Gibson should fight 'em, not sue 'em.

Over the weekend, the Gibson ads in a couple guitar magazines made me wonder why Gibson doesn't "fight" their competitors? I mean, suing PRS and others (see below for info on their suit against Fernandes) is one thing, making a model or two to go head to head against PRS in the marketplace is another.

Why doesn't Gibson try to make and sell their own version of what PRS sells? That would be the way to put some life into their 40 and 50 year old product lines.

They might as well steal ideas from PRS as most of their own recent ideas to expand their product lines have reeked: remember the RD Series? How about the early 80's trio of the Invader, Corvus, and Challenger? What were they thinking?



"Gibson Guitar Corporation sued its rival, Fernandes, K.K., for trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition. Fernandes conceded that it had intentionally ?referred to? Gibson?s Les Paul guitar but that by the mid-1990s the shape of the guitar had essentially become generic in Japan. The Tokyo District Court held in favor of Fernandes and Gibson appealed."

Gibson Guitar Corporation v. Fernandes, K.K., 1719 Hanrei Jihō 122 (Tokyo High Ct., Feb. 24, 2000)
http://law.vanderbilt.edu/journal/34-03/Port.htm

Gibson lost lawsuit vs. PRS in the US in 2005.

They also lost vs. Fernandes/Burny in Japan in 2000.

They succeeded in Germany vs. Fenix in 1998. As a lawyer I am not sure that they will succeed once again here.

I see some hints that LP-Style is common nowadays and even the open book headstock can not be claimed exclusively. The inheritants of brothers Wright do not claim copyright for flying objects with wings and propeller either, if you know what I mean ...

Didn't Gibson take exception to the PRS because they beleived that buyers would be confused and might mistake the PRS for their own product.

How do they work that out? Has anyone in the known world gone out and bought a guitar "by mistake?"

How dumb is that? "Oh no I wanted a Les Paul Standard, but I picked up a PRS single cut instead - I'm just such a dummy!!!"

IMO the singlecut is pretty distinctive - there's a resemblence - but I am assuming most buyers can read a headstock and have a pretty good knowledge of guitars.

bruceboomstick said:

Didn't Gibson take exception to the PRS because they beleived that buyers would be confused and might mistake the PRS for their own product.

How do they work that out? Has anyone in the known world gone out and bought a guitar "by mistake?"

How dumb is that? "Oh no I wanted a Les Paul Standard, but I picked up a PRS single cut instead - I'm just such a dummy!!!"

IMO the singlecut is pretty distinctive - there's a resemblence - but I am assuming most buyers can read a headstock and have a pretty good knowledge of guitars.

Click to expand...

I think it was more to do with people watching a band in a smoky pub and mistaking the guitars.

I feel it would have to be VERY smoky to confuse the two and probably would only be done by someone who knows nothing about guitars and has no interest in buying one

LBUK

I think it was more to do with people watching a band in a smoky pub and mistaking the guitars.

Click to expand...

And wouldn't that work in Gibson's favor? Say I'm someone thinking about buying/learning guitar. I'm in my local smoky bar and I see the guitarist in the band playing a PRS Singlecut. The next day, I go into my local music store, describe to the salesman the shape of the guitar I saw, and buy a Les Paul ... ka-ching!

And wouldn't that work in Gibson's favor?

Click to expand...

I think it would work in the salesman favor depending on which would give the most commission

If someone was that stupid they could sell them an Epi for Gibson prices