Gibson Loses Lawsuit To Dean
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- #knowyourgear #podcast #guitarpodcast
ink to audio of court case
• 22-40587 Gibson Brands...
Link to Article
www.guitarworl...
This Podcast is sponsored by Patreon and Channel members
www.patreon.co...
Buy A shirt and send us a picture
www.kyg.altaco...
Send picture of you and your KYG shirt to be featured in a video here
askknowyourgear@gmail.com
You can also get other cool merch here including new mugs
www.bonfire.co...
Check Out Sweetwater stuff here and support the channel
sweetwater.sjv...
Know Your Gear Facebook
/ knowyourgear
L
Won’t cost me a dime - Gibson has been surpassed by everyone
34% market share, they ain't going anywhere
@@nick_ashley They're not going anywhere today... but nothing lasts forever. And if your entire business model is based on monetizing the word "tradition" and relentlessly hyping decades-old successes, then your days are numbered. Especially if there are competitors out there with a better and/or cheaper mousetrap. Harley Davidson currently has the same problem, and It wasn't that long ago that most people would have assumed the Sears would be in business forever...oops.
Like how? Wtf talking out her arse
@@nick_ashleyI guarantee they count Epiphone and Kramer just as I'm sure Fender counts Charvel and Jackson.
As a guitarist of many, many more years than the average guitarist who posts online I have to laugh my head off at this constant stream of anti-Gibson sentiment. You guys need to really reel it in. It's getting a bit ridiculous. Gibson is one of the greatest guitar companies in history. Get over yourselves. If it weren't for Gibson and all the things they've come up with over the years half of these other companies wouldn't even exist.
Martin should give Gibson a taste of their own medicine and go to court to stop the Big G from selling Dreadnoughts.
They really can't. The courts already decided that you can't trade mark or copy wright a body shape on acoustics. Only the head stocks. There are too many limitations on how an acoustics can be shaped for sound production. It's also been held up multiple times for electrics. Besides after watching Gibson lose why would Martin want to waste all that money in legal costs?
Copyright. ....
That would take Martin down to their level
You took the words out of my mouth. I've said the same thing before. They act like a god of some kind and need to be knocked off their high horse.
@@randydean23In what way are they fundamentally different?
Dean's been making those guitars since the late 70's. Gibson needs to move on.
Gibson is ant consumer, antitrust, anticompetition. they're the evil empire and they don't make the best guitars in the word anymore.
I would never confuse a dean with gibson. Now sure look like a Hamer..???
@@e.emerald3224 I don't think many people would confuse the two. And yes, Hamer also made a Vector and a Standard which were the same as the V and Explorer. They made those since the 70's too.
And build a bridge!
Does not matter to the new owners of Gibson(KKR) as they are a Multi-Billion dollar global investment firm.
3 mill is just another epiphone greeny restock to them.
The judge has an SG and hates the neck dive.
gotta get a proper strap. shitty strap=neck dive on any guitar. nice wide strap=comfort and no neck dive.
@@kentpass 🤣
When you can no longer innovate or create quality products, just sue everybody. Serious question: Is Gibson even a music company anymore?
Considering the fact that Gibson gave the actor from 24 a signature guitar in 2007 over literally anyone else who plays guitar for a living, I'd say they haven't actually been a music company for actual musicians for a very long time now.
And that was under Henry J and not whoever the hell the current people from Levi's Jeans are that are in charge of Gibson now.
It is not.
You put down Gibson for not innovating anymore, but why can't Dean create their own designs? How about they doing some innovation? Is it so difficult to come up with a new guitar body shape that players might like?
Bingo. They’re just a rent collector on their legacy properties at this point. I def don’t need to fund/support that behavior.
Nope!
Also of note is that Dean as a company, has a pretty radically different customer base than Gibson. Dean for the last 20 years or so, has catered mostly to the hard rock and metal base. Their endorsement roster is almost all metal guys. Gibson of course, mostly a classic rock base. Dean isn't really significant competition to Gibson. Metal-focused brands like Dean, Esp and Jackson really compete with each other for that space. Gibson's real competition is PRS
I think you’re correct. I read the appeals court decision. The jury verdict in this case (which is no longer any good because the appeals court has sent the case back down for a new trial) basically reflects what you pointed out: all the bad stuff that Dean did is worth ONLY $4,000 to Gibson! Which, of course, is nothing after you’ve spent several million in attorneys fees and court costs. Plus, the jury also said that Gibson didn’t wrongfully interfere with Dean’s business relationships - which, while not actually explained, probably means “your artists and customers are not my artists and customers.”
