Dean lost against Gibson

I do have to say, this one is a bit of a head scratcher.

Dean can no longer make the Gran Sport, either:

DeanGranSport.jpg

I mean, obviously, it's styled after the Gibson SG, though it is certainly not an exact copy.

If that is close enough to be stopped from production, it seems only a matter of time before Gibson goes after Guild for making the S-100 Polara:

Guild_S100Polara.jpg

ESP/LTD may also end up in Gibson's sights for the Viper:


ESP_Viper.png

This could get interesting.....
 
I had been watching for a good used deal on a V79 for a couple of years, no dice.
I found the Firefly V that I really like, and it gave me an affordable chance to try a V to see if I am comfortable with the shape, etc.

I dont like supporting PRC, but foreign cheaper imports have been woven into the metrics of the USA economy for decades- helping mask the stagnation of wages vs. real cost of living, but I wont go into politics.

I wasn't looking to buy another V (and I have another Firefly ordered - the Explorer type), but........

Maybe I can work a V79 in as a 30yr wedding anniversary gift.
I may have to work on selling this to the wife.......

I wonder if Firefly is too far under Gibson's radar, or if they will use their huge boot to stomp them as well.
 
Well, I am a little fuzzy as to what constitutes a "Guitar"
Is a "guitar" just the body? or does it include the neck and head?
I've been under the impression a guitar includes everything. But maybe I'm wrong and in legalese a guitar shape only counts the body.

Also, at what point is the "shape" not infringing on a copy protected item? Would it be enough to make the body an inch wider? or the angles of the shape a degree more or less than the original? Maybe the cutaways have a little more of a curve to them ... at what point is the shape different enough? Does scale length factor in? What about how many frets? Control layout? Inlays?
When I see a Dean, I dont have to examine it closely to know it a Dean. You can tell its a Dean from afar.

I see a ton of guitars out there that look like an SG, V, Explorer, LP. I own an ESP that looks alot like a LP. Even the headstock is shaped very similar. Maybe that could be copy infringement too.
Hell, how many strat look-a-likes are out there?

Gibson needs to worry about Gibson. I have read too many quality complaints online from Gibson owners, not just haters who dont own one, but people who actually went out, shelled out the money to own a guitar with the Gibson logo on it and within a year have problems with the finish coming off or an electronics issue (that last one happened to me on my SG within a year). They should concentrate on improving the quality of their instruments to merit the much higher cost and not so much on smaller companies who care enough to do it better.

Sorry for the wide ranging rant. Just had to let that out.
 
LiveeviL2000 said:
Well, I am a little fuzzy as to what constitutes a "Guitar"
Is a "guitar" just the body? or does it include the neck and head?
I've been under the impression a guitar includes everything. But maybe I'm wrong and in legalese a guitar shape only counts the body.

Also, at what point is the "shape" not infringing on a copy protected item? Would it be enough to make the body an inch wider? or the angles of the shape a degree more or less than the original? Maybe the cutaways have a little more of a curve to them ... at what point is the shape different enough? Does scale length factor in? What about how many frets? Control layout? Inlays?
When I see a Dean, I dont have to examine it closely to know it a Dean. You can tell its a Dean from afar.

I see a ton of guitars out there that look like an SG, V, Explorer, LP. I own an ESP that looks alot like a LP. Even the headstock is shaped very similar. Maybe that could be copy infringement too.
Hell, how many strat look-a-likes are out there?

Gibson needs to worry about Gibson. I have read too many quality complaints online from Gibson owners, not just haters who dont own one, but people who actually went out, shelled out the money to own a guitar with the Gibson logo on it and within a year have problems with the finish coming off or an electronics issue (that last one happened to me on my SG within a year). They should concentrate on improving the quality of their instruments to merit the much higher cost and not so much on smaller companies who care enough to do it better.

