GIBSON WINS Dean Guitars Lawsuit.... Or Did They?

[@BenAck912]

Gibson: "We expect $7,000,000." Court: "You will receive $4,000." Guitarist: "(Plays a dive bomb.)"

[@floridianthrasher5426]

Obviously with a dean not a Gibson because Gibson charges $1000 per modification

[@luminousbrilliance1711]

On a Digitech Whammy Pedal! LOL

[@dylanw3875]

dime squeal :)

[@phanthepanda5079]

Dean: Harmonic Dive

[@captainbuck5969]

Funny

[@thoughtsbeforesleep]

I'm worried that Gibson could use this to sue smaller companies that don't have money for court battles. I don't want to live in a world where my only options for a V or SG shaped guitar are from Gibson.

[@tommytee3185]

there's the point that this is legal precedent in the usa, and that gibson's court endeavours elsewhere in the world isn't as successful, so you might be able to at least get yourself a V or SG from other countries, at least.

[@thoughtsbeforesleep]

@Jeff Lee I know they've filed many lawsuits against companies of all sizes. The point here is this sets a precedent that could give them leverage they didn't have before.

[@JorgeCastillo-yd5jx]

That’s not gonna happen, because believe it or not guitar companies work together as business partners to get a fair share of wood supply for everyone and they even share ideas with each other. The whole reason for this lawsuit was because after the ceo of dean passed, his son took over and started going against the connections his dad had made, that’s the reason almost every endorser left the company(GuitarMaxx made a video about it). Basically he thought he owned the world and Gibson didn’t put up with that, aside from their play authentic drama.

[@samright4661]

Stop Stealing Gibson designs. Simple fix

[@CaptainCraigKWMRZ]

Don't worry, it will take them another sixty years.

[@Chord_The_Seeker]

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, I can’t remember how many times I’ve walked into a guitar store to buy a Gibson, but walked out with a Dean by mistake. I hope that this court ruling will prevent such tragedies in the future.

[@Newnodrogbob]

Right?

[@michaelballard4095]

Lol

[@TrickyTrav967]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@Tijuanabill]

lol

[@D.Guitar]

Lmao. Lol right?!

[@kennyjohnson336]

In what world did Dean ever sell what would fit the legal definition of counterfeiting ? Copyright infringement and counterfeiting are 2 very different things.

[@enonknives5449]

It can't be counterfeiting unless they tried to pass of their guitars as actual Gibsons. Lawyers don't care about the law, and neither do judges.

[@c.f.pedraza4057]

@@enonknives5449 yeah, they just see comparisons and that's what Gibson knew they would do.

[@Stefan-]

Yeah, its not counterfeiting, Dean didnt put Gibson on the headstock, the headstock on the V doesnt look anything like the Gibson headstock, they didnt name them "Flying V" just V and even though tthe V guitars share the same general shape the look with flametops, no pickguard etc made them something that Gibson usually didnt offer which is why i went to Dean for my V´s instead of Gibson. Dean didnt make carbon coupies of the flying V, they made their version of the classic flying V.

[@Jester-Riddle]

The legal issue was about counterfeiting the guitar shapes, rather than the complete guitars ...

[@Chuck-Bob]

@@Jester-Riddle You shouldn't be able to copyright a shape as common as a letter of the alphabet, a square, a circle, etc. Terrible ruling.

[@BenjaminWoods]

Max, I'm diggin your guitar videos brother! Informative, thorough and inspiring, all while being yourself and not doing some fake comedy schtick for subs. I subscribed long ago. Keep it up brother! Play Authentic (kidding haha)

[@PhilipCockram]

Gibson lost way more than $ 4000 in reputation for this frivolous and ridiculous lawsuit .

[@PhilipCockram]

@Bullets ForTeeth Gibson removed that vid , I think . I ripped on it too and made a vid about the the one where they ran excavators over hundreds of brand new Firebird X models rather than sell them cheap or give them away to poor kids or charity . They could have used the opportunity to boost their terrible customer relations reputation but they chose to destroy them instead .SMH .

[@lostreb]

@Bullets ForTeeth That Lame-@$$ video is what totally turned me against Gibson and everything that Gibson is associated with (Including Epiphone, I'm sorry to say, because Epiphone is much better Bang For The Buck!!!) and vowed (and still vow) to never purchase another product under the Gibson Umbrella!!! Great Comment!!!!

[@lostreb]

@@PhilipCockram Great Comment!!!!

[@mikeg.9238]

Plus Gibsons are ridiculously overpriced , they haven't done anything innovating in decades. They are just riding on there name. I'll never waste my money on them , i can get a better quality Epiphone , Schecter or Ibanez for a fraction of their prices!

[@idiotburns]

GAINED MORE, mad respect from me a patent holder for creating president in protecting my trademark shapes, even if it takes me forty years to pursue legally

[@BazonBlades]

I've only owned one Gibson guitar in over 35 years of playing. It was a custom shop LP Custom silver burst. And it was a clunky, shoddily made POS that I couldn't get rid of fast enough. I will never own another Gibson product of any kind. Perhaps Gibson should concentrate on improving the quality of their product rather than attacking companies that make a better mousetrap.

[@Chuck-Bob]

And there's the winning answer, folks. If Gibson would focus on quality, stop the price-gouging, and quit trying to win customers in court they might sell more guitars and not need lawsuit money. Can't wait until they go under and get sold again.

[@MikeSmith-ey7ku]

I have a les Paul and every time I think I’m gonna sell it(I play cheaper guitars live) I look it up on eBay and the price has gone up, then I play it and go “yeah I’ll just hang on to that” love it,not as playable as copies but there is something there,can’t help it.

[@karterdowd606]

To be fair dean guitars are also shit. Every time I play one I instantly hate it. Not saying they’re guitars are any worse than Gibsons, but Dean guitars certainty aren’t paoletti hand crafted Italian guitars.

[@PanzerAce760]

Always been a fender guy myself and couldn't understand why people dick ride gibsons. I think they see famous musicians using 1950s and 60s era guitars beyond the reach of most.