Why doesn't Gibson just hire all the lawyers that play their guitars? Pay them in "lifestyle" swag. Or maybe introduce a exclusive Court Fees Collection.
Free legal advise and dental care! 😂
🤣🤣🤣
"we don't call it swag, we call it lifestyle wear here at Gibson. Sorry I can't shake your hand I just ate ribs for lunch" - said to me at NAMM by a Gibson rep in their booth. dirtbag
Court fees collection...effin brilliant
You know nothing about the new owners of Gibson(KKR) they have a whole army of lawyers. KKR who owns Gibson is a Multi Billion Dollar Global investment firm and they will not shy away from protecting their brands and it does not matter to them what the previous owners of Gibson did or did not do. So others brands in America better tread lightly cause this new company will go after them.
Gibson customers have been paying for their hyperactive legal department for years, unless you think a guitar with jagged frets and finish blemishes actually was worth nearly $3k all this time.
Lol. AMEN. I tried to buy a LP about 5 years ago. I had set aside up to $3K for the purchase, yet everything I looked at had glaring issues, from the purely cosmetic to one with a twisted neck. The most comical example though, was one where they had clearly made a mistake cutting the slots for the frets. The solution? Start fresh with a new fretboard blank? No, no... just cram in wood filler and re-cut the bad slots... and make sure the filler isn't even close to the right color 😂. It was so bad you could see it from across the room, and they wanted ~$2400 for that particular one, if I recall. I was so disgusted that I ended up building a Warmoth Tele partscaster instead, for about half the money I was originally gonna spend.
Not anymore, I recently purchased my first LP AAA . It’s flawless and I actually put it up there with PRS, as far as fit n finish, but recent years , Gibson did send out a bunch of crummy Guitars all the time , it’s what kept me from buying one.
@albriano7762 It's nice that you found a good one, but therein lies the problem... you shouldn't have to search the ends of the earth for the one that's not a piece of crap. A brand new $2K+ instrument shouldn't need fretwork, and it shouldn't have major cosmetic flaws. The flawed instruments should be rare exceptions, but they're really not. "They're better than they used to be" isn't saying much... they bottomed out. There's no place to go but up.
@notonyourlife7939 not long ago, I worked at a music shop that stocked impeccable Gibsons........because the guitar dept manager spent a whole work week fixing the glaring flaws every time we got a Gibson shipment. Y'know, all the stuff Gibson's quality control dept shoulda done to begin with. Mostly fret dressing and bad setups, but often finish/buffing blemishes and even wiring issues too.
@@notonyourlife7939 you were looking at the Bankruptcy era QC. It was a complete mess.
People have been making telecaster and Stratocaster shaped guitars for a long time and Fender thrived
I have a Harley Benton PRS Custom 24 "inspired" guitar I bought pre owned. Spending time with that guitar made me a fan of the concept and even if I didn't like the very well copied sound at first, it one me over after hearing it in a mix. I already started to upgrade some of my guitars with PRS parts and I will buy guitars from them in the future. The copy was the best advertisement.
FENDER TRIED THIS HOMIE ,, look into it fender tried to copyright the tele and the strat and lost no good guys in big companys their all evil .
Gibson attempted to sell strats, but stopped because of the public backlash. Gibson called it the Hendrix Signature Strat, lol.
I could be wrong but I believe Fender already tried going after smaller companies for design rights long ago and lost which is why they don’t sue anyone over body shapes, because that precedent has been set. The only thing fender has a legal right to is the headstock shape. If roles were reversed I’m sure Fender would be trying to legally protect their body shapes as well, seeing as countless brands take up a ton of the market share for that style of guitar
Hamer made the best Explorer copy which Cheap Trick played live for decades.
You couldn't get a Gibson version back then since Gibson was only making them in limited runs.
Today those Hamer versions are getting both hard to find and expensive too.
Hamer Standard. Awesome guitars.
I believe that Hamer explorer you mention I've seen with figured carved maple caps on the body, nothing alike from other brands, Gibson couldn't claim is an exact copy.
Early Ibanez Destroyers too! Even EVH rocked one on VH’s first album.
So now the real big question is... will Dean go after Gibson for lost revenue from the artists they lost, particularly to Gibson. Just one e-mail or text or document saying that could potentially happen if they sued Dean, then they might have a case.
