Can't stand Glen Fricker. He makes good points every once in a while, but it's far too annoying to have to go through all his self-serving dribble to get to something that's ok.
Glen himself has admitted he basically plays a character for his Channel, and is far less abrasive and loud away from the camera, and this seems backed up by other UA-camrs who've hung out with him.
As a sub, I will admit he doed get tiring to listen to. His tests I agree with but the way he presents his content some people will either love or hate.
@@pauln6803What he’s like off camera is irrelevant. His content is what we have to go by and his content is insufferable. For someone who hates Gibson as much as he does, he sure drops their name every chance he gets.
Thanks for that. I was thinking of commenting on Glenn's video, because he didn't seem to know about how trademarks can be lost. Either you just give up the trademark entirely, or you have to send out C&D letters to protect it. It can come off as a bit unfair, because it's often a David vs. Goliath situation like you said. My favourite C&D case has to be Deadmau5's Nyan Cat "Purrari", which got him in trouble with Ferrari for altering and using their trademark. Obviously Ferrari isn't worried about Nyan Cat themed supercars usurping the market; they need to do this because otherwise an *actual* competitor will take advantage, and cite this as prior evidence that the trademark isn't being protected.
@CaptainCraigKWMRZ In America you can quite literally sue anyone for anything, winning is a different story. Just keep in mind, frivolous lawsuits in anti Slapp states will backfire on you.
I commented on Glenn’s video that I didn’t think that Gibson could do anything about Vicious referring to their guitars as V-shaped. But I assumed Vicious must have been using the term Flying V and this was the “verbiage” that attracted the cease and desist. Good video. Keep on keeping on.
Now they've opened themselves up to a cease and desist from EVH for using the name Stealth. Then you have Northrup Grumman, but I doubt they will be worried about a guitar shape, lol. There's no way someone will mistake a guitar for an aircraft. Glenn keeps calling them innovative and original, but they are far from it. They might be great guitar builders, but original, they are not.
When it comes to Glen, I take his advice when it comes to recording without reservation. I do not go to Canadian metal heads for legal advice (well except for Viva Frie ... and i guess Runkle of the Bailey ... ok I guess there are quite a few Canadians worth taking legal advice from. Just not Glen).
I was thinking the same thing when watching Glen's video. They have to tell them to stop or lose the trademark. As always KDH is here to explain it clear as glass. Class youtube channel!
The crazy thing is the people at Gibson very likely agree with your opinion. The law however does not so Gibson HAVE to defend their copyright or face losing their "sick" design. Am sure they'd just rather make and sell the product but they are compelled to act.
It's good to see someone who is not as biased as Glenn on this subject. Hating Gibson is his fetish and makes for a lot of clicks. He's a drama queen...
If the sniffers stopped sending him hate messages and comments he would have nothing to hate on, it's you that make it this way. Keep hating and fueling his hate.
If you’re going to charge a 2000 buck guitar, pay employees as little as 17 bucks an hour in a city like Nashville, and then pump out sloppily made guitars. Granted they might play nice, but if I’m spending 2000 bucks on an instrument, I would expect the guitar case to be clean instead of dusted with little pieces of wood from the sloppy job they did on the neck joint. I love Gibson guitars, but the stuff that’s coming out of the factory now is a crap shoot. The bottom line is I just want every Gibson guitar to look and play perfectly with how expensive they get especially when they can get overshadowed by their little brother Epiphone. If you keep defending mediocrity, you’re going to get mediocre products. I just want Gibson to do better. Don’t we all?
Glenn gets clicks from bending over and whoring himself out to whatever pedestrian opinion is out there and warping it to fit the topic he wants to make, not the topic at hand. Then all the shit he talks about Bassists. That shit gets old REAL fast.
A note on the ESP Eclipse, the 4 and 3 knobs existed at the same time! they did however stop producing it shortly after either a Gibson C&D to them OR the PRS lawsuit/C&D issue with their singlecuts
The Jackson King V started out as the signature guitar of Robin Crosby of RATT. Mustaine saw one liked it and started using them around the Peace sells era of the band.
This is true, and I think there’s a little more interesting context to it. Robbin Crosby was very tall, and the guitars that were being build specifically for him were actually Double Rhoads, which he had seen being played by one of the guys from Overkill. The difference between the King V and the double Rhoads being that the wings on the double Rhoads are about an inch or two longer
@@MrWill9894 Yes, and I own a Jackson KV1. The double Rhoads Crosby played had two mirrored ends from the longer point on the RR V. So, just compare the length of the long point on the RR to a King V & there you go. Personally, I think the released King V looks better than the Double Rhoads.
A trademark is simply that - a brand identifier. After 20 years a builder can copy the body shape because the patent expired, but not the head shape and/or logo. But the fact that “trademark defense” happens all the time doesn’t mean it isn’t used overly aggressively to shut down otherwise legitimate competition. Never forget, patents expire because the founders in the USA believed inventions should move into the public domain for the greater good after the inventor had reasonable time to profit. Trying to trademark a body shape is an end run around the spirit of the law.
I think we should promote creative engineering but we also shouldn’t limit people on working on old shapes and making the old things better. Gibson has been on the out for some years I feel, just making wall mounted art pieces.
Case in point: I am a small single-person builder, and I wanted to use the Music Man 4x2 headstock design. I contacted Music Man, and was told (1) it is indeed their trademark, and (2) I am NOT allowed to use that headstock design on any guitars I build. So, I designed my own 3x3 headstock.
Ah, I see where you went wrong. You should have travelled back in time before 1984 when Music Man released their BS patent, and made some 4-2 head-stocks, JUST LIKE TEISCO DID. If your company is liquidated, say, 7 years prior to the patent, (just like Teisco) then you should be fine 🤔🤔🤔
Gibson may win lawsuits. That said, I’ll never ever buy a Gibson going forward because of their corporate strategy. They are losing their market share. This won’t save them. A Flippin V is a generic shape in the public mind at this point.
More surprised Gibson hasn't used their Nite-V trademark. Gibson owns Kramer as well, and has for the past 20 years. When Mustaine came to Gibson? They wouldn't do his pointy V with a Gibson name, but instead, used the Kramer name brand. Thank you for sharing your take on all this!
12 years ago, Thomann was the largest Gibson distributor in Europe. So now they're probably the largest distributor in the world :) Hans Thomann (the owner) gave me a tour once and I remember walking into a IKEA-style warehouse but instead of Kallax, the boxes said Gibson.
IP attorney - this is a solid analysis, KDH. In addition to not knowing if there is a cease and desist, you don't know if they reached a private settlement with these companies and allowed them to keep selling.
One thing is for sure I want a V shaped guitar now. I had a Flying V in the 90s and sold it but I miss having a V. They are great for playing in the seated position.
I love how fair you are mate. Not in the bag for anyone and just straight facts and analysis. Desperately missing from so much media these days - keep up the good work
I think that there's more differences to set the Vicious apart from the Gibson? Like the controls and pickguard. But that may not be part of the shape?
@@castleanthrax1833That's not the point though. The point is that the two of them are nothing alike. Sure, the shape is similar, but in terms of specs, they're completely different. To claim an item is a copy, implicates that it's a perfectly identical 1:1, which Vicious' model, very clearly isn't.
@@castleanthrax1833who is this someone? Do you know who this “someone” is or do you value faceless billion dollar companies so much? Are you going to claim mooching off Leo fender too? The dude is dead.
