Approximations and THE exact guitar are two different things. The Gibson V and the Dean V are pretty much the same thing besides the headstock and maybe small specs like pickups and stuff. Dean essentially pulled a Vanilla Ice
This needs a #MeToo, like for real.
How long has this been going on? Not the body stealing, im talking the lawsuit. Dean's been doing this for years, so if Gibson has been fighting them legally on it for years, then it's a tit for tat. But if its something that is "just now" a problem, piss on them.
What? The Gibson 58 and the Dean V ARE the same guitar. The shape, pickgaurd design, V tailpiece, etc. Unless you're very familiar with the brands you wouldn't be able to tell them apart unless you saw the headstockIs it the same guitar though? Is a Jackson soloist and an esp m-2 the same guitar? Is a charvel so-cal the same guitar as a strat? Are all smartphones iphones because of their outward appearance?
Is it the same guitar though? Is a Jackson soloist and an esp m-2 the same guitar? Is a charvel so-cal the same guitar as a strat? Are all smartphones iphones because of their outward appearance?
I read it as " Importantly, it was ruled that Gibson is owed $4,000 in “counterfeiting statutory damages per counterfeit trademark (Flying V) per type of goods (Guitar) sold, [or] offered for sale.”The article says; " Importantly, it was ruled that Gibson is owed $4,000 in “counterfeiting statutory damages per counterfeit trademark per type of goods sold, [or] offered for sale.” "
It's $4k per thing they even tried to sell from how I read it. Sounds like they could go bankrupt. The article contradicts itself or maybe it hasn't sunk in to them yet? One of them is wrong.
if anything it forces other manufacturers to not make the same old guitars
Yeah, but to which extent? Granted, V and Explorer shapes are rather unique, but it still begs the question of why the hell a company should have a monopoly on a design like that, especially since they're both 60 years old. But that's just down to American IP laws and views on IP in general.
But the LP shape is just a solid body classical guitar with a cutaway. Gibson has fuck all to do with it. Same goes for Fender - Strat and Tele are both logical derivatives of that shape. That's the real issue - to which extent companies like Gibson can push with this nonsense. Should Ibanez pay tribute to Fender for their RGs?
In any case, I think it's complete bs solely because we all damn know that the logo on the headstock (and the headstock itself) is the most important part of the guitar. Dean logo with a wacky headstock -> completely different from a Gibson Flying V.
Don’t understand the decision as tokai/ burny etc are copies even in the headstock shape for Lp’s…even Vintage V100 etc…less now but it’s still subtle
Fgn changed the upper horn bit it looks more lile the same than deans which have different headstock shapes…
Some brand are easily more attackable than others…
-As for charvel/ strat /jackson they’re the same group ,FMI, so nothing wrong here
Just picking your style classic/rock/metal…and you jave the same guitar but different in look-
So safe to assume when you see those in the US they were pp imported but not legally sold like the ESP lawsuit explorers?
Kinda tired of Gibson sitting on designs and using them as litigation generators instead of competing.
Litigating based on body shape of a guitar because you can't compete on any other level