I disagree. Gibson weildes their rights the same as every other company does. Fender and all the others do the same thing.
I think you misunderstood what I meant by "high profile". I'm not referring to Gibson sending the cease and decist or even the potential legal case that may ensue. I'm referring to the marketing campaign for the guitar and its associated endorser. It's not something that Gibson can say "whoops we missed that one". Because of the high profile nature, they legally had to go after them, big or small or whoever. I don't think it's fair to give them shit for the same thing everyone else does and is required to do.
I don't really give a damn if either side sues one or the other out of business doing this. It's all the capitalism bullshit we live under but its what we have right now. I will have some popcorn too.
I understand your point.
I'd also like to make it clear where I'm coming from:
Yes, absolutely, this is high profile. I wouldn't argue that. It seems like it's pretty close to a direct ripoff too. Not even close to the more frivolous lawsuits they've filed in other high profile cases.
My comment is more in regards to how Gibson tends to be pretty ruthless in how they enforce their trademark rights: it's not actually true that they *have* to enforce their trademark rights like they do. It's a privately owned company; they're not bound to the fiduciary duty to their shareholders by protecting their assets like how a publicly traded company would.
In contrast, Gibson chooses to engage in this way because it perpetuates their control over specific styles of guitars in such a way that prevents others from being able to directly compete. Which...according to US trademark law...is their right.
And yeah, other privately owned companies do the same thing. It's normal, to a certain extent. There's a reason you don't see anybody making anything similar to a Rickenbacker.
It also gets a little crazy, like when Gibson sued the makers of guitar hero for their plastic game controller. This was even though they had a licencing agreement with them. Or when Gibson sued Funko, because apparently slash holding a Gibson could be misinterpreted as an official Gibson-made product? Wild.
Theres other critiques I have. Like when their CEO thought that the best place to have a live interview about how the government was trying to crush business after Gibson got caught with their hand in the cookie jar for their LACI Act violations was...Infowars.
Sure, that was back in 2012. But jeeeeeeezus, guys.
I mean: I own a Gibson. A 1990 Gibson Les Paul Studio Lite. Love it. But, as a company, I would argue that they've carried themselves poorly in the public space. Which is why I'm not particularly rooting for them in this case, even if the other side is as scammy as the sky is blue.
I swear to God, though, anybody else starts drawing stick figures on guitar pedals I WILL COME FOR YOU.
consequence.net