[@MrPopel-hc8fn]

but which guitar brand doesnt "infringe" upon gibson trademark? there are many more brands that have explorer, les paul, flying v, etc. guitars. what will gibson do about them?

[@SA8TER21]

Well I know in alot of EU places the governments have just told them to stop being so butthurt. Gibson will send out a S&D to every company that has pretty much any shape that is like a single cut out there.

[@MrPopel-hc8fn]

@@SA8TER21 lmao

[@mr.astrophysics9115]

First off Gibson has not invented a lot of they have claimed

[@mr.astrophysics9115]

How many of you actually know the history between Epiphone and Les Paul? Les Paul laid the ground work for the future Gibson Les Paul in the Epiphone factory 1940 - 41 the Log a decade before McCarty and Gibson got involved with anything with Les Paul Les Paul never left Epiphone he continued while he was with Gibson..here's a quote from Les Paul I may be with Gibson now but I'll always be a Epiphone man..

[@lostreb]

@@mr.astrophysics9115 Very informative!!!! Thank you for the fantastic comment!!!!

[@bradfordjeff]

Because Gibson did not defend their trademark when the Dean copies first came into the market, Gibson cannot come back decades later and claim decades worth of damages.

[@dbspecials1200]

Correct. the award may have been much bigger if they had filed much sooner. but it's also bad if Gibson has to keep paying legal fees to sue offenders, but never get monetary damages. they should protect their brand but they can't wait so long to do so.

[@cromBumny]

Like Dean has a ton of money to give

[@c.f.pedraza4057]

@@cromBumny 🤣. I don't doubt that Dean doesn't have much longer.

[@JorgeCastillo-yd5jx]

The whole reason for the lawsuit was because the son took over the company and he broke all business connections with their endorsed artists and other guitar companies. The new owner of Dean basically didn’t care about what relationships his dad created in the industry so everyone took him against him, and this was the right time to screw him over by Gibson.

[@SunaKhei93]

@@JorgeCastillo-yd5jx Yeah, Guitar MAX also talked about it in one of his videos.

[@lostreb]

Thank you for covering this the way you have in the past as well as this one. I've stated before that Gibson totally alienated me by how they've handled anything and everything about this particular lawsuit to the point, I will never own another Gibson. I've been playing Fender Strats since I started playing in 1962. I have one Gibson Les Paul, and that's all I'll ever need (because I managed to become one of the many of the "I have to have at least one Les Paul" group). I'm ecstatic that Dean's "punishment" is having to pay the minimal amount of $ 4,000 to Gibson. Is the only true winner in this Gibson vs Dean lawsuit actually the attorneys and legal teams!?!?!?!? They appear to be the ones seeing financial gains. (Just because that's my opinion doesn't mean it's everyone's.) Thank you for another great and informative video, Max. Please keep them coming!!!

[@thebaldshredder]

The money is insignificant. The court DECISION that Gibson owns those shapes (trademarks) has the potential to be huge. I see the following as an extremely realistic result: Gibson sends cease and desist letters to any and all companies making those shapes (like Firefly for instance). Think of how many budget level guitar companies make Flying V, Explorer, and Les Paul shaped guitars. And if those companies continue to sell them, Gibson can then sue under the premise that they were made aware of the trademark, asked to stop, but didn't. I could see the court awarding a much larger penalty for that now. This could be the end of cheap versions of the classic Gibson shapes. But what do I know? 😄

[@ziggylayneable]

I purchase cheap guitars like this that you're talking about of these shapes on a regular basis every month and I am absolutely worried about the same thing you're talking about here you are right my friend!

[@kazzTrismus]

the changes required to avoid future lawsuits will not really be very major and will probably cause a lot of very needed innovation.... beveled edges steps and offsets, curved backs modified bottom bout diameters etc etc.....my hope is that it shakes things up and kills the stagnation that has happened over the last 30 years. they didnt win on just the silhouette of the shape (which is also a flimsy case especially in USA) i expect a pause or plateau for off brands till the courts further burn off the ants gibson has in their pants.

[@Tijuanabill]

I agree. It's 100% about the ability to issue a cease and desist, that has some actual weight behind it.

[@D.Guitar]

Yeah. That would totally suck

[@lostreb]

I have been attempting to leave a message for Max that I reported the scammer, but since I mentioned the name in my reply, I think it's been deleted. Thank you all for patience and understanding that I did want to inform Max that the Scammer / Impersonator has been reported to KZbin. Hopefully it will be gone by the time everyone reads this, and if it's disappeared, so will this comment. Thank you again, everyone.

[@Tijuanabill]

There is also copyright law that says you can lose your trademark, if you knowingly permit it's infringement. Blizzard Games sued a counterfeit company running Warcraft servers, even though that company wasn't really making any money, and had no full time employees. They did it to preserve their intellectual property status as copyrighted, not necessarily because they were getting ripped off of that much money.

[@lostreb]

That's good information. (Not that I have any clue what to do with it, but still it's good information.) Thank you. Great Comment!!!

[@raywideman7157]

Ok, that makes much more sense.

[@donttalktome4696]

Thanks for making a condensed video explaining this!

[@Loilicorne17615]

When I first heard that Gibson was suing Dean, I imagined some real dark stuff. But the more I read, the more ridiculous it got, like come on man. Like imagine Fender suing every guitar company in the world because they have guitar models resembling a strat.

[@eriktheredd6036]

I bought a brand new Dean V in May, 2022, and I really like it. Cheaper model, no Floyd Rose, no Mustaine paint, but I still love it. The binding is beautiful and the pickups are great. Fuck Gibson and their ball-baby bullshit.

[@ericblaisdell7987]

I think Dean should pay Gibson with 400,000 pennys. As a Gibson guitar owner I find these lawsuits embarrassing. IMHO if it doesn't say Gibson on the headstock it's not a Gibson, afterall name recognition and resale value are why Gibsons are so expensive. Sure as shit isn't top notch quality control.

