Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

The Gibson vs. Dean lawsuit


p90jr

Recommended Posts

GIBSON LOSES FLYING V TRADEMARK CASE IN EU COURT

 

"... when the application for registration of the challenged mark was filed, the V-shape did not depart significantly from the norms and customs of the sector.

 

The case dates back all the way to 16 June 2010, when Gibson filed a patent application for the Flying V with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which was initially granted. However in October 2014 Hans-Peter Wilfer, the owner of Warwick and Framus, challenged the registration of the mark in respect to musical instruments.

 

By 2010 the world was flush with V-shaped instruments... simply put, too late. Despite what Gibson fanboys argue exhaustively online, the American trademark they applied for is from this same time frame (2010), not 1958, which was a patent application, not a trademark application, and even then shapes can't be patented as they exist in nature and mathematics already and no one can "invent them," the same reason why you cannot copyright chord progressions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

From the same article:

 

Gibson appealed and lost in 2018, and then took its appeal to the EU General Court, where a panel of three judges dismissed Gibsons second appeal, and ordered them to pay costs.

That last phrase is important. The EU Court is sending a message: You have wasted everyones time & money. Bad company!*

Furthermore, Gibson also holds trademarks for the Flying V in some individual EU countries, and it still holds the US trademark to the Flying V body shape.

 

This is probably part of why they think they have a leg to stand on.

 

 

 

 

 

* and they cant deny it...

Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: âNinety percent of everything is crapâ

 

My FLMS- Murphy's Music in Irving, Tx

 

http://murphysmusictx.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't bring myself to being too sympathetic for Dean. There is some weirdness that went along with this new Dean company. I was talking to Dean Zelinsky after he started DBZ. Armadillo bought the Dean name in the 90s. Nothing against Elliot Rubinson, I did a lot of business with him when he owned Thoroughbred Music but Elliot started calling himself Dean Rubinson and tried to completely expunge Dean Zelinsky from the history of Dean Guitars. That whole situation was just weird.

 

I kind of miss Thoroughbred Music. I bought a lot of road cases from them.

"It doesn't have to be difficult to be cool" - Mitch Towne

 

"A great musician can bring tears to your eyes!!!

So can a auto Mechanic." - Stokes Hunt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Aren't these or some of these guitars, models that my friend Dean Zelinsky began to producein the 70s? It seems like Gibson's biggest legal hurdle is they allowed 40 years to pass without filing a suit.

 

See back to my point about "Primary Estoppel". If they wanted to sue, they should have filed way back when . . . I can't imagine that no one from Gibson ever saw a Dean Guitar at a trade show, a concert, or wherever, in the last 40+ years.

 

As Dannyalcatraz points out - many thanks to Dannyalcatraz & Larryz for illuminating some of the fine points of the law, BTW - if Dean chooses Primary Estoppel as a defense, the burden is on Dean to prove that Gibson was aware of the alleged trademark infringements, and did nothing to protect their trademark until now. I think 40+ years worth of ads in Guitar magazines, 40+ years of Dean Guitars hanging on the same store racks as Gibsons, essentially 40+ years of Gibson ignoring the issue, gives Dean a strong defense, or conversely, leaves Gibson without a legal leg to stand on. Even speaking as a life-long Gibson player, and one who hopes the company will finally rise above itself, I'd throw this case out in a New York minute, and give Gibson hell for wasting the Court's time.

 

My original post I found out is irrelevant. Talked to a friend last weekend. The body shapes were actually nothing. Henry's crew initiated the lawsuits because in 2015 Dean started selling an acoustic guitar they called the Hummingbird. Dean didn't cease that stuff so when Gibson sued they put together the biggest list of items they could file suits on. Not sure if throwing everything including the kitchen sink at Dean when you only had two original beefs is the right strategy or not. I guess that is a lawyer thing.

 

"It doesn't have to be difficult to be cool" - Mitch Towne

 

"A great musician can bring tears to your eyes!!!

So can a auto Mechanic." - Stokes Hunt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not. Once the main objective is achieved, few want to spend the extra $$$ to get a judgement...and thereby establish precedent.

 

Besides being costly, It"s also risky. It"s always possible you won"t win for some reason. After all, unlike 'Stratocaster' or 'Les Paul', 'hummingbird ' is a common enough word that a court might decide there"s no way to claim a protectable interest in that as a product name.

Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: âNinety percent of everything is crapâ

 

My FLMS- Murphy's Music in Irving, Tx

 

http://murphysmusictx.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...