Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Gibson sends out a warning to copycats


Rabs

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, merciful-evans said:

Thanks Rabs. 

A lot of talk about innovation there 😶

And a lot of the use of the word Iconic..   

And they are an iconic brand..  Everyone knows that, they don't have to keep mentioning it..  Its like someone who wants to be cool telling everyone how cool they are all the time.. Not very cool at all.

Edited by Rabs
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless there has been a landmark court reversal and the USPTO decided to not list their legitimate trademarks of folks then this Mark AGNESI guy is  the

biggest ****ing idiot the planets ever seen and Gibson is in bigger trouble than ever foer hiring him.YOU CANT TRADEMARK A BODY STYLE NEVER HAVE

REPEAT MARK AGNESI IS A ****ING IDIOT YOU CANT TRADEMARK A BODY STYLE

RESEARCH IT PEOPLE 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, kempetonejunkie said:

Unless there has been a landmark court reversal and the USPTO decided to not list their legitimate trademarks of folks then this Mark AGNESI guy is  the

biggest ****ing idiot the planets ever seen and Gibson is in bigger trouble than ever foer hiring him.YOU CANT TRADEMARK A BODY STYLE NEVER HAVE

REPEAT MARK AGNESI IS A ****ING IDIOT YOU CANT TRADEMARK A BODY STYLE

RESEARCH IT PEOPLE 

 

No, you can't trademark a body style, that is true.  What you can register as  service marks and trade marks of your particular guitar/blender/golf club/CPAP machine is the dimensions, tolerances, and proportions.  If people want to make a single cut maple over mahogany body they can, they just can't make a Les Paul.  A Les Paul is...drum roll please...whatever Gibson says it is.

Headstock, script, logo, words, they are all the fully trade/service markable parts of a guitar.  After that the dimensions that make a Les Paul are vaguely negotiable, I don't know what those tolerances are.

So dimension creep has set in, apparently the major guitar makers are getting their knickers tight over people copying a little too close. 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, FZ Fan said:

I love that guy he is such a Greasy D-ouche. Stop taping over the name and give us money and you can use our guitars on TV. 

Thats the part that caught my attention. Sure, go after the counterfeiters, but the guys taping over the logos are usually playing their personal guitars. What's next? Paying royalties to Gibson to perform live with a Les Paul?  You know they would if they could. Shameful.

Edited by RobinTheHood
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://forum.gibson.com/topic/147790-looking-for-all-yalls-feedback-on-my-1st-gibson/

If they are going after this sort of thing linked above, good for them. Or guitar makers who try to pass a forgery as a true original burst. I honestly don’t know if that’s the correct business decision, though.

As for the TV and movies thing, I understood he was they were talking about a tv show or movie, not people performing on tv. A deal regarding brands that show up on tv series and movies can usually be mutually beneficial, like Audi and Iron Man, or Avengers and Acura. 

As for Mark Agnesi, he always looked like that. He used to work for Norman’s Vintage Guitars and had the experience of playing several original bursts, pre-war and post-war vintage Martins, vintage fenders among other things. The dude knows his guitars. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's About Time

While I haven't seen the video, I'm glad that Gibson is becoming more protective.

When imitators make illegal duplicates of not only the shape but the logo as well, that is outright fraud.

Gibson owes it to its customers to protect its reputation;  and yes, Gibson is an iconic brand.

I own many Fenders, Gibsons, and Rickenbacker, but Gibson is my favorite. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rabs said:

I wonder if this is who Gibson is talking about.. Even the headstock shape is similar (naughty naughty)...

 

Oddly enough the peghead 'open-book' profile, similar to the Gibson one but with an added middle bump, is nigh-on 100% identical to that used by Tokai on their Love Rock LP clones.

Tokai should take Harley Benton to court for copyright infringement.........

[laugh]

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They just bought the place.  Two seconds ago they didn't have the right to wear Gibson underwear.  There's no need to run right out and start complaining about all the trouble and responsibilities that have been heaped  on their shoulders all of a sudden.  "Oh Gosh, look at all this counterfeiting!  We didn't know this was coming."  Don't buy the place if you don't like being top dog.  Sheesh.

And the guy on the left in the Harley Benton vid.  I'm not buying from him either, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2019 at 8:54 AM, RobinTheHood said:

Thats the part that caught my attention. Sure, go after the counterfeiters, but the guys taping over the logos are usually playing their personal guitars. What's next? Paying royalties to Gibson to perform live with a Les Paul?  You know they would if they could. Shameful.

 

Why do people consistently, constantly, continually get this wrong?  Logos and brand marks are covered because of the marketing departments of all entertainment production companies making every appearance a product placement.  It has simply winnowed it's way into live television.  They want Gibson, Fender, Martin, ANYBODY to pay them for showing their brand marks, not  the other way around.   Everyone, everywhere, in every way is relentlessly trying to advertise at you, because they make money doing it.  Gibson can pay for product placement or not.  If they don't the company that is producing whatever the form of entertainment is will have the brand marks covered.  This monetization of every single brand mark will probably eventually find it's way into live music venues as they are consumed more and more by large corporate interests.

Coca Cola did the very first paid product placement.  Remember when everything in a movie/television show was some generic thing, like a red and white can with the word BEER on it?  Coke paid for that placement, they didn't get paid.  It has become the standard.

rct

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, badbluesplayer said:

 

This is good stuff.  This is a company trying to overcome archaic, do what we did yesterday laws regarding personally held intellectual property.  This is right up there with copyrighted music infringement and the illegitimate use of art to make other art for profit and so on.  I can't make a Mustang, call it a Rustang, and make money off it.  I can make a car, just not what Ford says is a Mustang.  They are trying to get hardcore definitions of what makes something what the maker says it is.  Of course, doing this stuff while your burning ship is sinking doesn't look good, but hey, at least he tried to get some money to pay the bills on his way out.  Too bad he didn't just pay them, like the rest of us do.

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, rct said:

 

Why do people consistently, constantly, continually get this wrong?  Logos and brand marks are covered because of the marketing departments of all entertainment production companies making every appearance a product placement.  It has simply winnowed it's way into live television.  They want Gibson, Fender, Martin, ANYBODY to pay them for showing their brand marks, not  the other way around.   Everyone, everywhere, in every way is relentlessly trying to advertise at you, because they make money doing it.  Gibson can pay for product placement or not.  If they don't the company that is producing whatever the form of entertainment is will have the brand marks covered.  This monetization of every single brand mark will probably eventually find it's way into live music venues as they are consumed more and more by large corporate interests.

Coca Cola did the very first paid product placement.  Remember when everything in a movie/television show was some generic thing, like a red and white can with the word BEER on it?  Coke paid for that placement, they didn't get paid.  It has become the standard.

rct

That does make more sense, but the way he phrased that comment implies that the taping over the logos is to avoid copyright infringement,  rather than getting free product placement on tv. I mean, that is actually what he said. From Agnesi's mouth to my ears, it's no wonder schlubs like me get that wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, RobinTheHood said:

That does make more sense, but the way he phrased that comment implies that the taping over the logos is to avoid copyright infringement,  rather than getting free product placement on tv. I mean, that is actually what he said. From Agnesi's mouth to my ears, it's no wonder schlubs like me get that wrong. 

 

Desperate times call for desperate measures, that's the only way I can see this.  By his reasoning, everybody would be out covering the logos on their cars in order to avoid "copyright infringement".  Cover the bank logo at the top of the professional sports stadium to avoid "copyright infringement"?  lolz

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
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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...