@@areallyboredguy5825 Seth Lover designed the Flying V, but the "someone" who owns the trademark is Gibson. This has nothing to do with how much a company is worth, or are you of the opinion that it's ok to steal as long as who you're stealing from is worth millions of dollars?
Fender didn't only lose individual cases in court, but one judge high enough up in rank (Wherever that is) deemed the fender Stratocaster design "Public Domain", and with it any law suits from Fender over it, and all but it's model names "Stratocaster", "Strat", and "The Strat" (yes these were used officially as models) indicated and their logos which they did protected more vigorously (Also a trademark/copyright issue).
@@schmoemi3386 The headstock shapes are still trademark-protected. The body shapes are not. That's why guitar parts companies like Warmoth need a license from Fender to use those headstock shapes. Every Warmoth neck with a Strat or Tele headstock has an "officially licensed by..." stamp on it. All their Gibson-style headstocks have extra bits or little humps added to the shapes (...that can be very easily filed/sanded off if you buy an unfinished neck). I distinctly remember that Epiphone used to make Stratocaster copies that were identical to Fenders/Squiers, just with an Explorer headstock. Of course, the cheap vintage-style vibrato systems worked "like a dream" on those. And by "dream", I mean a nightmare.
Informative take on this; thank you for the video. I'm curious how the Gibson corp is seemingly okay with the American eagle guitars that look essentially like something you can order off of the eastern websites. They have the open-book headstock and the body shape of a Les Paul.
I believe Gibson lost the trademark on Les Paul shapes. And the American Eagle series doesn't use the open book headstock. It's close, but not not the same.
As I commented on another video, Gibson lost the "Les Paul" trademark in Finland in 2008, after suing a music store selling Tokai Les Paul copies as "Les Pauls". The courts found that Gibson themselves had been using "les paul" as a generic term for the body shape in their marketing material, and that it therefore was no longer enforceable.
I know KDH knows this because I read his nice comment in Glens latest video, but Love or hate Glen, here's a heads for you guys who don't know, he, ( and his wife ) are going through a terrible time right now, so, show them some love ..She had a stroke the other day, and Glen has had to stop making content to look after her for now. 😞 Don't forget Glens whole "thing" is outrage ..I don't think it necessarily depicts his true personality..
It's important to clarify one thing: while you are correct in stating that words can be trademarked, it's not as broad as that. The Fine Brothers tried to trademark the word "React" and the trademark office refused their application because that's a generic word. Leonard French, a copyright attorney, did a whole video about this very case some years ago explaining how trademarks work, what can and cannot be trademarked, etc. The US trademark office also has quite extensive literature explaining trademarks as well.
Yeah, trademarks very often seem broad but are typically very narrow. A classic example is Tiffany Blue. They don’t own the color, just the color in the context of selling jewelry. Ditto the McDonald’s M, UPS brown, etc…
22:43 it's important to note PRS has grown substantially since the early '00s when the singlecut lawsuit began. I've even heard stories of Paul being bullied by Henry Juszkiewicz to change the pickup wiring of the old Custom 24s because they had an out of phase option.
Nobody is saying what Gibson is doing is illegal, they’re saying they’re assholes that would rather pursue these things than improve their quality control and customer experience and they demonstrably are. Maybe in an alternate universe where they didn’t release that play authentic threat video people would just see them as lazy, but being lazy and litigious at the same time is going to get this reaction.
This is similar to my argument. If Gibson would actually innovate, most of these "copycat" builders wouldn't exist. The alternative builders are offering what modern players want. A trademark claim should take more than the overall shape into account. A "V" shaped guitar with a properly contoured neck heel, stainless steel frets, locking tuners, different neck profile and jack placement, different control layout, etc. is a completely different guitar than a Gibson V.
@@keith2772 They called it a Flying V. None of the other guitar manufacturers in the US that Glenn mentioned is calling their guitar a "Flying V." It isn't about specs. It's about market confusion. Yes, guitarists know the difference, but would a layman know the difference? If some rich kid asked for a Flying V for Christmas, and his parents got him the Vicious version when the kid wanted a Gibson, which is unlikely, but still possible, then there is market confusion.
Gibson should start making a quality product rather than waste time with nonsense. I am convinced that they do not have a quality control person, for the money they demand I expect perfection, not the second product.
It’s easy to jump on the “Gibson’s quality control is trash” bandwagon, but let’s look at the facts instead of parroting tired internet tropes. Most of the people making these complaints have probably never even owned a Gibson themselves, let alone spent enough time with one to make an informed judgment. Those who claim they have owned a Gibson and still badmouth the brand are often full of it, perpetuating myths and spreading baseless negativity. Gibson’s reputation for poor quality control largely stems from issues they had over a decade ago, particularly during the late 2000s and early 2010s when the company faced financial and management struggles. Since then, Gibson has undergone a complete overhaul, including leadership changes and a renewed focus on quality craftsmanship. Under their newer leadership, Gibson has consistently raised the bar, introducing rigorous quality control measures and re-establishing their legacy as a top-tier guitar manufacturer. Players and reviewers alike have acknowledged the improvement, with many noting the exceptional consistency of recent models. Let’s not forget that Gibson is a major player in the guitar world, producing thousands of instruments every year. Statistically, a few lemons might slip through, but to act like this defines the brand today is disingenuous. If you’ve actually played a modern Gibson and still want to complain, fair enough, but blanket statements about “bad quality control” are outdated and misinformed. They’re producing excellent guitars now, and plenty of players are backing that up with their wallets and their reviews.
I like Glen, bad takes and all. He's a great entertainer and musical equipment educator. KDH is 100% right. Gibson has to send C&D's to anyone that might be violating their TM's. The Gibson executive team would get sued by the shareholders if they didn't.
Wow, I had forgotten this dude from Canada completely. He asked for a dollar from his subscribers so he could swear freely on his videos because of some sensorship issue
and yet he doesnt upload to other sites like Odysee or Rumble, where he could easily swear and he could easily make uncensored videos from his mothers basement.
He uses that "censorship" fear that some people have to continue to gather money and more followers. Simple as that. The guy that shouts to the heavens that he's being silenced is always the loudest.