Just to be clear, Dean didn't actually win over anything. They weren't declared innocent they weren't vindicated at all. Case was thrown out on appeal - procedural violations - in that evidence wasn't allowed in by the lower court that should have. All this means is the reset button has been hit. They go back to square one and Gibson has to refile the case and start over if they choose. Nobody said Gibson was wrong, they said the lower court was wrong, procedurally. This is good news for Dean, but they haven't won the fight. And they might still have to defend themselves in part deux.
@@pigxstixThats interesting to hear, I'm definitely on the side of Dean on this one, it's funny how that works out sometimes. Not a clean win but I guess they'll be happy with it. I wouldn't imagine it would be worth it for Gibson to go at it again, we'll have to see.
@@michelleneeds4165 Knowing Gibson, they'll go back for round two. They never know when to say when.
@@pigxstix I have a strong feeling that Gibson won't bother refiling a lawsuit in light of the new developments. all indications at this point are that Dean would prevail. it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
I’m sorry, counterfeit? If I buy a guitar that clearly states Dean on the headstock, I know or should know it’s not a Gibson. Geez, where did Gibson get their attorneys from, Liberty University?
😂😂😂 I see what you did there! 🤣🤣🤣
such a good point to make !
same ones Amber Heard hired
Does this explain the "Zero F*cks Given" 2-page ad Dean has in this month's Music Inc magazine?
Thought that was about the dimebag guitars?
@@Pj32Sr no .......
@Pj32Sr No, that tagline has featured on all their models. It was either poor timing on Dean's part, or (more likely) reactionary guitar news channels saying it was about Dimebag
It's weird that they used "counterfeit" because the Dean guitars never used a Gibson headstock nor a Gibson logo. There was definite issues in that first court finding. I do not know anything about high end purses, but I do know how to read a label.
Gibson used that headstock long before dean.
This ruling has nothing to do with that. Appeals don't retry the facts of the case, they simply look at procedure and did the lower court follow it. In this case, the appeals court ruled they did not, specifically in not allowing evidence regarding other makers who use the shape to be entered in defense. It goes back to square one, Gibson has to refile and start over, if they choose to do it again. I agree with your point that they aren't counterfeits, but everyone seems to be misunderstanding what this actually means. Gibson could file again, the evidence allowed, and they could still win again with the same facts. We don't know. But sometimes plaintiffs (or prosecutors in criminal cases) might decide it's not worth a second bite at the apple.
Why spend money on competent luthiers when you can spend it on greedy lawyers?
clever comment........... and true.
A Heritage is the only gibson I will ever buy.
Or a Navigator by ESP
Fender also own Jackson and I feel that Dean was an easy target because of upheaval that they'd had compared to the likes of fender
That's stretching the true meaning of 'counterfeit' 🤣 Glad that was thrown out.
Well, no, not really stretching. The jury made that finding. But that finding was related to what evidence they could hear. And in this case the verdict now is thrown out and the case sent back for a new trial because the appeals court told the judge he excluded lots of relevant evidence the jury should have heard. A new jury is probably going to make a different decision.
Sometimes I have a hard time feeling bad for companies. Think it is mostly in the moments that I realize how little they care about us as the people who buy their products. Like when they've been saying prices went up because costs went up, but still manage to post record profits that would be impossible if their costs really were higher. When their arguments for trademark and copyright infringement or fair use have become so distorted that any reasonable person can see that no one is buying a Dean thinking it's a Gibson or that a RUclipsr teaching people how to play a song isn't somehow taking away from how many people buy an album or stream a single. That kind of stuff doesn't sit well with me. Go track down the Chinese companies literally putting Gibson on the headstock of their guitars and blatantly copying the body and headstock shapes.
The company I work for is a large multi-national and will drop tens of millions on a case just because they can, whether as defendant or plaintiff. It's an intimidation tool in many instances and a show that we can out spend the opponent. In many cases the other side buckles under. Gibson will do the same on a smaller scale to smaller companies.
One of the things that pissed me off was Dean always sold their 79' V's for around $600, so Epiphone for years had their 58' Korina match that same price, but after they won their lawsuit with Dean they doubled their price (I guess they gave you case).
I am a lawyer and practice in the 5th circuit. To clarify, the court of appeals ordered a new trial, not a dismissal. Gibson does not have to refile or start over. In the new trial, evidence that was erroneously kept out will be allowed in. This will supposedly give Dean a little better chance at trial. Gibson will not have to spend millions more in attorney fees.
gibson is the bully of guitar brands.