[@AtariForeva]

Lawyers won a ton. they can buy themselves a lawyer guitar something like Les Paul custom R9. Goes well with custom flamed maple office desk wood and the library shelving.

[@craigrheberling]

cynical, but factual-lol

[@Eric-dd8bk]

Which is all they are good for. Decoration and nothing else. lol

[@Johnsormani]

more likely an original '59 les paul looking at there hour rates

[@kimthompson5871]

It’s pretty obvious the judgement was so low in order to keep Gibson from doing this on a larger scale to small guitar builders . They could literally start attacking a ton of guitar builders with lawsuits . Gibson showing it’s greed instead of trying to fix what’s been wrong with the company for years ! Great video Max !

[@evanrubinson6126]

Thanks for the video. Pending any appeal by Gibson or post-trial briefing that can always change the landscape, Dean Guitars will be the only other company in the USA continuing to build our Dean V, Dean Z & Evo headstock, as no trademark liability was found on those shapes / designs.

[@jamesduckworth9117]

I guess the big question is, can Dean still produce their guitars?

[@danieljones8706]

Probably not, but IMO the ML is a severely underrated design.

[@lostreb]

Follow-Up on your question...Can they still sell their existing inventory?? If not? Can they donate them to beginning students instead of being forced to "DESTROY" Great Guitars with fantastic wood(s)??? If they have to destroy them, perhaps we need to find a way to get the Environmentalists involved!!!! That might have the potential of not only saving perfect guitar, but in addition to that, continually tying up Gibson in the legal system for how long!?!?!?!?! Great Question / Comment!!!!

[@MaestroJericho]

I could see the V and Explorer shapes be destroyed

[@lostreb]

@@MaestroJericho I'm not happy about your reply, but, I do thank you for it. I just would really not like to see guitars destroyed instead of "Repurposed" at "no profit!!!!" If that makes sense. I mean, it isn't like I'm asking for someone to profit. I just do not want to see guitars destroyed!!! Thank you for your comment.

[@rowdyjohnson6026]

@@danieljones8706 ya gotta look up what UNDER rated means. The ML is the most used, recognizeable and desired guitar in thier line-up by far.

[@nickyd9361]

Appauling act by Gibson. & i say that as a long time Gibby player, & i don't really see myself buying a new Gibson again. Had the lawsuit happened here, Gibson would've lost due to the fact that they ignored it for decades, that on its own is saying that they don't mind that similar body shapes exists at Dean's lineup of models. Well, Chibsons & Harley Bentons it is, & Dean. 😅

[@malcolmhardwick4258]

They spend all their money on law suits rather than focusing in on making a better guitar you would want to buy over another brand.

[@nickyd9361]

@@malcolmhardwick4258 & the overly pricey models that only rich people can buy that never makes it to any shop, which you have to be on speaking terms with Gibson to be able to at all....

[@hogie1259]

@@nickyd9361 kinda like Dean’s USA Custom Shop guitars? They’re unobtainium . Seen the prices of those? Some of them make a Gibson R9 look like a bargain bin buy. Let’s not even talk about Dean’s USA line prices. All of them are at a minimum, 1K more than Gibson’s USA Line.

[@nickyd9361]

@@hogie1259 Gibson has a custom shop, however, if you're rich enough, you can go above the custom shop.

[@Chuck-Bob]

@@hogie1259 Buy a guitar from Dean, himself, instead of the bozos who've let the company slide. He's making gorgeous guitars and none of them are that out of range.

[@mburtondavis]

My opinion is that the shape might be similar but, they are 2 completely different guitars. I don’t think one person was like “I want a Gibson “ and bought a Dean instead. But, LTD on the other hand….

[@lachairamusic]

I was in that camp until I saw the old original splittail Gibson explorers... which actually look damn similar to the Dean Z

[@musicauthority3516]

There's another person in the comment section. their screen name is Chord theSeeker. that said he walked into a music store looking to buy a Gibson. and walked out with a Dean guitar by mistake. check it out for yourself.

[@DocRoc94]

@@musicauthority3516 he actually said he has never done that. it was a joke implying that the two brands are very different, incredibly distinguishable and it is very unlikely that anyone has ever walked out of a guitar store with a Dean they thought was a Gibson............

[@musicauthority3516]

@@DocRoc94 I guess you would have to ask him about that. I can't answer for him. but I know for sure I wouldn't mistake a Dean for a Gibson.

[@DocRoc94]

@@musicauthority3516 No. his comment is extremely clear and requires no further clarification. Go read it.

[@vincentp149]

Gibson should create licensing agreements for those shapes with the various manufacturers. Then they get a piece of all of those other sales going forward.

[@RichardGutierrezRG]

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that future lawsuits may give other companies only a small reward in court. Gibson had lost a similar lawsuit to PRS...with this ruling, Gibson wins and as they continue with future lawsuits, if Gibson and/or Fender can sway other decisions based on body shape, they can ultimately win the guitar wars. If they can retroactively show that body shapes could not be trademarked or defended in court at the time and that they should have been able to sue as companies can with headstock shapes, Gibson/Fender can, like Floyd Rose, receive royalties for body shape based on their designs. Dean is also being sued by Dimebag Darrell's wife/estate for fraudulent patent filings of the 'shape' of the body/design. Why wouldn't companies like Gibson and Fender leverage the market if 'body design' can be argued and won? Crazy stuff, love your channel, keep up the great videos!

[@leftyo9589]

4 grand will cover 1 lunch for their lawyers. thats the judges way of saying get F'd.

[@ForcingLaughterFakingSmiles]

The outcome of the lawsuit would've fit well into an episode of Metalocalypse.

[@Afurthyclays]

The Gibson & Dean V shapes are not identical, though. The shoulders of the Gibson V slope down, near the 22nd fret. The Dean V's shoulders are just a bit wider. A very small, but significant difference. I guess that didn't matter though, in the long run. 🤷‍♂️

[@larryjenks31]

The "big win" for Gibson was the judgment that Gibson's body shapes were not generic, which presumably prevents trademark challenges down the road for Gibson. What this means for the guitar consuming public is that Gibson will continue to litigate themselves into a deeper financial and public-relations hole, thus passing on those costs to the consumer by further reducing the quality of their guitars. This is the corporate mindset in all its tortured glory. Sometimes it's better to resist the impulse to talk someone off the ledge and just let 'em jump.