There are now so many guitars that closely resemble an SG or LP or the ES range etc etc with slight cosmetic / design differences … don’t really know quite what Gibson is protecting. If Gibson USA has a future, then it should be in creating the highest quality instruments, drawing on all their heritage, but at a fair price. If someone makes a cheap knock off -they’ve nothing to worry about. If someone makes it better (maybe like PRS) then they need to up their game …
Saw the full video, so what exactly is Gibson's trademark? They do different V's, they do the 58 style and the 60's Schenker style one, so they have both trademarketed? I get that it can't be rounded and symmetrical at the same time, but the Harley Benton Victory is both rounded and symmetrical despite having those edges at the middle, hell, the Victory one resembles more the Gibson than the Vicious guitar does, which is symmetrical, but the edges aren't rounded. The HB Victory has a TOM bridge (Vicious has a hardtail), does have pickup rings (Vicious V doesn't) a V shaped tailpiece, a pickguard (Vicious V doesn't) and even the headstock resembles the Flying V more than the Vicious V does, they even do a Black Beauty model like with block inlays. Was the Vicious's scale 24.75"? doubt it. Funnily enough if you shave those edges at the middle you have a perfect looking 60's Schenker Flying V shaped guitar. So while Glenn isn't technically correct in a lot of his points, he essentially proved his main point correct, Gibson messes with small builders, but not with Thomann or big builders. How does the bridge and the number of knobs reflect into the trademark thing? The Flying V has been produced in a lot of configurations, even the Custom model with the flame figured top came with 4 knobs and a pickup switch, my point being, can Gibson trademark the number of knobs and switches a V guitar has? does Gibson have every variation of a single guitar trademarketed? Like there's the 58 Explorer which is different than the 76 Explorer, than there's the '84 Explorer which could be the same shape as the 70's one, no idea, but then there's the smaller Xplorer Pro, like at a certain point there won't be variations of classic shapes to be done, same with the LP, Les Pauls have changed between various decades, a 50's Les Paul isn't the same shape as a 70's one, neither is an Epiphone, neither is an LP with a Florentine cutaway (which is essentially what the Jackson MF1 is and for whatever reason Gibson doesn't go against Fender), they also do the Prophecy with an shred friendly cutaway. A further point could be made with James Hetfield ESP Explorers, the early MX-220s where essentially like Gibson's, MX-250's weren't (they even had a longer body) and still got sued, a lot has changed but I wonder what would happen if ESP brought back the MX-250. Thank you!
Thanks for this measured and unbiased take on things. Your content always stands out with its genuine investigative journalism. In response to some of the comments - Glenn's OTT shock jock delivery definitely grates at times with me too, but I equally welcome his "cut the cr*p" approach and how he calls things out as he sees them. I'm not a metal player, but I still find value in his takes on the music industry - and his often brutal, but fair, advice about recording etc. His on-screen persona is a character he plays - and I'll bet most of his detractors would have a different opinion of him if they could meet him and have a chat over a coffee or a drink.
I feel like your missing a point here. Glenns not denying that Gibson might have a legal impetus to do this , although he has some skepticism about it with the long history of it *not* being enforced with larger manufacturers. What Glen IS arguing is that there might be a *moral* case for not enforcing it. Just because you can, doesnt mean you should. Cadbury trademarked the color purple, and they have to sue people using purple to keep the trade mark. Doesnt mean its moral to defend that trademark because, its just friggin purple. Many of these shapes are part of the cultural understanding of "what guitars look like". Enforcing an artificial monopoly over guitar shapes creates a lack of competition, and thats not exactly what most people would call ethical. Lets face it, if Fender HAD enforced their telecaster shape trademark in 1952 we'd never have seen the Les Paul. No seriously, go put them side by side. Yeah. Same shape, the stuff screwed into the shape might be different, and the dimensions are slightly different, but its basically the same shape, exactly 1 year after the tele came out. And we are better off for it, cos les pauls are as iconic as the teles. Shape trademarks hurt the consumer, and manufacturers who use them should be ashamed of themselves.
I couldn’t agree more. KDH is fairer than he’s given credit for - everyone thinks he’s the shock jock of guitar news. He’s not. He’s fair, analytical, and usually correct (he’s said when he was proven wrong). Great guy! I enjoy Glenn too, but he’s mostly incorrect on this one. Glenn responded emotionally rather than with factual information as Kaiden provided.
The one company I'm not seeing mentioned here is Reverend Guitars. Reverend has been hit with 2 cease and desists regarding two different models of guitar (the Volcano and the Kyle Shutt signature model) and Reverend just shrugged their shoulders and pivoted. I'd like to see your opinion on the fairness of those assertments
I respect everyone for their part. We need higher quality small batch guitars. We need to support the builders of them. Gibson needs to protect their trademarks. Perhaps builders should design something unique and register their own trademarks.
How does fender deal with this? I've only seen fender defending their headstock, and with the plethora of strats/teles I'd have thought fender would go after them more
He mentions Fender early in this video. Seems fender lost trademark disputes in court because they didn't vigorously defend their trademarks previously.
The odd thing about all this is the US courts must believe that US citizens are complete morons. The Japanese and European courts have a much higher opinion of the intelligence of their citizens. Yes, we guitarists are kinda stupid on some topics, but to confuse $3k guitars is not one of those topics.
The issue Fender and all the other "big boys" have is that the headstock is the only really fully copyrighted part of a guitar. It dates back to the Spanish luthiers all having a "gentlemen's agreement" to all have a unique headstock design which later became enshrined in law. So if you and I make some "Strat" or "Tele" shaped guitars we are fine as long as we have a unique designed headstock. Its why such as Charvels have the disclaimer note printed on the back of their headstocks. Of course it works the other way too... if Fender brought out a new guitar copying our design we HAVE to send them a cease and desist to protect ours. Which we "copied" off them in the first place!
As a professional trademark expert, I can state that you are absolutely right and well informed. Guitar builders have sufficient options for dexigning a ghitar. Vicious can be successfully sued for infringement on trademark and even on slavish imitation.
What makes me laugh is... these so called "builders" can't come up with a new design? It's pretty pathetic to copy other people's work then get upset when they call you out on it.
this builders guitars do look nothing like any of the Gibson V's. KDH does adress this: trademarks are there to stop customer confusion in the market. So: for customers to not buy any other builders guitar by accident when they actually wanted a Gibson. Which is, of course, ridiculous to argue about shape trademarks. Shapes should only ever generic - as should letters and simple note melodies. All stuff that scum of the earth US trademark holders did try to claim copyrights to.
Especially when PRS have become HUGE off creating shapes that were new and original. Other companies create and sell new shapes as well, so I agree with you; you can't steal other people's IP and then whine about it when you are instructed to stop... regardless of how "small" your business is.
I have an Eastwood Corona w/ humbuckers (SG). It’s lower bout is slightly offset like the Guild S-100, except it curves in more where the S-100 curves out. The year I got it, they made a DC Les Paul Special(P-90’s), a non-reverse Firebird (P-90’s) and mine. They still make the “Stormbird” and even offer it in a few more colours. No idea why they cut the other two.
Just to clarify, the James Hetfield MX*250 (Not EX) is still being produced by ESP Custom Shop in Japan for its domestic market. You can ABSOLUTELY buy one at "retail" if you have a dealer in Japan you are friendly with.
Trademarks do on occasion force innovation from the competition, it's why so many now iconic shapes & designs were done differently. But obviously there has to be a balance to what reasonably be covered by a trademark and what infringes on it
Am I the only one that watches Glenn knowing he on the entertainment side and not the journalism side? Like, he's the CNN or Fox News of music gear. Sensational, barely factual, over-the-top takes to garner clicks and views. You watch him for entertainment, not information.
The thing about the Gibson vs Dean thing, the deans have the v shaped headstock, how would people get them confused for a Gibson based on just the body?
As a primary school teacher, I can confirm that we teach the shapes ‘Square’, ‘Circle’, ‘Rectangle’, and ‘Triangle®’. Edit: Bass’ trademark is the first registered _in the uk_
I just googled "who owns the first registered trademark" and the hit is below (oddly, when I searched a few hours ago, Bass brewery was the first hit, although I do recall them saying it was the oldest in the UK. Google is certainly unreliable and the information definitely requires confirmation from a more trustworthy source. 1870 Averill Paints obtained the first registered US trademark. Lowenbrau claims to have the oldest continuously used trademark in the world - 1383. Stella Artois - claims continuous use of its mark since 1366.