While I do agree, they're also stuck on the horns of a dilemma... If they don't defend their trademarks, they lose them.
yup Gibson is a case study on how to destroy a brand by greed
@@PaulCooksStuff They waited 40 years to defend their 'trademark.' Gibson overpriced their products and ruined their reputation. They're trying to regain part of the market not by providing quality and value, but through litigation.
Reverend discontinued their V shaped models when Gibson started going sue happy a few years ago. The Reverend V has uneven legs, so they were probably safe, but I presume that they just didn't want any hassle from G. It's a shame because their Vs were kinda cool. I bought one before they all disappeared from the shelves.
Yeah, they also gave up the Tricky Gomez. They may have been stepping on the Gibson Trini Lopez?
Gibson was bullying Reverend and SEVERAL other smaller builders to stop V productions.
Jackson’s Randy Rhoads is also an uneven V. Jackson built it to Randy’s preferences.
I bought five guitars before I realized they were made by Dean and not Gibson. 😉
You got a better deal, five better deals actually
Its easy to spot the difference - just count the QC flaws.
probably a good decission on your part
@@PaulCooksStuff funny and true :)
Gibson will probably try to use this as evidence in their lawsuit LOL
As a consumer I like a competitive business environment. We all reap the benefits of it.
I also don’t appreciate Gibson implying that the general playing community is so unaware / uninformed that we’d be hoodwinked by a body shape.
If you’re an uninformed consumer in 2024 that’s your fault. We have the collective knowledge of the world at our fingertips and it’s guided by algorithms that are actively working to make it accurate and effective. (And separate us from our time and money)
Maybe Gibson should spend less money on lawyers and more on SEO.
To me the real takeaway here is Gibson’s lack of confidence in their own brand recognition.
I wouldn’t confuse a Honda Civic with a Toyota Corolla; and they’re pretty dang similar.
My hope is that one day guitar manufacturers will act more like pedal companies. Eager to collaborate and bring us cool new and unique stuff. Instead of squabbling over fractions of market share.
Thank you Phil!
Spot on... they know they are peddling lackluster products, rife with QC problems. Rather than fix those issues, they're desperately clinging to a rapidly tarnishing legacy. And instead of looking to the future, they're trying to wring every last cent out of their past. It's really kinda pathetic.
I concur
@Azathoth43 Actually, confusion is EXACTLY what this is about, at least that's what Gibson would like everyone to believe. If Ford built a car and called it a Corvette, that's not "counterfeiting"... it's trademark infringement. Now if they also stamped "Chevrolet" on it, THEN it's counterfeiting.
And that's what Gibson tried to claim Dean was doing. Using the term "counterfeit" implies that a fake product is being passed off as the genuine article, and that it's appearance is so indistinguishable from the real thing that people are fooled by it. If Dean was scribbling "Gibson" on the headstock, then they would have had a case. That clearly didn't happen, but that didn't stop Gibson from implying that they were still SO similar, that Joe Average guitar player is basically an illiterate imbecile who can't tell the difference between a fiddle that says "Dean" on the headstock, and one that says "Gibson".
I've owned six Gibson guitars in the past 30 years, every one needed work, in some cases a lot of work, to be playable. My Censtar, a $180 guitar has out classed every Gibson I owned. I don't know why, other than the name, anyone would pay the price for a Gibson.
I own a Squier 51 that is far more playable than any Gibson electric and will make sounds a Gibson cannot!
I agree, except stupid people make stupid decisions - who'd pay a fortune for a watch ? except to buy bogus status
my last 3 gibson les paul jr's were horrible. my $120 firefly jr (after i did a setup) is a really good guitar. sold the gibsons....kept the FF
Gibson may not refile this lawsuit. In the original lawsuit the court did not allow evidence on why Gibson never went after many other guitars makers form doing the same, and the fact Dean had been doing this since 1977. The appeals court found that this was wrong, and that evidence should have been and must be heard. So, if Gibson appeals, they most likely will lose due to the fact that the new evidence will likely not work in their favor. Gibson most likely didn't expect Dean to appeal, but I guarantee you that Dean had financial support from many other smaller companies to do so. The new legal council Dean had for the appeal, was the same that helped PRS take down Gibson.
Ron Bienstock? Same guy that successfully argued decades ago that Fender body shapes were generic too.
And let’s keep in mind that even with the cards stacked against Dean (the judge keeping out relevant evidence) in this case, the jury still only found Gibson suffered a mere $4,000 in damages. Refiling is throwing good money after bad.
The appellant court did not decide that all of the evidence should be heard by the jury, it simply held that the trial court did not go through the proper analysis before excluding the evidence. The case was remanded for a new trial and the trial court will have to reconsider the evidence offered by Dean/Armadillo.