[@dowadiddy2002]

Please bear with me here. I hope we can all agree and remember, first and last, that copyright and trademark laws protect small businesses and individual entrepreneurs as much as they do large businesses. They protect original ideas, creativity, innovation, a lot of very hard work, and intellectual property. It is absolutely essential to have these copyright and trademark laws, and they must be enforced. They benefit consumers because they protect the rewards of product innovation and differentiation. What incentive would anyone have to create and innovate if the monetary benefit could simply essentially be stolen from the creator without any repurcussions? That would obviously be insane. You can't have a market like that. HOWEVER, that said, looking at this particular issue, as I understand it other courts have essentially ruled that very common Gibson and Fender body shapes that have been used by other companies for decades without challenge (as was the case here) and which now account for large portions of their business can continue to be used as long as there are some clear differences in the overall instrument. For example, they certainly can't use the Gibson or Fender logo or one that is virtually identical. The headstock should be different. There should be other small differences. Note, for example, that the Firefly Flying V is a bit offset, as is their SG type guitar. There are other differences as well. What I see happening is that companies will continue to use these common body shapes but will also continue to make sure to include enough differences that successful lawsuits against them will be difficult, or, at most, they may be required to pay a licensing fee. But companies like Harley Benton, Firefly, Wolf/AIO, and countless others are not going to stop using these very common body shapes and will not be forced to do so, nor should they be. Both Fender and Gibson did not challenge other companies for using the common body shapes for extremely long periods of time. That changes the ball game, and the courts have properly said so. Companies can not, after such huge periods of time, now be expected to halt their use of those body shapes given they account for so much of their business. Considering ALL the court rulings, I don't see that happening at all. The main thing is for companies to continue to include plenty of differences between their models and actual Gibsons and Fenders, and I see these companies already doing that for the most part.

[@davidkastin4240]

Gibson may have won the battle but they lost the war.

[@texacomann]

They lost all sympathies!

[@MybeautifulandamazingPrincess]

@@texacomann No they didn't, people like you already hated Gibson before. So disingenuous

[@ithemba]

Dean's Vs with their weird ass Metal looking headstocks became a whole lot more attractive to me in the process of this whole debacle.

[@fifis677]

This is probably why PRS and John Mayer changed their Silver Sky up just a tad from Fender's Stratocaster. I know John said he wanted to make it different for other reasons (not stated here), but I'm sure that was a thought they had as well.

[@relaxlibrary1088]

Hi Max Awesomw video , Question so does it mean Dean Guitars will continue to make the same guitars again that they were sued for or will they have to just modify their guitars a fraction . ?

[@worgothcgd]

I only see similarities in Deans' designs to Gibson. But as far as actual duplications, that is a big fat "No." I never want to see Dean Guitars ever go away. I love what they design.

[@kobrien6657]

So Gibson will get back enough money to buy 1/2 of one of their poorly assembled custom shop guitars😂. Science forbid they put their efforts into fixing ACTUAL issues with the company rather than stupid lawsuits.

[@StackBundle]

"Science forbid" is so cringey lmao.

[@whiteve1n890]

science forbid bruh

[@leonardskinerd7758]

I think it's a South Park reference. Science be praised!

[@D.Guitar]

I agree bro. Gibson would be MUCH Better off putting their resources into quality control if they are going to charge those prices

[@kobrien6657]

@@StackBundle I don't believe in 'invisible sky daddy', so that's how I say it😁

[@OpenRoader]

I would be interested in knowing the full history of how we got here with the Flying V. I know it was a weird late 50's design/prototype thing that went into production for a while, then went out of production (??) then back into production (re-issue??) then copied by Dean and many others, then the lawsuit. When did the V headstock come into play? What does this lawsuit mean for all the other V makers of other V designs like the Rhoades V or the King V or even Vinny Vincent double V? When did Dean start making V's? The first time I remember seeing one was when Rik Emmett of TRIUMPH was playing one at the '83 Us Festival and I got a Dean brochure featuring a blonde unpainted Dean V with V headstock. Loved that thing!

[@Diggerdog2nd]

Maybe I'm just forgetting but I don't remember ever seeing an SG style Dean. Am I wrong ? I am glad it turned out like this. I love my Gibson's & I love my Dean's. I want to see both of them do well.

[@donttalktome4696]

They made a weird "esp viper-esque" guitar in the early/mid 2000s.

[@buddehaole]

Dean has the Gran Sport which looks like an SG.

[@tytantyphlosion2910]

The jury should’ve been comprised of guitarists

[@popebryanii7224]

I'm glad they didn't lose the dean v, I love that model along with the z.

[@jstewardjr]

I think this brings up more questions than answers in this legal fight.

[@thorinbane]

I believe the future lawsuits will jave impact. I feel the reason for the small sum is because of the time it took gibson to make a claim agaisnt dean. So really going forward gibson will be more sue happy to make sure they dont let another company establish a long term branding without being brought to court on copyright infringements. Lets hope ip laws soon get revised to something much more reasoanble than 95 years! I think half a century seems more than enough time to make a fortune on a good idea and even that is too long.

[@musicauthority3516]

I don't see future lawsuits from Gibson. for the simple fact that this lawsuit established their claim to their body shapes. and their not likely to sue anyone else for a meer four grand. it probably costs them more than that for court costs and attorney fees. and they got what they wanted anyway. and that is the exclusive right to their body shapes. as far as the lawsuits go it would cost them more than it's worth to go after something that is already established.

[@corneliuscrewe677]

You could almost buy a Custom Shop Les Paul with that settlement.....almost.....

