The Nashville City Paper Online reports on a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals trade mark case. Gibson Guitar Corp has been making the Les Paul Single Cutaway model guitar since 1952. PRS began making its Singlecut guitar in 2000. Both guitars have cutaway areas between the neck and the lower part of the body to allow players to access the higher frets. Gibson brought an action for trade mark infringement, which was allowed by the District Court. However, the Sixth Circuit has overturned the lower court’s decision, arguing that any confusion between the two instruments would be dispelled by further examination on the part of consumers. According to Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore

“Gibson essentially argues that the shape of the PRS guitar leads consumers
standing on the far side of the room in a guitar store to believe they see
Gibson guitars and walk over to examine what they soon realize are PRS
guitars…We decline to adopt such a broad reading … of doctrine. Many, if not
most consumer products will tend to appear like their competitors at a
sufficient distance.”

This sounds to the IPKat rather like at least a partial rejection of the “initial interest confusion” doctrine where the parties involved are trading in goods on the “real” market, rather than in cyberspace.

(N.B. The Gibson is on the left, the PRS model is on the right).

GIBSON FRETS OVER GUITAR CASE GIBSON FRETS OVER GUITAR CASE Reviewed by Unknown on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.