@@HoneyTone-TheSearchContinues Gibson got a permanent injunction for the sale of infringing products against Armadillo, that's worth a lot more than $4000.00.
@@hoganshideout You are correct about the jury not necessarily hearing all the excluded evidence. But the appeals court decision certainly seems to suggest it is likely relevant and should be introduced at trial. As in my other thread response: likelihood of success and irreparable harm are put in question as to the injunction.
Bring on the esp explorer
YEAH - James Hetfield, probably
I actually like the ESP LTD EX shape, so I'm in hurry for them to change it.
Ken Lawrence?
Gibson needs to stop litigating against their competitors and concentrate on the quality control of their instruments.
They are pushing the "exclusivity"... almost 2k for an epiphone and cancelling the Les Paul Tribute series.. I was looking to buy a tribute or studio... ended up with a 2nd hand 1989 (one year only) MIK Epiphone, for a more than half the cost of a Tribute. Good wood, long neck tennon, flame top.. sounds just the same.
From an insider: "I worked at the Memphis plant for a while. You will never know when you will have to work Saturday. Usually this is more often than not. They push numbers instead of quality hoping the end result will meet the bottom line numbers.
The masses will come back time and again to buy these guitars because of the name on the headstock. I have deep inside 1st hand knowledge proving that these guitars are anything but quality. Glue joints that have no glue, super glue on top of wood glue when the first glue joint didn't hold, truss rods that aren't even close to centered down the neck, should I go on?? I personally saved this division a pocket full of money with major obstacles I showed them how to overcome, (which they happiy implemented) and I was never once rewarded. To the contrary, I was harassed by management and given an abundance of lip service, and unfortunately, I can not go into further detail at the moment.
If you need a job because you are hurting for money, then look to this place as a temp solution. Turn over is off the charts!!"
So yeah , screw Gibson/Epiphone. I have two les paul style guitars - both Fernandes - and both less expensive and infinitely better built than Gibson.
hearing thousand dollar epiphone still feels like a fever dream
Guess what. Every time any company or business is sued, or gets involved in litigation, ultimately it has to pay for it out of revenues. The exorbitant awards and settlements in the US legal system make everything more expensive.
As a long term musician/consumer, I have no trouble distinguishing a Dean guitar from a Gibson. That is the reason I do not own a Gibson guitar.
Same
It's fascinating how they own Kramer, who make Strats.
rules for thee but not for me
No need to even bring Kramer into it - Gibson has a long history of making Strat copies as well. It's just that most of them are long forgotten.
A couple of legal details….first off, counterfeiting is really not an issue because Dean is clearly not trying to pass off their guitars as a Gibson. They are clearly badged as Dean, so the consumer is not being deceived as to the manufacturer and provenance. Jackson is not involved because, as is obvious, the design while being derivative, is clearly different. As patent laws go, this is enough to keep them safe from litigation.
Gibson is pretending branding doesn't exist and is arguing the average guitar consumer cannot tell the difference between products.
Guitar body shapes are so similar and standardized that headstock shapes and branding ARE the differentiators.
I bought a Dean Z as a teenager and I never for one second thought it was a Gibson.
It won't cost this guitarist a penny. I don't need a nike swoosh on my shoes to walk to the store.
Helps if you want to sell you shoes though- just sayin'. I don't own one- but I'm not going to pretend I wouldn't be stoked to get one either. Even if I don't love playing it, which I probably would- I can hang on to it and the longer I do, the more it's worth. Everyone loves to talk sh1t about the big G- but I've never seen anyone have any problems selling one- and old bursts go for over a 100Gs. I mean- it's pretty obvious they did something right.
exactly, or a rolex crown to know thw time
@stoneysdead689 Never in my life have I bought used shoes. I think we're getting into the realm of player vs collector. God bless those folks who can afford to have a collection on the wall. It's even more impressive if they can play the instrument.
@HALWASRIGHT Never tried them. I have tried a few Gibson, though. They're ok.
@HALWASRIGHT Now I'm confused. Is this the same thread?
Would love to know the breakdown on the 3 mil. Most companies have lawyers on retainer. Sounds like some outside lawyer suckered Gibson into hiring at a flat rate.
$1300 epiphones? We definitely already have been.
You would think the giant DEAN logo would be enough of a tell that the guitar is not a Gibson
And Dean's pointy headstock kills snakes. In tiny letters it said so in their adverts.
One look at the headstock tells any casual player it's a Dean and not a Gibson.