[@JimDibb]

I've got a DOA-2006 Z blueburst. It's a great guitar. Binding and neck are great, feels excellent. Just ordered a cousin to it, the Tagliare. Fully expecting it to be an excellent step up. Glad to hear how this lawsuit came out in general.

[@greekfreak1980]

Keep in mind that Gibson lost their lawsuit against PRS over the SC245/ Tremonti models at the Supreme Court and also lost their lawsuit against Warwick/Framus over their Flying V model, at the European Court (which is the EU's equivalent of the Supreme Court).

[@stevewehner9540]

It makes me wonder how this will apply to companies that make it their business to copy Gibson and Fender.

[@zakofrx]

They need to licence the deigns and pay a fee or they need to come up with their own designs.. If people will only buy their guitars thst are copies of Gibson's etc.. Then it shows that Gibson's designs are worth money.. They also save by not having to pay huge amounts of money to musicians for advertising deals etc.. Like Gibson while still selling guitars becsue they look like XXX famous persons guitar but much cheaper than the proper Gibson one..

[@russdesaulniers3112]

Gibson conveniently forgets the Jimi Hendrix 'Strat' that they built.

[@wadeguidry6675]

I thought counterfeiting involved copying everything including the brand logo onto a product.

[@luciasabrinadimaria614]

I own a Dean Doubleneck. Very well put together...

[@TheStrykerProject]

I appreciate the breakdown, Max. So, US companies need to 'obtain license' (to give Gibson a kickback, if they'll let them) to create & sell these guitar styles, but non-US companies are unaffected...right? Other companies, like HB, are cornering the market with reasonably priced guitars, with good enough quality, that it doesn't really matter, imo.

[@1COMIXMAN]

Yep that's what I think too. A design use fee. So even if Gibson don't use the v shape much anymore they can still make money from it. I mean honestly who's gonna fork out a shit ton of money for a boring looking Gibson v or a medium priced dimebag v. I'm betting more people go for the dimebag v styles. So iconic for the metal scene.

[@davidburke2132]

It’s not just where they are made… it’s where they are sold. Overseas companies now have a problem selling into the US market with these shapes.

[@forton615]

@@davidburke2132 Correct, you can't import counterfeit goods.

[@zakofrx]

China may allow their companies to ignore trademarks but it doesn't means they can be sold outside of China... That's why imports are checked at the border (and after) with the copies destroyed..

[@TheStrykerProject]

@@zakofrx Thanks for the info - I was unaware of that procedure.

[@666pinkster]

The outcome settled for "a grain of barley", an insignificant amount as a token. Gibson did not vigorously protect their trademarked shapes for DECADES. This case is for all intents like the 70's "lawsuit" in a way. Gibson previously lost on everything but the open book headstock if memory serves.

[@clintwhite4372]

I understand Gibson wants to protect their brand. But I feel like there has to be a time limit on these types of trade marks or guitar body/head stock shape IP protections. I feel like after 50-75 yrs, it should become public domain. Or something similar. I mean I don't agree with what I consider to be actual counterfeits. Like someone making a guitar and passing it off as another companies product. But we need more companies making good guitars. And we do have a lot of new over-seas companies doing small batch low price stuff, like what gets featured on this channel. And that's great. But admitting something is classic. or Vintage or Heritage, whatever the verbiage is, kind of is an admittance of the fact that the shape/headstock or feel of the guitar is something that is pretty much already in the public domain from a certain point of view. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the anti-capitalist in me is on the wrong side of this dispute. Just my 2 cents.

[@minkorrh]

The ONLY thing Gibson has anymore is 'Les Paul'. If that's what they're resting their laurels on, they deserve to be bankrupt. I certainly wouldn't buy any of the other lame looking, outdated offers that they attempt to sell. I personally have zero issue with fakes as long as they're advertised as such. Gibson has been fending off better manufacturers for years now, holding on to their precious, outdated little Les Paul, while other builders have moved on and actually created entire, profitable companies with their own designs of better quality.

[@AuntAlnico4]

I'm pretty sure that is the amount of years they are allowed under copy right trademarks.

[@Shikrar89]

While yes these things do have a time limit. You can also apply for an extension of a copyright. Basically, so long as they do the paper work and do crap like this when "needed", they can keep saying it's theirs. Though, I do agree that a lot of this is either unfounded or not worth going after given the time frame in question.

[@davidburke2132]

@@AuntAlnico4 don’t get the two confused. Copyright and trademark are two different things. There is no such thing as “copyright trademark”. Copyrights do typically expire… trademarks never do (so long as you adequately protect and defend them).

[@davidburke2132]

This argument is like saying there should be a time limit on how long Coca-Cola have exclusive rights to their logo, at which point any company who wants to can mimic it, copy it and appropriate it with impunity. It makes no sense. Companies largely maintain their success through trademarks of one form or another, and to set a time limit on how long a trademark can last for is essentially setting an artificial and arbitrary time limit for a company’s success. I’d also add that what we need is more companies making good, ORIGINAL, guitars. We don’t need more and more companies making good copies just because it’s the safe option for them and Fender and Gibson haven’t defended their iconic shapes adequately over the years. This leads to a reduction in real choice for the consumer, and is precisely why so many of the electric guitars on the market these days (from a plethora of different manufacturers) are shaped like the iconic fifties and sixties designs of Fender and Gibson.

[@Chuck-Bob]

That's ridiculous.The V? Its a V. lol. I'm gonna go copyright the circle and the letter T. I'd give em the Explorer and the SG, but that's as far as that shoulda gone.

[@Mr3DBob]

2:40. Yeah, I can see that - hardly any difference at all in those two headstocks. :)

[@keithsmith9889]

I really don't think any of this would be an issue if Gibson's quality matched the price 🤔

[@Cautionary_Tale_Harris]

Was Gibson allowing Dean to manufacture, market, distribute, and sell "trademarked" Gibson guitars all the while planning to sue when the money got right? Hmm...