I'd like to say that I enjoyed this video and I also enjoy Glenn's content. I am not a slobbering fan, but I dig the usable info he conveys and share his views on many things. That being said, Gibson is riding the money trail born from when they weren't the corporation they are now. I can only imagine how close they are to Marshall's business model with selling hats, key rings, and backpacks to make up for the money lost on sales to competitors who are doing whatever it takes to make a better product with better parts and without as much of that silly neck angle. I have a Gibson LP Studio and like it a lot, but if Gibson died out tomorrow, it wouldn't have the effect on musicians they think it would. All empires fall eventually...even if they do make "authentic" guitars...whatever that is.
I have a question. Why aren't the entire shape taken into account? I mean the neck shape, the headstocks, and the electronics configuration. Why is it just the body? And as a small business owner myself... it is personal. I'm not messing with you! Don't mess with me! That being said Gibson made it personal as no-one who is buying a custom build is even looking at Gibson. That buyer want's more than what Gibson offers us everyday people. Of course they will give mustaine whatever he want's but I guaranty that Gibson would'nt give me or you a second thought. Anyway... I was just wondering. Thank you KDH
The most protected part of a guitar legally is the headstock. It goes back to the Spanish luthiers having a "gentlemen's agreement" to each have their own unique design and this became enshrined in law. So the reason Gibson lost the case in Europe to Dean for example wasn't because of actual body shape or the thing as a whole but rather the headstock. Which of course is wildly different! So that answers the body part for you. When it comes to "not messing with each other" its simply a fact that Gibson (or whoever owns a trademark) HAS to send cease and desist notices to all and any infringements or they face the possibility of losing theirs. So this is why Gibson and Fender and other companies all "pick on the small guy". They would really not have to bother! They are merely protecting what is theirs as the law compels them to. Hope that all helps!
I bought 3 USA Dean V guitars this year out of sheer spite because of Gibson lawyering. It was rather easy to tell the difference with the headstocks still being attached and the flawless quality.
Hi KDH, when I interviewed Ken Haas from Reverend Guitars - ua-cam.com/video/fLmukta3o84/v-deo.html - we talked about the cease and desist that they received from Gibson regarding the Reverend Volcano guitar. Ken explained how their V shape guitar was sufficiently different from the Gibson trademark, but simply due to the legal expense of fighting back combined with the sales volume for the Volcano it simply made more sense for Reverend to discontinue the shape. Your video makes me wonder how often this happens to other builders. For example, we know that Gibson also targeted Mojo Hand FX for their Mister-O pedal right before the re-launch of the Maestro brand because the name sounded vaguely similar. Thanks for the great videos and I always appreciate the research you put into them.
Yeah, this is pretty clear cut. Trademarks have to be defended or else you lose them. It’s baked into the system that way so if you don’t go after a small builder doing this, it opens the door for a much larger company to do it and then legally challenge you in court and say that you weren’t defending the trademark, so they thought you didn’t care!
Except everyone makes V guitars, like everyone makes Strat and LP shape guitars, and the law's concern is - will a customer think it's a Gibson? This kind of thing has already been through the courts, and the law said basically no reasonable person would think it's a Gibson just coz it's shaped like an LP. This is why Gibson isn't already taking the tonnes of companies who make V's and LP's to court, they know they'll lose - they are totally picking on the small guy. Glenn is right and KDH is wrong.
@@SenseiKreese Nah Glenn is wrong and KDH is right. He gave many examples of big guitar companies having trademark disputes with Gibson so you can't use the argument you just gave.
I do believe they got a rather sternly-worded letter from Fender's attorneys for that ugly abomination of a "Strat". Experience Hendrix, LLC (AKA "Sister" Janie) had a lot of egg on their faces for that stunt, too. One of ol' Henry "Harvard Business School Ponzi Scheme" Juszkiewicz's "genius ideas". As if Gibson couldn't make enough money with replicas of Jimi's '69 custom Flying V, the '67 V he hand-painted himself, or white SG Customs. They could even sell a Les Paul Custom with a P-90 and a staple pickup as a Hendrix-themed collectible. Jimi played one of those very publically, on stage in concerts. Jimi played Epiphones too, before he became famous.
Keep in mind Gibson owned Epiphone used to make a S style guitar and a T style guitar. I REALLY hope they lose this retrial. Lets get back to the era of "make guitars in whatever shape you want, just don't copy headstocks". After Gibson hopefully loses I want someone to make a set neck, LP shape guitar with a 6 on one side headstock. As close as you can get to a Trini Lopez headstock without getting sued :)
Gotta comment here, quite a few of your videos present points I don’t entirely align with, but this was spot on. I feel Glenn just wants to bad mouth Gibson, but chose to use one of the few reasons that won’t work. All of the guitars he cited as OK are in fact different and not covered, shocker.
Well... so, to be completely fair with this matter, we'd have to build a time machine, travel back to the early 1980s, send cease and desist letters to Derrig and Max on Gibson's behalf, and create a parallel reality where Gibson isn't making millions of dollars because of Slash's influence
They just need to change the shape a bit more. I bet if Glenn invented the V, he’d be pissed too. Notice how Gibson isn’t suing Guild for the S-100 (SG).
Gibson did the same thing to Reverend a few years ago with their Volcano & Ron Asheton sig. models. They had a distinct asymmetric V shape. Gibson are sue happy.
The actual reason legally why Gibson was successful against those companies was due to the headstock. The headstock is the most protected part legally of a guitar (dating back to Spanish luthiers all having a unique design each) so this law carried on through the centuries. The actual V of the body isn't copyrighted as such. But as KDH says they HAVE to defend their Trademark or they lose it. End result? Casual observers deem them "sue happy" so gives them a bad name. For doing what they legally have to do!
Glen is both a Canadian and former auto worker, so he's pretty much an anti-big business union lefty (not a criticism, just a description). Your take is pretty much my take. I agree that Gibson could defend their IP in a less jerk-like manner (and if they did so they'd be heroes), but they're not required to.
C&D letters only seem “jerk like” to regular people. For companies with lawyers they are commonplace. It’s just normal legal communication with lots of normal scary sounding legal jargon.
A C&D gives the offending company an opportunity to avoid lawsuit. How is it being a jerk? They could have just sued him and made him close down forever. THAT would be trying to crush the competition. THAT would be being a jerk. The truth is, Vicious Guitars probably makes great guitars, but they have no original thought. Don't be surprised if their remedy for the Gibson C&D results in another C&D from Fender (Or EVH). They took the shape of an aircraft, and used the name of an already existing EVH guitar model, lol. No original thought at all.
Funny timing...this video about Trademark and Gibson also happens - for my personal YT feed - to feature a Short...that has an image that shows how Gibson basically copied the Star Trek logo for one of their body shapes. Say what you will, but since this video is about Trademark and how "important" it apparently is, I found it funny.
