V-man]

FULL REVERSAL and REMAND to retry with evidence not allowed previously… namely that every other motherfucker and their goat ALSO have been using the V/Explorer shapes for years.

DEAN Announces 'Significant Legal Victory' In Dispute With GIBSON Over Guitar Shapes

Dean Guitars has announced what it says is "a significant legal victory" in its long-standing trademark dispute with Gibson Brands, Inc. The U.S. Court of Appeals in the 5th circuit has ruled in favor of Dean Guitars by granting a new trial — with Dean claiming that the move "vindicated" the...

blabbermouth.net

The excluded evidence is crucial and why Fender lost its lawsuit for the same as every single company in existence was making use of the strat/tele bodies for decades.

My hope is that Dean sues Gibson and prevails for damages on this bad faith lawsuit that amounted to tortious interference with contracts for interrupting business relationships/endorsement deals with pros who had signature series guitars that could no longer be produced like Erik Peterson and Michael Schenker.

 

[StrummerJoe]

Great news.

 

[Ufoscorpion]

It was disappointing to see Micheal Schenker go back to using Gibson V’s . He should have stuck with Dean out of principle , he obviously ditched them because he wasn’t getting money out of them anymore. I’m a huge Schenker fan but ……..

 

[Filipe Soares]

I really liked this piece of news. that as a humongous fuck you to Gibson. I have nothing against the products, but the way the brand is being managed is ridiculous. "be authentic" LOL.

If you have to say that YOU ARE authentic, you´re probably a poser. Authentic people/things are immediatly recognized as such and leaves no space for questions.

 

[Vinsanitizer]

If it weren't for Gibson's original designs, Dean and Ibanez wouldn't exist today.

 

[Frodebro]

If it weren't for Gibson's original designs, Dean and Ibanez wouldn't exist today.

And Hamer. It all comes down to Gibson not doing their due diligence to protect their designs early on, Fender made the same mistake with their body shapes.

 

[V-man]

And Hamer. It all comes down to Gibson not doing their due diligence to protect their designs early on, Fender made the same mistake with their body shapes.

… and rightfully lost when they pulled the legal stunt decades later, which is identical to this matter and why it was an absolute miscarriage of justice.

I have Gibsons, and quite possibly may have more to come in the future. I have zero Deans or Ibanez (other than a Music Go Round return of a used Iceman years back) and quite possibly never will.

Gibson (certain examples thereof) is the product that speaks to me. But their bullshit management since Henry J was ousted amounts to little more than a grave disappointment as far as I am concerned, and from that standpoint alone, I feel more like supporting the guys who make the product I don’t care for.

 

[21fret]

Don’t know how the newer Dean’s fair, but ones that were initially built by Dean Zelinsky are of the best, and why Gibson got stinkface.

 

[Dogs of Doom]

It was disappointing to see Micheal Schenker go back to using Gibson V’s . He should have stuck with Dean out of principle , he obviously ditched them because he wasn’t getting money out of them anymore. I’m a huge Schenker fan but ……..

I think MS's relationship (w/ Dean) was w/ Elliot... Elliot even toured w/ him a few tours. When Elliot died, I think the relationship was severed...

If he's no longer tied to them, he can use what he wants...

 

[Filipe Soares]

If it weren't for Gibson's original designs, Dean and Ibanez wouldn't exist today.

yep, they should buy a delorean go back in time and register everything as a trademark.

 

[Dogs of Doom]

And Hamer. It all comes down to Gibson not doing their due diligence to protect their designs early on, Fender made the same mistake with their body shapes.

this explains how Hamer came to be...

 

[RLW59]

I don't believe in retroactively changing the rules. In the '60s, '70s, '80s, and '90s Fender and Gibson had trademarks on their headstock shapes but not their body shapes. Gibson and Fender asserted their headstock tm's against copies but accepted that other companies could copy the bodies.

I think it's relevant that Martin invented the square-shoulder dreadnought. No other guitar was that big or had that shape. The dreadnought body shape is purely Martin's, in the same way that Gibson and Fender body shapes were initially unique to their creators. Every dreadnought is a copy of a Martin design.

Imagine if Martin got a retroactive trademark on the dreadnought body shape in 1997 and told every other guitar maker on Earth to stop making dreadnoughts.
----------------------------
It's vague, but I've read that earlier trademark laws didn't allow guitar companies to trademark entire instruments -- that they could tm the headstock shape or the body shape, but not both.

If so, maybe that was a crappy law that screwed Martin, Gibson, and Fender. The new more inclusive tm laws may be much fairer. If Martin, Gibson, or Fender ever come up with new iconic body shapes I wholeheartedly support them being able to protect them.

But for the early 20th Century designs that ship sailed before I was born. Those companies introduced new designs fully knowing that other companies could copy them.

 

[Ufoscorpion]

I think MS's relationship (w/ Dean) was w/ Elliot... Elliot even toured w/ him a few tours. When Elliot died, I think the relationship was severed...

If he's no longer tied to them, he can use what he wants...

He ( M.S. ) can of course use what he wants , he’s only gone back to using Gibson in the last year approximately. Just would have been good to see him fly the Dean flag in solidarity but hey , we don’t know what goes on behind the scenes and everything I guess .

 

[Dogs of Doom]

I don't believe in retroactively changing the rules. In the '60s, '70s, '80s, and '90s Fender and Gibson had trademarks on their headstock shapes but not their body shapes. Gibson and Fender asserted their headstock tm's against copies but accepted that other companies could copy the bodies.

I think it's relevant that Martin invented the square-shoulder dreadnought. No other guitar was that big or had that shape. The dreadnought body shape is purely Martin's, in the same way that Gibson and Fender body shapes were initially unique to their creators. Every dreadnought is a copy of a Martin design.

Imagine if Martin got a retroactive trademark on the dreadnought body shape in 1997 and told every other guitar maker on Earth to stop making dreadnoughts.
----------------------------
It's vague, but I've read that earlier trademark laws didn't allow guitar companies to trademark entire instruments -- that they could tm the headstock shape or the body shape, but not both.

If so, maybe that was a crappy law that screwed Martin, Gibson, and Fender. The new more inclusive tm laws may be much fairer. If Martin, Gibson, or Fender ever come up with new iconic body shapes I wholeheartedly support them being able to protect them.

But for the early 20th Century designs that ship sailed before I was born. Those companies introduced new designs fully knowing that other companies could copy them.

from what I learned... it came w/ the whole "PAF" premise. The reason there ever was a PAF "patent applied for" was because, the US Patent agency could not deem the idea patentable, at the time of the patent application.

W/ their foresight (whether for good or bad), they thought that something too generic, would hurt industry, free market & competition.

In the sample of the PAF pickup, which was the humbucker, they thought that, going forward, many solid body instruments would need a similar "pickup" for use & to give a monopolistic exclusivity to a single company would kill innovation in the product type, of electronic musical instruments.

It would be like issuing a patent for string, or tape w/ a wide brush, so nobody else could mfgr string or tape, except the original patent holder, or under license from. Same could be said about automobiles, bicycles, planes, boats. You can't just patent "boats", "cars", "bikes" & exclude anyone else from making their own product...

Musical instruments, in general, think of violins, cellos, basses, etc., have always had that symmetrical shape, mostly w/ a rounded top & back, w/ a neck , strings tuners, etc. They've been doing this for hundreds of years...

Gibson & Martin did not invent the wheel. They just innovated & made their own thing, based on earlier designs that were successful, in times past...

A somewhat simple history:

How the Violin Got Its Shape

The shape of the violin changed over time, depending on the luthier's family history and proclivities for imitating other violin-maker styles.

www.livescience.com