[@dirtydanthesecretsauceman8519]

Doubt it. My guess is that old management was ok with dean and new management wasn’t. Gibson has traded hands a ton. I don’t think the lawsuit was in any way bogus or that there was some big malicious plan from Gibson. If that were the case than Gibson would sue dean at the peak of its popularity.

[@davidburke2132]

No.

[@nickteele169]

I think the court saw that technically gibson is correct and gave them the win but I think they saw the timing of their lawsuit wasn't a coincidence with gibson not doing well as a company. I hope dean comes out ok after their artist and dime issues. But there's always new upcoming artists and if they embrace a new slew of artists they can come out better off.

[@PAINFOOL13]

Max have you ever reviewed one of Dran Zalinskys guitatrs

[@hiitsme9042]

so what happens to the dean guitars in the shops - and in their warehouses. is it legal to sell them now.

[@Diggerdog2nd]

Sounds like they can.

[@metalraff]

It says “counterfeiting statutory damages per counterfeit trademark per type of goods sold, [or] offered for sale.” That’s not the full amount, it is *per* type sold. That very well could add up to millions. Also, within the U.S. if Gibson sends a C & D notice, they could be owed by anyone making/selling those bodies in the U.S.

[@jonniegibbins]

Per type, not per unit. There were only a few types - the V, LP, Explorer etc, so there's no chance it would reach $50,000 let alone a million :-)

[@Santacroce73]

Great info and breakdown. Thanks for this!

[@hairnation68]

Sounds like the judge used the settlement amount to discourage Gibson from filing more lawsuits. I’m sure the lawyers cost was far more.

[@johnfletcher84]

how can you put a patent on a shape?

[@kevincrozier8625]

So, if this is the case that Dean infringed on the V and other body shapes, does this mean that other companies like Ibanez, ESP, Jackson, Hamer, and anybody else that makes a V or Explorer type guitar could be sued also? I still have a problem with Gibson even suing Dean over this as there are enough differences between their guitars and Gibson's. And I really don't understand how the jury could vote this way. The headstock of the Dean is completely different than any Gibson. And if Gibson decided to use that kind of headstock, will Dean be able to sue Gibson and get the same result? I don't understand how Gibson only goes after Dean, and not any of these other companies that make those guitar shapes? If you go after Dean, then I would think you would go after ANYBODY making a V guitar. Seems kinda hinky to me.

[@app6336]

I totally agree

[@PastelComGini]

I don't think that a V type or explorer type would be a problem, but the exact same shape.

[@zakofrx]

The other companies may be paying royalties to use the design etc.. Just like how their are heaps of Floyd Rose Bridges made by differnt companies of many prices and standards.. But the Original company and designer gets a piece of every sale no mater who made them. If anyone copies them without an aggrement then they get sued.. If they don't sue the company illegaly copying their design then they can loose their trademark which means everyone can then make their design without paying them or even mentioning that they came up with the idea..

[@mattpeterson553]

I'm assuming this means that going forward, Dean would need to license the Explorer and V shape from Gibson, and if Gibson does not agree with that, then Dean is going to have to scramble to come up with some new designs.

[@cubano100pct]

Is like USFL antitrust lawsuit against the NFL for $567m (tripled to 1.7b) in 1986. The USFL won and was awarded $1 (tripled to $3)

[@alexander_winston]

Donald Trump was the owner of the USFL New Jersey Generals (starring Herschel Walker)…

[@friedrudibega6384]

@@alexander_winston gotta play to win.

[@charlesb7831]

I was told by people in the music store that as long as designs are 30% different from the original they can claim it as different from the copyright. Now given the individual works in the store and is not a lawyer, I just found it an interesting statement, but who knows lol

[@philliprowe2656]

I noticed the jury did not issue a cease and desist order to stop producing those guitars that feature Gibson design features.

[@Squeezum]

That makes the outcome even more bizarre.

[@jfiery]

So the big question I'm left with is this. Going forward is Dean restricted from making any of those shapes? If so they are in trouble.

[@hadleymanmusic]

Counterfit bodyshape? Hell I got a neck with block inlay and im lookin for a kit body next.

[@OldManBadly]

The amount of settlement isn't important, the real deal here is that guitar shapes are apparently able to be copyright. This means that Gibson with their guitars and Fender with their guitars are at this point the only ones who can produce guitars of those particular shapes. So if you are a company makes Strat style guitars, you might want to consider your situation very closely. The real question will be how closely a knock off has to mimic the original. Is it a little bit or exact dimensions? Different head stock enough? That will be the deciding factor is this is a useful ruling for Gibson or a hidden loss.

[@keithriggs6052]

Fender should sue Gibson for all of the Strat shaped guitars in their line (past) and Kramer line (present). Based on this ruling, that would mean an end to Kramer guitars 🤔

[@ajf5150]

I don’t believe that a guitar body or headstock shape should be eligible for a copyright to begin with - a logo trademark yes, but not a shape. Seems really silly to me.

[@milnerization]

Will be interesting to see if Dean now have to go and change their shapes or not.

[@buzzcrushtrendkill]

I thought GIbson sued over nut binding of the D and G strings. How dare Dean copy and exaggerate that Gibson feature.

[@BoltRM]

Was Dean found guilty of counterfeiting due to necks cracking?

[@paxmaac1]

I like the way you pronounce innovative. Nice video.

[@GuitarMAXMusic]

Thank you! 😃

[@NC.AC.]

My main question now is, Does this mean no more Dean V’s??? Cause I hate to be that guy but at the same time I don’t hate being this guy but personally I think Dean makes a way better V and a more affordable V than Gibson, I get why the lawsuit happened but at the same time it seems more like there just mad cause people don’t wanna buy their over priced guitars anymore but I’m just a simple guitarist who just plays for pure enjoyment and fun so my opinion doesn’t matter😂

[@AniJudaism]

Here’s the real question however that no one has answered in these articles. Can companies like Dean still make the guitars they do in the shape in which they are made? It seems like a no. But Dean makes it seem as though the future will allow them to do so.

[@crazeyjoe]

I have a 1976 Ibazez Destroyer "lawsuit" guitar.