I still think it's either overstepping or there is the imbalance in how they're happy to threaten smaller ones but ignore some bigger players like Schecter (and IMO it was way more similar to Gibson's version than some of the others you claimed to be more similar, but I guess that's subjective) or at least exactly guys like Schecter are confident enough that Gibson won't actually follow through with the threats or if they do they'd lose, but from a small builder's perspective a letter like that IS TERRIFYING. And also I think the size of a business also matters, it's different when something is mass produced, thenI say send C&D all you want, but in case of ultra small handcrafted stuff... Think how Disney is famously zelalously overprotective of their IP but still you can get Disney themed items in Etsy that I BET aren't licenced and yet theycan operateand nobody has any problems with it... At least for as much asI can tell. Anyway, I'm not a legal expert, but I'd say tributes and fanart should be legal to make AND SELL for as long as they're at a microscopic scale like that, not large volume assembly line production if you know what I mean. So there's this kinda moral aspect to it as well why I think this does fall under bullying, cause I can't believe a tiny Canadian workshop could cause Gibson to lose the trademark in the US.
It's not just the body shape. Vicious was literally calling it the "Flying V." Schecter does not call their V shaped guitars a "Flying V." So there is direct market confusion. As far as enforcing trademarks between the US and Canada, NAFTA allows for trademark enforcement between the US, Canada, and Mexico.
People don’t listen to Glen Fricker because he tells the truth? Please. People don’t listen to him because he’s an obnoxious, arrogant blowhard who spreads misinformation under the guise of “honesty.” His so-called “truth” is riddled with bias, half-baked opinions, and blatant inaccuracies. Claiming tonewoods don’t matter? That pickups are irrelevant with high gain? These aren’t truths-they’re laughable oversimplifications that anyone with real experience can debunk. The real issue isn’t that he’s “too honest”; it’s that he weaponizes his platform to scream his narrow, biased takes while mocking and belittling anyone who disagrees. Truth isn’t about being the loudest person in the room or doubling down on bad opinions-it’s about presenting facts backed by evidence. Fricker, on the other hand, thrives on controversy and clickbait, not honesty. People aren’t rejecting “truth”; they’re rejecting his toxic attitude, baseless claims, and relentless hypocrisy.
The usable guitar shapes that you can come up are limited. I think classical and acoustic guitar builders should sue gibson too for uising their guitar shape.
Satellite Guitars owned the trademark for the Coronet name and were crushed by Gibson in court, smaller companies can't compete with the legal fees. I had my domaine name stolen by a major corporation, I couldn't pay the basic legal fees to try and get them to stop, about $80,000. I wasted weeks on this, finally my domain provider stepped in. Gibson bullied PRS about owning the rights to the single cutaway. As a custom builder I get a lot of requests to build vintage guitar models that are rare and cost prohibitive for the average musician to play, it's not unoriginal, there is a market for it. The people that buy them are not confused about what they are getting. I was approached once by a customer that wanted a left handed Flying V, Gibson refused to make it for him. It is bullying to squash a small builder with these legal fees. I told my kids that the statue of justice holding the scales, on our towns court building ,represented that whoever piled more money on the scales won.
Dude! You have no idea how many times I have actually declined to build an exact copy of flying-V! I was specifically asked to make wings more “rounder”so it would look like an OG! These are people who clearly can afford a custom build, KNOW the design difference, chose NOT to pay $7k for a custom V and still ask someone else to build their dream V!
I didn't watch all of this (thoughtful) video, so not sure if this was mentioned, but I wonder if there is residual fall-out from the bizarre PR disaster known as the "Play Authentic" video. IIRC, Mark Agnesi warned other companies that "we're coming after you" re: legal action. This might be a reinforcement of the bully narrative, as smaller builders would have more to fear than the larger builders. In the massive wake of that old video, I don't think Gibson is perceived as "this is just standard business practice".
Can't stand Glen Fricker. He makes good points every once in a while, but it's far too annoying to have to go through all his self-serving dribble to get to something that's ok.
Glen himself has admitted he basically plays a character for his Channel, and is far less abrasive and loud away from the camera, and this seems backed up by other UA-camrs who've hung out with him.
As a sub, I will admit he doed get tiring to listen to. His tests I agree with but the way he presents his content some people will either love or hate.
I had to stop watching him years and years ago. He (or his character) comes off as easy too try hard and edgy.
@@pauln6803What he’s like off camera is irrelevant. His content is what we have to go by and his content is insufferable. For someone who hates Gibson as much as he does, he sure drops their name every chance he gets.
some people just want to sit down and get screamed at by a video. to each their own
Thanks for that. I was thinking of commenting on Glenn's video, because he didn't seem to know about how trademarks can be lost. Either you just give up the trademark entirely, or you have to send out C&D letters to protect it. It can come off as a bit unfair, because it's often a David vs. Goliath situation like you said.
My favourite C&D case has to be Deadmau5's Nyan Cat "Purrari", which got him in trouble with Ferrari for altering and using their trademark. Obviously Ferrari isn't worried about Nyan Cat themed supercars usurping the market; they need to do this because otherwise an *actual* competitor will take advantage, and cite this as prior evidence that the trademark isn't being protected.
I think Glenn understands that Gibson "hate" videos get lots of clicks. It's more effective than blatant clickbait.
I found a dead mouse in my garage last week...
Can I sue someone and make money?
Let me know.
😅
@CaptainCraigKWMRZ In America you can quite literally sue anyone for anything, winning is a different story. Just keep in mind, frivolous lawsuits in anti Slapp states will backfire on you.
@@CaptainCraigKWMRZ Depends if it can be proven to be your mouse, or someone else’s.
How am I supposed to think Glenn genuinely cares about copyright law when he uses AI imagery to promote his own plugins
Stay mad lmao
I commented on Glenn’s video that I didn’t think that Gibson could do anything about Vicious referring to their guitars as V-shaped. But I assumed Vicious must have been using the term Flying V and this was the “verbiage” that attracted the cease and desist.
Good video. Keep on keeping on.
Now they've opened themselves up to a cease and desist from EVH for using the name Stealth. Then you have Northrup Grumman, but I doubt they will be worried about a guitar shape, lol. There's no way someone will mistake a guitar for an aircraft. Glenn keeps calling them innovative and original, but they are far from it. They might be great guitar builders, but original, they are not.
I always admire your calm attitude when making arguments. Keep up the good work!
Glenn Fricker makes my head hurt
it's entertainment for facebook boomers
Yeah, he is just like scotty kilmer the car guy. Kind of annoying to watch more than about 5 minutes worth.
@@TractorMonkeywithJL I watch him for the flailing arms, not much else
I enjoy when he covers affordable alternatives to expensive products. Don’t mind that he’s a little loud
Can't stand him
Not the first time that I think Mr. Fricker is wrong. You are quite correct, KDH. A company must defend their trademarks or loose them.
There are even mugs
Has he... ever been right about anything ?
@@Etienne.6329Yes, his recording studio techniques are mainly the only thing he says that are of any value.
@@castleanthrax1833but his mixes still suck.
When it comes to Glen, I take his advice when it comes to recording without reservation. I do not go to Canadian metal heads for legal advice (well except for Viva Frie ... and i guess Runkle of the Bailey ... ok I guess there are quite a few Canadians worth taking legal advice from. Just not Glen).
I was thinking the same thing when watching Glen's video. They have to tell them to stop or lose the trademark. As always KDH is here to explain it clear as glass. Class youtube channel!
Glenn's schtick is outrage. Arguing him on facts is beside the point :D
I’m impressed. Your knowledge of trademarks, patents and the US legal system is better than a good number of Americans.
My opinion is that Vicious Guitars are sick and Gibson should leave the man alone based on that.
The crazy thing is the people at Gibson very likely agree with your opinion. The law however does not so Gibson HAVE to defend their copyright or face losing their "sick" design. Am sure they'd just rather make and sell the product but they are compelled to act.