Hopefully ESP smells the blood in the water and resurrects the MX platform, but I can't imagine Gibson gets the message that being ultra litigious usually ends up damaging your brand in the long run.
Maybe gibson should of taken Cort to court?😆 My first real guitar was a Cort Fly-V effector and it was NOT pointy. That replaced my first electric guitar, a Spiegel catalog amp and guitar combo for 106.00 back in late 80's; still have the amp with the one speed ( slow ) tremolo 😆
Couple of things: IIRC, the lawsuit against Ibanez in the 70s, the decision in their favor was over headstock shape. Body shape wasn't protected at the time.
As to import vs domestic. Dean does, or did, make guitars right there in their Tampa headquarters, and at one time, they were about half the price of Gibsons USA made instruments.
Just the fact that Dean have been making these guitars for so long should mean the case is thrown out, why did Gibson wait so long to sue?
Gibson's legal department going after Kiesel is the biggest reason I went with the Kiesel singlecut over an actual Gibson Les Paul. The quality was way better compared to the Les Pauls at my local music store too (at least in fret work). I want to like Gibson because of how iconic they are, but their legal department makes them very hard to cheer for.
The Jackson Vee is different because those pointy ends are as fragile as a wine glass.
Maybe the reason for the law suit, was to secure artists then?
They lose the artists, they lose the advertising, they lose exposure. Get the artists back, then all those issues go away.
This is good news to me. I think it's stupid to be able to trademark a shape.
@WalkenDead
good call. so few people seem to know that body shapes whose trademarks are unenforced for decades
become unenforceable.
Been saying for years that Gibson needs to stop worrying about suing people, and put more effort into making a guitar whose quality meets the price point. I'm not even complaining about the price. I build guitars. I've built many R9 style guitars, and the amount of labor, and the level of skill required is far beyond what it takes to build a Fender or most other solidbody electrics out there. The prices make sense, IF the quality is there. More often than not these days, it just isn't. Finish blems and chatter marks left by scrapers all over the edges of fretboards are completely unacceptable on a guitar with a $3-8K price tag. Nobody is mistaking a Dean, or any other brand for that matter, for a Gibson. They're just buying the better built guitars that have a fair price for what you're getting.
Yeah this has been the best bit of news. If Gibson was smarter, which as we know they’re not, they would stay outta the courtroom. Not only that but LOWER the prices, make the quality much better, and be less of a douchebag.
Based on this, if they raise the prices again because of this court stuff…. Then those buying can suffer for their stupidity.
Gibson is going south, they're only in the news regarding negative things.
Gibson should at least try make a guitar with a price tag on that matches the quality instead of lowering the quality and up the price.
Basic SGs about to be One Godzillion Dollars
When Gibson created the V and the Explorer back in the 50's, they didn't sell and they discontinued them. Now they care because other companies are making guitars that people want. All this does is make more people want the other brands guitars because the Gibson reissues are priced out of reach for most musicians. You would think that Gibson would give a sh*t about musicians and less about "corporate" BS.
I'd think the shape of the Jackson V is far enough away from the Gibson V, the points of the Jackson V are sharp rather than rounded plus the lower arm of the Jackson V is shorter than the top.
The $4000 was the statutory minimum. If the jury could have given less, they perhaps would have, but they were bound to a minimum of $1000 per infringement once they found four instances of infringement. It was a confusing award, because they also found laches, which would nullify their findings of infringement. But they seemed to still find infringement, but gutted any award to the statutory minimum. And now that the appeals court said that evidence of market use of the shapes outside of Dean can be entered in trial, it could be a very different outcome.
Also Dean had been making those shapes for well over 40 years. If Gibson had filed a lawsuit in the late 1970's, shortly after Dean started making those shapes, they'd have had a fairly strong case, but you can't wait 40 years before trying to enforce a possible trade mark against a competitor who might be infringing it.
Les Paul standard broke 5000 Australian dollars (2500 US dollars )..... this year,
guess we know why.
Some Murphy Labs cost over $15,000.....
there is so many of them too.....many more than Standards????
Now where does this leave Hamer, as they were sued by Gibson over the Hamer Standard a few years back.
If you get an expert, and he looks extremely closely at the minute details, I wonder if he could find any differences in the headstock?
I think another legal argument to be made is: Dean's been making V and Z body styles for DECADES before Gibson brought suit. For a trademark to remain valid, the holder has to actively defend that mark (C&D / suits, etc).