Sorry for the wide ranging rant. Just had to let that out.
Click to expand...
I do know that Agile was coerced to alter its LP style model. They changed the headstock and the cutaway to be less Gibson/Epiphone-like.
Xaviere guitars LP style did the same, but went a different way(from Agile) with the cutaway. They went in the sharper point, like the ESP LP style. These variations in body shape seem to keep Gibson away from courts.
Firefly’s “V” shape is asymmetrical, and not in scale with Gibson’s V shape.
ESP, and Agile, have the ”twisted” SG style that keeps Gibson out of the courts.

The “open book” headstock, and the “mustache” acoustic bridge are also “trade dress” to Gibson. A thing that they have been known to defend aggressively.
So yeah, I would imagine that Gibson will not pursue a shape that is clearly discernible from an established design that they claim as “trademark” to them.

Personally, (I am in agreement with @smitty_p above)…I don’t see a problem with the Guild AND the Dean versions of the SG-ish shape. They are variant enough to be fairly unique. The Guild variant survived the 70s lawsuit era, after all….that thing is fairy iconic to some of us.
The ESP and Agile “twisted SG” variants are also pretty easy to differentiate, if you haven’t been exploring any hallucinogenic substances.
 
smitty_p said:
I do have to say, this one is a bit of a head scratcher.

Dean can no longer make the Gran Sport, either:

View attachment 85321

I mean, obviously, it's styled after the Gibson SG, though it is certainly not an exact copy.

If that is close enough to be stopped from production, it seems only a matter of time before Gibson goes after Guild for making the S-100 Polara:

View attachment 85322

ESP/LTD may also end up in Gibson's sights for the Viper:


View attachment 85324

This could get interesting.....
Click to expand...

Body symmetry is one of the claimed features...
 
eclecticsynergy said:
IMO there's absolutely no mistaking a Dean Vee for a Gibson Vee, despite the shape. However, if Gibson's argument is based not on that but solely on ownership of the shapes themselves, well, they have a point.
Click to expand...

I agree, if body shape and some basic control layout counts... see below too
LiveeviL2000 said:
Well, I am a little fuzzy as to what constitutes a "Guitar"
Is a "guitar" just the body? or does it include the neck and head?
I've been under the impression a guitar includes everything. But maybe I'm wrong and in legalese a guitar shape only counts the body.

Also, at what point is the "shape" not infringing on a copy protected item? Would it be enough to make the body an inch wider? or the angles of the shape a degree more or less than the original? Maybe the cutaways have a little more of a curve to them ... at what point is the shape different enough? Does scale length factor in? What about how many frets? Control layout? Inlays?
When I see a Dean, I dont have to examine it closely to know it a Dean. You can tell its a Dean from afar.

I see a ton of guitars out there that look like an SG, V, Explorer, LP. I own an ESP that looks alot like a LP. Even the headstock is shaped very similar. Maybe that could be copy infringement too.
Hell, how many strat look-a-likes are out there?

Gibson needs to worry about Gibson. I have read too many quality complaints online from Gibson owners, not just haters who dont own one, but people who actually went out, shelled out the money to own a guitar with the Gibson logo on it and within a year have problems with the finish coming off or an electronics issue (that last one happened to me on my SG within a year). They should concentrate on improving the quality of their instruments to merit the much higher cost and not so much on smaller companies who care enough to do it better.

Sorry for the wide ranging rant. Just had to let that out.
Click to expand...
Given above, yes, a Strat is likely one of the most copied styles, period. From 100 bucks and up.
So...
Where is Fender lawsuit? I agree that Gibson is trying to get some money off this, they have every right to protect their patents but why take 60 years??
Will that increase the sales of Gibby Vs by taking Deans off the market??
 
Jethro Rocker said:
I agree, if body shape and some basic control layout counts... see below too

Given above, yes, a Strat is likely one of the most copied styles, period. From 100 bucks and up.
So...
Where is Fender lawsuit? I agree that Gibson is trying to get some money off this, they have every right to protect their patents but why take 60 years??
Will that increase the sales of Gibby Vs by taking Deans off the market??
Click to expand...