It's good to see someone who is not as biased as Glenn on this subject. Hating Gibson is his fetish and makes for a lot of clicks. He's a drama queen...
If the sniffers stopped sending him hate messages and comments he would have nothing to hate on, it's you that make it this way. Keep hating and fueling his hate.
If you’re going to charge a 2000 buck guitar, pay employees as little as 17 bucks an hour in a city like Nashville, and then pump out sloppily made guitars. Granted they might play nice, but if I’m spending 2000 bucks on an instrument, I would expect the guitar case to be clean instead of dusted with little pieces of wood from the sloppy job they did on the neck joint. I love Gibson guitars, but the stuff that’s coming out of the factory now is a crap shoot. The bottom line is I just want every Gibson guitar to look and play perfectly with how expensive they get especially when they can get overshadowed by their little brother Epiphone. If you keep defending mediocrity, you’re going to get mediocre products. I just want Gibson to do better. Don’t we all?
@@myopicautisticmetal9035 He’d find a way to feed his narcissistic supply somehow.
agreed, everyone hates on Gibsons until they get one... the internet is full of stupid trends, and unwarranted Gibson hate is a big one
Glenn gets clicks from bending over and whoring himself out to whatever pedestrian opinion is out there and warping it to fit the topic he wants to make, not the topic at hand.
Then all the shit he talks about Bassists. That shit gets old REAL fast.
A note on the ESP Eclipse, the 4 and 3 knobs existed at the same time! they did however stop producing it shortly after either a Gibson C&D to them OR the PRS lawsuit/C&D issue with their singlecuts
The Jackson King V started out as the signature guitar of Robin Crosby of RATT. Mustaine saw one liked it and started using them around the Peace sells era of the band.
This is true, and I think there’s a little more interesting context to it. Robbin Crosby was very tall, and the guitars that were being build specifically for him were actually Double Rhoads, which he had seen being played by one of the guys from Overkill. The difference between the King V and the double Rhoads being that the wings on the double Rhoads are about an inch or two longer
@@MrWill9894 Yes, and I own a Jackson KV1. The double Rhoads Crosby played had two mirrored ends from the longer point on the RR V. So, just compare the length of the long point on the RR to a King V & there you go. Personally, I think the released King V looks better than the Double Rhoads.
@@NinjaRunningWildI jelly. 😂 I want the KV1. Classic and iconic.
A trademark is simply that - a brand identifier. After 20 years a builder can copy the body shape because the patent expired, but not the head shape and/or logo. But the fact that “trademark defense” happens all the time doesn’t mean it isn’t used overly aggressively to shut down otherwise legitimate competition. Never forget, patents expire because the founders in the USA believed inventions should move into the public domain for the greater good after the inventor had reasonable time to profit. Trying to trademark a body shape is an end run around the spirit of the law.
Not a fan of Glenn or his take on this.
I think we should promote creative engineering but we also shouldn’t limit people on working on old shapes and making the old things better. Gibson has been on the out for some years I feel, just making wall mounted art pieces.
Case in point: I am a small single-person builder, and I wanted to use the Music Man 4x2 headstock design. I contacted Music Man, and was told (1) it is indeed their trademark, and (2) I am NOT allowed to use that headstock design on any guitars I build. So, I designed my own 3x3 headstock.
Why couldn't you just design a 4x2 headstock with a different shape?
Have you tried reversing the headstock? Would that be an infringement?
I think this would be a good example where the enforcement of trademarks actually encouraged creativity and innovation rather than stifled them!
@@dillonbrowning4564 It's the 4 over 2 tuner aspect that is their trademark in this case.
Ah, I see where you went wrong. You should have travelled back in time before 1984 when Music Man released their BS patent, and made some 4-2 head-stocks, JUST LIKE TEISCO DID. If your company is liquidated, say, 7 years prior to the patent, (just like Teisco) then you should be fine 🤔🤔🤔
Gibson already has plenty to critique without needing Glenn Fricker to make up nonsense. Thanks for helping to clear this up
Edwards is just a sub brand of ESP, Grassroots, Navigator are too..
Gibson may win lawsuits. That said, I’ll never ever buy a Gibson going forward because of their corporate strategy.
They are losing their market share. This won’t save them.
A Flippin V is a generic shape in the public mind at this point.
Im not a fan of how Gibson does things like this but in this case they’re right and it’s fair that they’re asking him to stop doing this.
More surprised Gibson hasn't used their Nite-V trademark. Gibson owns Kramer as well, and has for the past 20 years. When Mustaine came to Gibson? They wouldn't do his pointy V with a Gibson name, but instead, used the Kramer name brand. Thank you for sharing your take on all this!
I suppose the guy making nine guitars a year can come up with an original guitar shape. It's certainly easier than going to court.
Done and done bruh
Exactly! Plenty of builders make Flying V shaped guitars and they’re never sued by Gipson. Reason being they’re not a blatant rip-off.
Keep up the actual real journalism. You're the only one who does this. You're the best!
100k Subs!!! Congratulations 👏🏾👏🏾🎉🎉
12 years ago, Thomann was the largest Gibson distributor in Europe. So now they're probably the largest distributor in the world :) Hans Thomann (the owner) gave me a tour once and I remember walking into a IKEA-style warehouse but instead of Kallax, the boxes said Gibson.
Go watch AMERICAN GANGSTER. The “trademark” scene. Guess which one is Glenn.
IP attorney - this is a solid analysis, KDH.
In addition to not knowing if there is a cease and desist, you don't know if they reached a private settlement with these companies and allowed them to keep selling.
One thing is for sure I want a V shaped guitar now. I had a Flying V in the 90s and sold it but I miss having a V. They are great for playing in the seated position.
I love how fair you are mate. Not in the bag for anyone and just straight facts and analysis. Desperately missing from so much media these days - keep up the good work
I think that there's more differences to set the Vicious apart from the Gibson? Like the controls and pickguard. But that may not be part of the shape?
He should just create his own design and stop whining about being asked to stop sponging off someone else's creation.
@@castleanthrax1833That's not the point though. The point is that the two of them are nothing alike. Sure, the shape is similar, but in terms of specs, they're completely different.
To claim an item is a copy, implicates that it's a perfectly identical 1:1, which Vicious' model, very clearly isn't.
@@AUTI5T1X It is the shape that is the subject. Changing the specs without changing the shape, doesn't subvert trademark law.
@@castleanthrax1833who is this someone? Do you know who this “someone” is or do you value faceless billion dollar companies so much? Are you going to claim mooching off Leo fender too? The dude is dead.
@@areallyboredguy5825 Seth Lover designed the Flying V, but the "someone" who owns the trademark is Gibson.
This has nothing to do with how much a company is worth, or are you of the opinion that it's ok to steal as long as who you're stealing from is worth millions of dollars?
Fender didn't only lose individual cases in court, but one judge high enough up in rank (Wherever that is) deemed the fender Stratocaster design "Public Domain", and with it any law suits from Fender over it, and all but it's model names "Stratocaster", "Strat", and "The Strat" (yes these were used officially as models) indicated and their logos which they did protected more vigorously (Also a trademark/copyright issue).
..and the headstock shapes I believe... 🤔
@@schmoemi3386 The headstock shapes are still trademark-protected. The body shapes are not. That's why guitar parts companies like Warmoth need a license from Fender to use those headstock shapes. Every Warmoth neck with a Strat or Tele headstock has an "officially licensed by..." stamp on it.