The market won't tolerate Gibson passing the cost off to consumers - people aren't buying anything right now. Just yesterday I walked into a shop and was offered the item I was interested in below cost just because they wanted to move the inventory. When I raised an eyebrow at his claim of the price being below cost he took me to the terminal to show me and then offered to throw something else in to seal the deal (it worked). Times are getting desperate for the folks who are selling non essential consumer items, I didn't even have to ask for the price to be so drastically reduced.
Tell that to Harley... all I could talk them down to a couple months ago was free paint, lol. 😂
Dean never denied that they copied Gibson's designs. The issue has been Gibson forfeited the right to defend their copyright with inaction many years ago. This is so clearly the case I was shocked Gibson prevailed ( in the US, NOT EU). Glad to see a judge make the correct call with the dismissal.
Maybe everyone can make their own Explorer, Flying V, Les Paul and SG shaped guitar bodies from now on without having to alter it slightly.
Counterfeit is a stretch. Just look at the headstock. From the nosebleed section of the venue I could tell a Dean from a Gibson being played on stage.
And this is why Gibson and associates have raised prices to where they are today, we/you pay for these cases.
If Gibson would've put the same effort into making a more ergonomic instrument maybe I wouldn't have bought a PRS. The counterfeit/confusing the consumer thing is extremely funny considering the Dean headstock. It's pretty hard to overlook, some people even won't buy a Dean because of it. Basically the Jackson V argument, even if it's just the headstock.
Yes, the jury said that Dean did a bunch of bad things. And all those bad things damaged Gibson in the grand total of …
$4,000.
With the case stacked in favor of Gibson, they spent $3 million in attorneys fees and court costs to win $4,000.
Now the appeals court has just thrown those findings out and told the judge he’s might have to let in all the previously excluded relevant evidence, which might just show Dean has legal defenses to Gibson’s claims. So, the second time around Gibson might “win” less or nothing.
I get that Gibson was maybe just trying to bankrupt Dean as a competitor but why continue to dig that hole?
Wasn't gonna buy a G. or Epi Vee anyway. A Dean, or other cheaper brand, yessir....
Gobson should use the lawsuit money on its quality control. If you dont know about guitars you would buy an epiphone lespaul thinking it was a lGibson les paul but if you know about guitar brands and models you would know that the guitar you are wanting to buy is the brand and model that you want. The shapes of guitars doesn’t make it a counterfeit what does is using a brands name , trademark that is owned by a competitor. After all Gibson was not the first brand to come out with guitar original guitar shapes when it first started. Just like all guitar makers
Firefly joins chat! 😂
To be honest all the body and headstock shape patents are a bit ridiculous.
I'm almost sure you could demonstrate with mathematics and mechanics (physics) that there are only so many shapes you can do where you can fit a guitar neck, free space for fret access at the upper frets, and provide a contour for your forearm to rest on.
Eventually guitars will look similar to each other and you'll always end up with something looking close to either a Fender or a Gibson.
LOL-Funny- I never see Gibson fan boys sitting around talking sh1t about Fender or PRS.... Gibson is just the guitar company ppl love to hate, I guess. Meanwhile they're still one of the most successful, richest, well-known brands on the planet. Old bursts go for over 100Gs man- that's insane. Makes you wonder who their buyers are because you certainly never meet them online, all I ever meet are Gibson haters. I'm neutral- I don't own one, too expensive- but I don't hate them or anything like that. From what I understand the quality control is the main issue- you have to shop for a good one- but when you find one, you've got a good instrument. Well to be honest I ran into the exact same problem with Squier, Fender, and Ibanez. I've sent guitars back to all 3 of them before- sometimes more than once- before I finally got a good one. I guess that's more understandable since they're cheaper instruments, but that's all I've ever owned so- it's all I know. I'm used to it.
The only people who win in these cases are the “ lawyers “ wasting money on legal tribulations is foolish. If your consumer base cannot tell the difference you pretty much think they are stupid ( we’re not ). Consumers have choices, styles, appointments and price. If you want to spend thousands on a Gibson or less than a thousand on a Dean, Schecter etc etc that’s a consumers choice.
I have sold few Hamer guitars that had identical body shape to Flying V . I don't know why Hamer doesn't exist but they used to be kind of an alternative .
One thing I have to disagree on that for me a Korean Dave Mustaine VMNT (1250 usd at the time and the Gibson Explorer (or Flying V) for about the same price and I wanted both the same. After owning both the Dean and a 2016 Gibson Explorer T I can clearly say that the Dean had better QC.