Fender lost their case on March 26, 2009 after trying to restrict the use of the Stratocaster, Telecaster and Precision Bass body shapes.

In the court case, Fender had targeted the "copycat" designs of guitar manufacturers including, Indoor Storm, Ltd., Jim Triggs Guitars, JS Technologies, Inc., Lakland Musical Instruments, LLC, Levinson Musical Products, Ltd., Michael Tobias Design, SR, Peavey Electronics Corporation, Raise Praise, Inc. d/b/a Tom Anderson Guitarworks, Sadowsky Guitars Ltd., Saga Musical Instruments, Schecter Guitar Research, Inc., Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd., The ESP Guitar Company, Tradition Guitars, Inc., U.S. Music Corp., Warmoth Guitar Products, Inc. and WD Music Products, Inc.and many others as infringing its Stratocaster, Telecaster and Precision Bass designs.

Leo filed a patent in 1954. It protected the design for 14 years and it was not renewed in timely fashion. Beginning in 1968, anyone and everyone could copy those designs, and they did.

The ruling stated:

"The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that these configurations are so common in the industry that they cannot identify source. In fact, in the case of the [Stratocaster] body outline, this configuration is so common that it is depicted as a generic electric guitar in a dictionary."
 
Inspector #20 said:
Fender lost their case on March 26, 2009 after trying to restrict the use of the Stratocaster, Telecaster and Precision Bass body shapes.

In the court case, Fender had targeted the "copycat" designs of guitar manufacturers including, Indoor Storm, Ltd., Jim Triggs Guitars, JS Technologies, Inc., Lakland Musical Instruments, LLC, Levinson Musical Products, Ltd., Michael Tobias Design, SR, Peavey Electronics Corporation, Raise Praise, Inc. d/b/a Tom Anderson Guitarworks, Sadowsky Guitars Ltd., Saga Musical Instruments, Schecter Guitar Research, Inc., Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd., The ESP Guitar Company, Tradition Guitars, Inc., U.S. Music Corp., Warmoth Guitar Products, Inc. and WD Music Products, Inc.and many others as infringing its Stratocaster, Telecaster and Precision Bass designs.

Leo filed a patent in 1954. It protected the design for 14 years and it was not renewed in timely fashion. Beginning in 1968, anyone and everyone could copy those designs, and they did.

The ruling stated:

"The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that these configurations are so common in the industry that they cannot identify source. In fact, in the case of the [Stratocaster] body outline, this configuration is so common that it is depicted as a generic electric guitar in a dictionary."
Click to expand...
Ah interesting. There we go. Lazy Leo!!
Seems like a Les Paul would be considered so common as well .
 
Thatbastarddon said:
Personally…I don’t see a problem with the Guild AND the Dean versions of the SG-ish shape. They are variant enough to be fairly unique.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's exactly what I would have thought, too. I agree that the Dean Gran Sport appears variant enough from the SG that it should not have been considered an infringement, but apparently the jury felt differently.

This is what makes me consider the possibility that Gibson may become emboldened to go after the others, even though they may not have previously planned to do so. It's just a guess.

We shall see.
 
gball said:
Its simple really: If these companies would just come up with their own unique designs Gibson wouldn't have to spend so much time and money defending what is theirs.
Click to expand...

Fundamentally, I feel similarly about the creativity aspect.

I'm being a tad hyperbolic, but it seems like every time I hear of some new guitar company that makes "awesome guitars" their product line is just filled with more Telecaster copies. I realize you're speaking specifically about Gibson, but the concept extends to other brands, as well.

Now, in some respects, I actually agree with Gibson in the current suit, particularly the provision prohibiting Dean from marketing anything with the word, "hummingbird", as that is an actual Gibson model name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top