All their Gibson-style headstocks have extra bits or little humps added to the shapes (...that can be very easily filed/sanded off if you buy an unfinished neck).
I distinctly remember that Epiphone used to make Stratocaster copies that were identical to Fenders/Squiers, just with an Explorer headstock. Of course, the cheap vintage-style vibrato systems worked "like a dream" on those. And by "dream", I mean a nightmare.
**question that would be clearly answered if I watched the video**
Luv ya
imagine defending a billion dollar company who cant even do a right quality assurance for 1000$ guitars
Imagine understanding right from wrong.
Informative take on this; thank you for the video. I'm curious how the Gibson corp is seemingly okay with the American eagle guitars that look essentially like something you can order off of the eastern websites. They have the open-book headstock and the body shape of a Les Paul.
I believe Gibson lost the trademark on Les Paul shapes. And the American Eagle series doesn't use the open book headstock. It's close, but not not the same.
@ ah, very good observations; thank you for your insight. I feel foolish to have jumped to conclusions.
Congratulations on 100k subs! I can't wait for the plaque unboxing video!
As I commented on another video, Gibson lost the "Les Paul" trademark in Finland in 2008, after suing a music store selling Tokai Les Paul copies as "Les Pauls". The courts found that Gibson themselves had been using "les paul" as a generic term for the body shape in their marketing material, and that it therefore was no longer enforceable.
I know KDH knows this because I read his nice comment in Glens latest video, but Love or hate Glen, here's a heads for you guys who don't know, he, ( and his wife ) are going through a terrible time right now, so, show them some love ..She had a stroke the other day, and Glen has had to stop making content to look after her for now. 😞
Don't forget Glens whole "thing" is outrage ..I don't think it necessarily depicts his true personality..
What? Another boundless Glenn Fricker claim? Shock. The man often talks a whole lotta crap with such confidence, it’s staggering.
It's important to clarify one thing: while you are correct in stating that words can be trademarked, it's not as broad as that. The Fine Brothers tried to trademark the word "React" and the trademark office refused their application because that's a generic word. Leonard French, a copyright attorney, did a whole video about this very case some years ago explaining how trademarks work, what can and cannot be trademarked, etc. The US trademark office also has quite extensive literature explaining trademarks as well.
@@BrunodeSouzaLino Leonard French isn't just as copyright attorney. He's your favorite copyright attorney
Yeah, trademarks very often seem broad but are typically very narrow. A classic example is Tiffany Blue. They don’t own the color, just the color in the context of selling jewelry. Ditto the McDonald’s M, UPS brown, etc…
Dahm. The amount of money Fender has lost is crazy. Can you imagine strat and tele’s shapes were exclusive to fender. I get it. V
22:43 it's important to note PRS has grown substantially since the early '00s when the singlecut lawsuit began. I've even heard stories of Paul being bullied by Henry Juszkiewicz to change the pickup wiring of the old Custom 24s because they had an out of phase option.
And where is Henry Ponziewicz now? Still trying to get loans, to pay for loans, to pay for loans, to pay for loans...?
Nobody is saying what Gibson is doing is illegal, they’re saying they’re assholes that would rather pursue these things than improve their quality control and customer experience and they demonstrably are. Maybe in an alternate universe where they didn’t release that play authentic threat video people would just see them as lazy, but being lazy and litigious at the same time is going to get this reaction.
This is similar to my argument. If Gibson would actually innovate, most of these "copycat" builders wouldn't exist. The alternative builders are offering what modern players want. A trademark claim should take more than the overall shape into account. A "V" shaped guitar with a properly contoured neck heel, stainless steel frets, locking tuners, different neck profile and jack placement, different control layout, etc. is a completely different guitar than a Gibson V.
@@keith2772 They called it a Flying V. None of the other guitar manufacturers in the US that Glenn mentioned is calling their guitar a "Flying V." It isn't about specs. It's about market confusion. Yes, guitarists know the difference, but would a layman know the difference? If some rich kid asked for a Flying V for Christmas, and his parents got him the Vicious version when the kid wanted a Gibson, which is unlikely, but still possible, then there is market confusion.
Gibson should start making a quality product rather than waste time with nonsense. I am convinced that they do not have a quality control person, for the money they demand I expect perfection, not the second product.
It’s easy to jump on the “Gibson’s quality control is trash” bandwagon, but let’s look at the facts instead of parroting tired internet tropes. Most of the people making these complaints have probably never even owned a Gibson themselves, let alone spent enough time with one to make an informed judgment. Those who claim they have owned a Gibson and still badmouth the brand are often full of it, perpetuating myths and spreading baseless negativity.
Gibson’s reputation for poor quality control largely stems from issues they had over a decade ago, particularly during the late 2000s and early 2010s when the company faced financial and management struggles. Since then, Gibson has undergone a complete overhaul, including leadership changes and a renewed focus on quality craftsmanship. Under their newer leadership, Gibson has consistently raised the bar, introducing rigorous quality control measures and re-establishing their legacy as a top-tier guitar manufacturer.
Players and reviewers alike have acknowledged the improvement, with many noting the exceptional consistency of recent models. Let’s not forget that Gibson is a major player in the guitar world, producing thousands of instruments every year. Statistically, a few lemons might slip through, but to act like this defines the brand today is disingenuous. If you’ve actually played a modern Gibson and still want to complain, fair enough, but blanket statements about “bad quality control” are outdated and misinformed. They’re producing excellent guitars now, and plenty of players are backing that up with their wallets and their reviews.
I like Glen, bad takes and all. He's a great entertainer and musical equipment educator.
KDH is 100% right. Gibson has to send C&D's to anyone that might be violating their TM's. The Gibson executive team would get sued by the shareholders if they didn't.
Wow, I had forgotten this dude from Canada completely. He asked for a dollar from his subscribers so he could swear freely on his videos because of some sensorship issue
and yet he doesnt upload to other sites like Odysee or Rumble, where he could easily swear and he could easily make uncensored videos from his mothers basement.
He uses that "censorship" fear that some people have to continue to gather money and more followers. Simple as that. The guy that shouts to the heavens that he's being silenced is always the loudest.
Well done, KDH. You've obviously done your homework. You could have, or maybe you already do, another career as an attorney. Cheers!
There are now so many guitars that closely resemble an SG or LP or the ES range etc etc with slight cosmetic / design differences … don’t really know quite what Gibson is protecting. If Gibson USA has a future, then it should be in creating the highest quality instruments, drawing on all their heritage, but at a fair price. If someone makes a cheap knock off -they’ve nothing to worry about. If someone makes it better (maybe like PRS) then they need to up their game …
Saw the full video, so what exactly is Gibson's trademark?
They do different V's, they do the 58 style and the 60's Schenker style one, so they have both trademarketed?
I get that it can't be rounded and symmetrical at the same time, but the Harley Benton Victory is both rounded and symmetrical despite having those edges at the middle, hell, the Victory one resembles more the Gibson than the Vicious guitar does, which is symmetrical, but the edges aren't rounded.
The HB Victory has a TOM bridge (Vicious has a hardtail), does have pickup rings (Vicious V doesn't) a V shaped tailpiece, a pickguard (Vicious V doesn't) and even the headstock resembles the Flying V more than the Vicious V does, they even do a Black Beauty model like with block inlays. Was the Vicious's scale 24.75"? doubt it.