Funny you say that we will pay for Gibson's lawsuits. We already have. I stopped at a local GC and they are selling LP Standards for $2999. That guitar sold for $1800ish several years ago. Though that tobacco burst LP was so beautiful, I walked away knowing that I won't pay 3k for a LP Standard or Traditional.
Nice video 📹 and workmanship
Gibson should focus on making guitars that don´t fall apart when you take them out of the box rather than bully small companies that actually put effort into what they do.
But will Reverend ever reintro the Tricky Gomez. They'd have to use a different name, I'd guess.
WTF? How have all these other companies been turning out Strat and Tele copies all these years?
3 million? That's almost 7 Murphy Lab guitars and 15 sets of pickups...
Ironic too that according to Dean Zelensky, his V and Z shapes were in fact based on Ibanez' 'counterfeit' 58 Gibson shapes (because he didn't own or have access to any original 58 Gibsons to base his guitars on)
Does anyone know what Gretsch model is over his shoulder? It's killing me trying to figure it out. Thanks in advance.
What about the Ibanez VBT700, only made for one year (2007, iirc) before Gibson shut them down.
How is it possible that much money can be spent filing a lawsuit? Can’t believe 3m!
Two things:
1) $3M to Gibson is like the $20 you find in your pocket doing the laundry, and
2) For this level of corporate shenanigans, $3M wouldn't be enough for many law firms to even bother picking up the phone...
We only have to pay the bill if we buy Gibson guitars.
Fender lost their court case when they tried to patent the Strat and Tele body shapes, so there is a precedent here, both Fender and Gibson were able to patent their headstock designs though, I hope Gibson stops now as I do not want to see them waste money any further and as Phil states here no one is going to buy a Dean guitar in place of a Gibson or Epiphone.
Phil is wrong. In a free market system prices are set by the market, not based on costs. If Gibson could make more money by raising prices, they would.
newsflash .. They did and do.
@@miserychannel69 Exactly. They already charge as much as they can. It has nothing to do with costs. Prices are based on what people will pay.
So THIS is why the prices of Gibsons have gone up so much in the past few years!
The $3 million legal fees is likely due to having to do trademark surveys (difficult in this case) to show “likelihood of confusion”, which necessarily takes into consideration the buyer’s level of knowledge. Gibson’s price point would necessitate a “sophisticated” buyer, which means they would know the difference between a Gibson V and a Dean V and a Jackson V. Gibson likely thought they could beat Dean because they have more money (I’m assuming). On its merits, this was a stupid case. Just watched a Hamer documentary (recently loaded up on YT Part 1) and they mention that Gibson had difficulty selling all of the Vs it made in 1958 (I think). Think they also may have stopped production. It would be years later and they still hadn’t sold all of them. Yet, Hamer was able to sell its Vs to musicians.
I love my Dean V, its neck is a v too. Great guitar, love my Gibsons too. They should both save their money, and build great guitars.
Nice job, Dude.
Makes feel like we are in the same loop as a dealer.
I want everyone to succeed.
I see Gibson wanting to protect their....umm...uhhh..heritage..but it has almost gotten to a point where it seems like Volkswagon suing Porsche.
Gibson coming out with the Slash Toilet seat in flame maple soon.
I bought an 8 string with kahler thinking it was a Gibson. But couldn't find qc flaws so i knew it was a fake!
I think the lawsuit was a bad move on Gibson's part. How many companies produce a guitar that looks like a stratocaster, les paul, V, or explorer? Like all of them! I had some goofball tell me that no one can make a warlock shape guitar except BC Rich. Well, first off the Galveston one isn't the same dimensions. Second, like I just said, countless companies copy the body style of a les paul, stratocaster, telecaster, etc. The previous lawsuits have only suppported the copyright of the headstock shape and the company logos and branding. It's a waste of time. If I want a Gibson I'll buy it. I'm not, and neither is anyone else, that stupid I'd mistake a Dean for a Gibson. Huge waste of time and money for Gibson.
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." At least it used to be. For those of us who are hobbyists, and love the aesthetics of Gibson, the Chinese artisans have created the whole Gibson line up @
When a regular Joe buys a guitar that resembles his guitar hero's guitar, this isn't for imitation of the guitar itself, this is for imitation of the guitar hero's image. Gibson and their like substitute the player with the guitar, but that's simply not true.
The other point being, many personal guitars used to advertise Gibson weren't even built by Gibson even though it says Gibson on them (Slash's personal guitars, for one), and Gibson only build their inferior copies to sell to average Joes. Then who's imitating on a larger scale?