Is it illegal to have a gibson headstock on an epiphone guitar?

[aybigman]

Hey guys,

 

I am considering buying a second hand les paul epiphone guitar with a modified gibson headstock. It seems to have the correct, shape, text, 2 pin bell truss cover, embossed 'serial' and 'Made in USA' on the reverse. Has anyone seen one of these guitars before? Would you recommend buying one? For £200 inc hardcase?

 

I have been told it may perhaps be a 70's japanese copy.

 

Thanks for your help

Steve

[Ricochet]

I can't see why as long as it's sold as "a modified Epiphone".

[antwhi2001]

I bought one, a black beauty with trem, from a UK e-bay seller. I sold it on a few months ago because I needed the money (car trouble). When he sold it he implied it was an old Jap lawsuit guitar, but it turned out to be a very skillfully modified new Chinese Epi. I had no complaints at that price, wish I could have kept it but one guitar had to go. £200 for a good LP copy plus hardcase sounds good, and it ain't illegal to buy and own one.

[zombywoof]

Not sure if you are talking about a stock Epi that was designed with a more Gibson-like headstock (I have never actually seen one like that but again, I ain't no expert on Epi Lesters), an Epi that has been modified by an individual or a bogus Epi.

 

Headstock shapes are a whole can of worms. I do not think the Gibson headstock shape is trademarked but in 1977, Norlin did file a suit against Ibanez claiming trademark infringment based on their very Gibson-like headstock design. Ibanez actually had changed the design before the suit came to court and settled out of court.

 

Small builders like Anderson have become very wary of copying headstock designs. Virtually all of the builders basing their guitars on Fenders have have stopped using exact headstock clones to stay out of trouble.

 

I doubt though that Gibson would care about one altered guitar which did not have a counterfeit Gibson logo on it. As long as their is no intent to pass the guitar off as a Gibson it would probably be no problem. In my opinion, though even if it is something like a genuine Epi with an altered headstock it would actually lessen the value of the guitar.

[dubstar]

"I have been told it may perhaps be a 70's japanese copy."

 

as others have pointed out here, I am 99% there were no epiphone LPs produced before the 1990s, modified headstock or not...

[dubstar]

"I have been told it may perhaps be a 70's japanese copy."

 

as others have pointed out here, I am 99% certain there were no epiphone LPs produced before the 1990s, modified headstock or not...

[antwhi2001]

This is the one I sold recently. A really professional job.

 

 

 

[charlie brown]

I'm no lawyer or copywrite expert, but...it seems to me, unless it was authorized by Gibson (as in the case of the Gibson

headstock shapes on MIJ Epiphones, last produced in 2006, under license from Gibson, to be sold only in Japan, and with

"Epiphone" clearly inlayed/branded) it would be (at the very least) a copywrite infringement, OR...at the other end of the

scale, Fraud! So, just to be safe, I'd leave well enough alone! We complain about "Fakes," and yet some who do, still

buy them, because they're cheap, or for the novelty. Which, of course, just fuels the "Fakes" industry. Can't blame the

producers, if there's a market, and besides..."Ethics" start at home!...IMHO.

 

CB

[joeymetro]

I'd rather own a real Epi than a fake Gib!

I wouldn't be surprised if being in possession of counter fit stuff might be a crime.

[Ron G]

You just have to be aware that the Guitar Police will hunt you down, confiscate the guitar,

your house and car, and cut your fingertips off.

 

Friends don't let friends play fakes.

[carverman]

I'm no lawyer or copywrite expert' date=' but...it seems to me, unless it was authorized by Gibson (as in the case of the Gibson

headstock shapes on MIJ Epiphones, last produced in 2006, under license from Gibson, to be sold only in Japan, and with

"Epiphone" clearly inlayed/branded) it would be (at the very least) a copywrite infringement, OR...at the other end of the

scale, Fraud! So, just to be safe, I'd leave well enough alone! We complain about "Fakes," and yet some who do, still

buy them, because they're cheap, or for the novelty. Which, of course, just fuels the "Fakes" industry. Can't blame the

producers, if there's a market, and besides..."Ethics" start at home!...IMHO.

 

CB[/quote']

 

AFAIK, if more than one is produced, Gibson could go after the individual or company

for trademark violations..like the headstock shape which could confuse potential

buyers.

 

AFAIK, you can (still) "copy" the headstock shape and "open book" design for

your own use. Selling it as a Gibson may be another matter entirely, Gibson may

not feel it's worth their while to come after you, but the potential buyer, unless

he is fully aware, of the "rebranding" may come back at you.

 

The same is true of the Gibson "bell" trc which is unique, and maybe some of

their proprietary headstock emblems and tailpieces.

 

When I was touring the Gibson Memphis factory, the guide mentioned that

the headstock design is a Gibson exclusive trademark, but the LP shape isn't.

 

Counterfeit guitars are another matter entirely.

 

here's a link to the results of the Gibson/PRS lawsuit that was reversed in

appellate court.

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4183/is_20050915/ai_n15354695

[charlie brown]

I refuse to buy "Fake" anything (knowingly, anyway)! It's just not worth it, to me. I'd rather have a

less than "top of the line" original, than a "top of the line" fake, any day! There's enough problems keeping

originals up to par, quality wise, without getting into having to worry about "Fakes!" At least with originals,

you have some recourse, if something does go wrong. With Fakes/Counterfeits, you're on your own! And,

for me at least, it IS an ethics thing. But, I am well aware, that not everyone feels that way. ;>b

 

CB