[@jonnydazzels1565]

are you still at star labs? are you going to be in any more episodes of the flash?

[@musicauthority3516]

I pretty much agree with this ruling. Gibson won the right to retain their exclusive body shapes and that was the objective. but the four grand probably didn't even cover the court costs and attorney fees for them to do this. and I believe that part of the ruling was correct also. because Gibson delayed way to long to bring this lawsuit. funny thing is with Gibson's outrageous pricing. the amount that Dean had to pay wouldn't have even gotten them a guitar from Gibson. not that they would want one. as far as Gibson bringing future lawsuits I don't see that happening because they have established their claim to their body shapes. and that it wouldn't be worth it for them to sue anyone in the future. for something that they have already established. that's not to say that they wouldn't threaten with lawsuits and cease and desist letters in the future. but as for going through with it. not.

[@karterdowd606]

4,000 per instance of copyright infringement, so it’s really more like 20,000 for like 5 instances

[@musicauthority3516]

@@karterdowd606 Yeah I found out from Trogly, that was a little detail that guitar Max left out I'm sure by accident. anyway they both are still the best guitar reviewer's on the Tube.

[@karterdowd606]

@@musicauthority3516 I agree trogly kicks ass

[@dew-me8yp]

As a guitar newbie, I’ve always wondered why companies were allowed to get away with making Gibson and Fender blatant copies and get away with it. Why is innovation dead amongst guitar manufacturers? Either make your own shape or license the shapes from Fender and Gibson. I though I read somewhere where both companies were willing to allow others to make the shapes with a license. Why is this so hard? I can’t make a blatant copy of a Mercedes and put my own logo on it and sell it for much cheaper. Why is this so accepted in the guitar space?

[@glen_gorblin6969]

Because they’re gonna make what sells, not only that but Gibson’s guitars are so fucking overpriced it’s not even funny, they aren’t worth the money either it’s just name power, and as someone who’s favorite guitar shape ever is an explorer I’d much rather buy a Schecter SLS evil twin with modern specs for $1400 over $2k for a Gibson explorer with the same specs as it had back in 1960, I get why they sued ESP for the MX because that was a full ripoff(despite me wanting an ESP MX more than any other guitar because of James Hetfield) but overall a lot of companies but their own spin on it and it’s just better overall for more people because of how goddamn expensive Gibson’s are. This is for Gibson mainly, Fender isn’t that bad but the Strat is arguably the most well known shape and best selling shape ever so companies are gonna rip it off for money

[@dew-me8yp]

@@glen_gorblin6969 I own a Gibson so I get that they are expensive, but that doesn’t mean that a company has a right to outright rip off their designs and claim them as their own and put their own name on it. No other industry allows that. I fully agree with designs that are inspired by the classics can be made and distributed, but some are just too blatant. Fender and Gibson not only has a right, but they have an obligation to go after other companies. Fender has done the same in the past. Folks want to think that it has only been Gibson suing companies, but not so. I don’t blame the consumer who buys them. I blame the manufacturers who steal them and distribute and an industry that allows this to have gone on for so long. This seems pretty unique to the guitar industry. Just get a license from Gibson and Fender if you dont wanna make your own shapes or too lazy to come up with new ones.

[@glen_gorblin6969]

@@dew-me8yp You can't really change much now, its been going on for years and I see no reason to complain, the main reason there's so much controversy around this specifically is that Gibson seemed to not give 2 shits for the decades Dean has been doing this for, if it was right around the time Dean had started making them then fine whatever but at this point its just bullshit that they do it now after seeming like they couldn't care less for this long

[@dew-me8yp]

@@glen_gorblin6969 you say “they didn’t do shit” for decades as if JC Curleigh, Gibson’s CEO today, was there back then and looked the other way. He can’t control what they didn’t do decades ago. He can only control what he can do today. And even though balls were dropped decades ago, he clearly had something to fight for today, I assume, after legal consultation. Which at this point led up to a win (small win) in court. You can’t underestimate that they HAVE to do this, regardless of how small of a victory or victories they have. Hell, Fender should be just as forthright. But I agree with you to a certain extent. The genie is pretty much out of the bottle. I just scratch my head why the guitar industry is so lackadaisical with this. No wonder Fender and Gibson filed for bankruptcy in the last few years. Everybody has been stealing their stuff and undercutting them on prices - for decades.

[@dew-me8yp]

But with all of that said. Gibson could fix all of this by making guitars like the Junior, Special and Tribute, along with lesser-priced Explorers and Vs at prices ranging from $499- $899 and stop making Epiphone Inspired guitars. Epiphone has their own shapes and models and could survive on their own legacy. Even if those models need to made overseas. That would solve most of their problems.

[@daniellarson3068]

Lots and lots of imported guitars that look like Gibsons. How much would the shape have to change before it's not too much like the "play suthentic" brand? Maybe, they could just drill a hole in the guitar or put a notch in it. Will this affect kit guitars?

[@RockandRollRC]

Excellent. Bring back Oktober Guitars!

[@superblondeDotOrg]

The ruling is for $4,000 per trademark per type of goods sold or offered for sale. The total damage is not $4,000. It is $4,000 * some number of infringements. So what is the true total of damages? One conclusion is that it provides more reasons for manufacturers to go headless: there are no trademarks/patents on a headstock of a headless guitar.

[@harbonip]

Damn , How much money did Gibson spend in lawyers fees, to get only 4,000 dollars ? It's a small win , but when you calculate the lawyers fees and filing, it's a big lost for Gibson .

[@harbonip]

@Turbo Part XIII v1.1 never said Dean won, I said after all the money Gibson spent, was it worth the 4,000 dollars ? I guess you think it was worth it from your statement.

[@harbonip]

@Turbo Part XIII v1.1 I could give a flying funk. I won't buy Gibson or any of their brands. I'm good with Fenders and their amplifiers . Gibsons are overpriced .

[@rexrathtar3893]

Yeah, it's a win for Gibson. They weren't doing it to gain money in damages, they were doing it to get a court ruling that sets a precedent establishing the V and Explorer body shapes are their protected intellectual property. It's a curious outcome given Gibson failed to defend these trademarks for so long, but there it is. Everyone else beware who are currently infringing.

[@harbonip]

@@rexrathtar3893 maybe they need to work on there quality of guitars, and lower there prices .

[@harbonip]

@Turbo Part XIII v1.1 fender make quality guitars under 1400, Gibson are to heavy 8- 10 pounds , yeah try playing that for hour to two hours standing up , bet your back loves that . Lmao

[@ericjohnson6105]

So do I have to hurry and buy my Dean Metal Bass? Will I get a cease and desist order if I play it?

[@gtodad7311]

The question is can Dean still sell their shapes as is? Would really want to see if anything was said about that in the ruling. Because if they pay the $4k and can still use their shapes in their current form then it really is a win for Dean (and every other manufacturer for that matter) because they have basically been told that since Gibson hasn't shown an adverse effect on their business over the years they can basically pay a fine that amounts to the retail price of a custom USA guitar and just move out without a thought.

[@maxmustardman298]

I need another authenticity video right now...Mark, get your a over here in that fine leather jacket

[@garydmercer]

Gibson needs to improve the quality of the guitars they manufacture at competitive prices. That is what will make people want to buy their guitars instead of buying clones and similar style guitars. That is how free markets work.

[@craigrheberling]

looks like les paul had a MAJOR effect on gibson guitars- but now that he's passed on...what have they done? who makes the amps that they test their guitars through? not gibson...reminds me of some russian "premier" -riding in a parade in a mercedes -lol!

[@-Thunder]

This case theoretically ends the business of selling copies of the SG and V body styles by any other company. How much of a design difference is required to be considering non-infringing? Is the ESP Viper different enough? Harley Benton has a knockoff of all the classic bodies.

[@Tijuanabill]

Kinda just want to tryout a Dean now.

[@bpreece1]

Before Elliott Bought Dean and resurected it he owned a Music Store called Thoroughbred Music in Tampa FL later he had other Location in Sarasota. He sold Dean Guitars and sold perhaps the most Gibsons, Fender etc., in the South East. At that time Gibson was owned by a different entity and ironically at that time Gibson had zero issues with Dean. It is just odd that all of a sudden under it's new CEO and ownership they go after Dean. Since then many other Companies have made Explorer Bodies, Flying V's and similar Body Designs. So are they going to continue this to recoup money they are loosing on over priced marketing and lower quality Builds? As for Dean Elliott brought the name and the company back into a very successful Company as he did with Thoroughbred Music that later was sold out to Sam Ash. Elliott was a great individual and knew how to build a company. Who knows if Elliott had the resources and would of gotten opportunity he could of revised Gibson back to its well earned status. It's sad but many of the Guitar Giants lately have out priced them self for an Avg Person / Player. Now add the inflation / market and material shortages and cost its pushed many insturment's out of the reach of many potential customers. Gibson has also ran off many more potential buyers as well. Wait your playing a similar guitar in a Music Video we want royalties remember that as well? Having said that I careless of the Name anymore just enjoy a nice affordable Guitar and something that feels and sounds good. Oh something Interesting to also Note no pun, Slash one of Gibson's Endoresed and Ambassador Artist has a Botique Copy Les Paul its kinda odd to say ok let's go after everyone and one of our own Artist has a Copy that has been well documented.

[@Jester-Riddle]

This does strengthen Gibson's hand to prevent companies copying Gibson design for future production of guitars, increasing the effectiveness of cease and desist notices for equivalent body shapes in future as it will be clear that a breach of IPR is occurring ... and given that this case has been public, maybe another jury will not be so lenient on the damages if a company knowingly breaches the Law. Dean have escaped financial penalty, probably because no-one buys a Dean in the belief that it is really a Gibson, so the extent it is a 'Counterfeit' is only nominal really, so results in no actual losses to Gibson that require compensation ... I note that the damages were $4,000 per type, so was the total actually $16.000 (not that it makes any significant difference !). Maybe the Jury was also wary to protect Gibson from foreign (Chinese !) imports, but not so much against a USA company like Dean ... ???

[@JDY517]

I thought you could only trademark headstocks?

[@dougcapra4170]

The monies are not the most important part of the lawsuit to win. In Intelectual property lawsuits, the outcome isn't alway about getting money for damages but to have their I.P. Enforced against Dean and any other company. It's setting precedent. The monies are mostly compensatory damaged on profits lost for the other companies using their I.P. And diferent states have diferent formulas for calculating what could be due. They did not find that Gibson lost monies in lost sales so the money is just a gesture. This is them waving their ducks in the air saying, Don't fuck with us. I am an intellectual property developer, but not a lawyer. So I have dealt with many I.P. Lawsuits.

[@zigzag8949]

I just played my Ibanez 73 V ( itself subject to a lawsuit in the 70s). Gibson suing 50 years strong 😉

[@Nera-Red-93]

Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gibson Gibson really lost my respect.

[@Jester-Riddle]

The issue of who was left to pay the Legal bills for this expensive litigation remains unanswered so far ... Trial costs can be huge and it will be interesting to see who ended up being liable to pay for which costs and in what $amounts...

[@lostreb]

Fantastic Comment!!!! Hopefully, it will be both in the lawsuit instead of one having to pay the others (as all to often happens in divorce law, which, sadly, I'm all too familiar with). I can only hope that due to the decades before Gibson brought the lawsuit, it will be equally split. I "my" version, which is totally unrealistic, because Gibson took decades to bring the lawsuit?? "Gibson" would be responsible for "All Legal Costs" just like in a divorce when one party has "a vast majority of the income" when the other has "significantly less income" than the party that, and here's the operable word, "brought" the lawsuit!!!!!

[@Xric-R]

If Gibson spent as much in quality control as they do lawsuits they wouldn't have to worry about the "knock-offs".

[@ドリフト180X]

Is that award per model of guitar, or per unit of that model sold?