Funnily enough if you shave those edges at the middle you have a perfect looking 60's Schenker Flying V shaped guitar.
So while Glenn isn't technically correct in a lot of his points, he essentially proved his main point correct, Gibson messes with small builders, but not with Thomann or big builders.
How does the bridge and the number of knobs reflect into the trademark thing?
The Flying V has been produced in a lot of configurations, even the Custom model with the flame figured top came with 4 knobs and a pickup switch, my point being, can Gibson trademark the number of knobs and switches a V guitar has? does Gibson have every variation of a single guitar trademarketed?
Like there's the 58 Explorer which is different than the 76 Explorer, than there's the '84 Explorer which could be the same shape as the 70's one, no idea, but then there's the smaller Xplorer Pro, like at a certain point there won't be variations of classic shapes to be done, same with the LP, Les Pauls have changed between various decades, a 50's Les Paul isn't the same shape as a 70's one, neither is an Epiphone, neither is an LP with a Florentine cutaway (which is essentially what the Jackson MF1 is and for whatever reason Gibson doesn't go against Fender), they also do the Prophecy with an shred friendly cutaway.
A further point could be made with James Hetfield ESP Explorers, the early MX-220s where essentially like Gibson's, MX-250's weren't (they even had a longer body) and still got sued, a lot has changed but I wonder what would happen if ESP brought back the MX-250.
Thank you!
If you ever want a guitar from me, drop me a line, discount is there for you!
Thanks for this measured and unbiased take on things. Your content always stands out with its genuine investigative journalism. In response to some of the comments - Glenn's OTT shock jock delivery definitely grates at times with me too, but I equally welcome his "cut the cr*p" approach and how he calls things out as he sees them. I'm not a metal player, but I still find value in his takes on the music industry - and his often brutal, but fair, advice about recording etc. His on-screen persona is a character he plays - and I'll bet most of his detractors would have a different opinion of him if they could meet him and have a chat over a coffee or a drink.
I feel like your missing a point here. Glenns not denying that Gibson might have a legal impetus to do this , although he has some skepticism about it with the long history of it *not* being enforced with larger manufacturers. What Glen IS arguing is that there might be a *moral* case for not enforcing it. Just because you can, doesnt mean you should. Cadbury trademarked the color purple, and they have to sue people using purple to keep the trade mark. Doesnt mean its moral to defend that trademark because, its just friggin purple. Many of these shapes are part of the cultural understanding of "what guitars look like". Enforcing an artificial monopoly over guitar shapes creates a lack of competition, and thats not exactly what most people would call ethical. Lets face it, if Fender HAD enforced their telecaster shape trademark in 1952 we'd never have seen the Les Paul. No seriously, go put them side by side. Yeah. Same shape, the stuff screwed into the shape might be different, and the dimensions are slightly different, but its basically the same shape, exactly 1 year after the tele came out. And we are better off for it, cos les pauls are as iconic as the teles. Shape trademarks hurt the consumer, and manufacturers who use them should be ashamed of themselves.
I couldn’t agree more. KDH is fairer than he’s given credit for - everyone thinks he’s the shock jock of guitar news. He’s not. He’s fair, analytical, and usually correct (he’s said when he was proven wrong). Great guy! I enjoy Glenn too, but he’s mostly incorrect on this one. Glenn responded emotionally rather than with factual information as Kaiden provided.
The one company I'm not seeing mentioned here is Reverend Guitars. Reverend has been hit with 2 cease and desists regarding two different models of guitar (the Volcano and the Kyle Shutt signature model) and Reverend just shrugged their shoulders and pivoted. I'd like to see your opinion on the fairness of those assertments
Congrats on 100K. Well deserved. Always enjoy your level headed, straight up style. Thanks for keeping the guitar industries bastards honest.
I respect everyone for their part.
We need higher quality small batch guitars. We need to support the builders of them.
Gibson needs to protect their trademarks.
Perhaps builders should design something unique and register their own trademarks.
Agreed!
How does fender deal with this? I've only seen fender defending their headstock, and with the plethora of strats/teles I'd have thought fender would go after them more
He mentions Fender early in this video. Seems fender lost trademark disputes in court because they didn't vigorously defend their trademarks previously.
Re-wind KDH's video. You must have missed that part
@@Duke-sr4pt Aah, my bad. Thanks!
The odd thing about all this is the US courts must believe that US citizens are complete morons. The Japanese and European courts have a much higher opinion of the intelligence of their citizens. Yes, we guitarists are kinda stupid on some topics, but to confuse $3k guitars is not one of those topics.
The issue Fender and all the other "big boys" have is that the headstock is the only really fully copyrighted part of a guitar. It dates back to the Spanish luthiers all having a "gentlemen's agreement" to all have a unique headstock design which later became enshrined in law. So if you and I make some "Strat" or "Tele" shaped guitars we are fine as long as we have a unique designed headstock. Its why such as Charvels have the disclaimer note printed on the back of their headstocks. Of course it works the other way too... if Fender brought out a new guitar copying our design we HAVE to send them a cease and desist to protect ours. Which we "copied" off them in the first place!
As a professional trademark expert, I can state that you are absolutely right and well informed. Guitar builders have sufficient options for dexigning a ghitar. Vicious can be successfully sued for infringement on trademark and even on slavish imitation.
What makes me laugh is... these so called "builders" can't come up with a new design? It's pretty pathetic to copy other people's work then get upset when they call you out on it.
this builders guitars do look nothing like any of the Gibson V's. KDH does adress this: trademarks are there to stop customer confusion in the market. So: for customers to not buy any other builders guitar by accident when they actually wanted a Gibson. Which is, of course, ridiculous to argue about shape trademarks.
Shapes should only ever generic - as should letters and simple note melodies. All stuff that scum of the earth US trademark holders did try to claim copyrights to.
It's how the market works, every copies the Strat, V, Tele, LP because those are the shapes that sell
@@DrMurdercock Well, that's too bad. If you're gonna copy, deal with the consequences.
Especially when PRS have become HUGE off creating shapes that were new and original. Other companies create and sell new shapes as well, so I agree with you; you can't steal other people's IP and then whine about it when you are instructed to stop... regardless of how "small" your business is.
@ithemba the build is literally identical to the flying V. Look at 6:54 where he shows direct comparison.
I have an Eastwood Corona w/ humbuckers (SG). It’s lower bout is slightly offset like the Guild S-100, except it curves in more where the S-100 curves out. The year I got it, they made a DC Les Paul Special(P-90’s), a non-reverse Firebird (P-90’s) and mine. They still make the “Stormbird” and even offer it in a few more colours. No idea why they cut the other two.
Just to clarify, the James Hetfield MX*250 (Not EX) is still being produced by ESP Custom Shop in Japan for its domestic market.
You can ABSOLUTELY buy one at "retail" if you have a dealer in Japan you are friendly with.
Not since 2021. Stopped all MX manufacture at least for public demand
Why not just get a Snakebite though?
@@howitzer92 for sure! Very similar. Mx just holds classic Metallica nostalgia for some
Trademarks do on occasion force innovation from the competition, it's why so many now iconic shapes & designs were done differently. But obviously there has to be a balance to what reasonably be covered by a trademark and what infringes on it
Am I the only one that watches Glenn knowing he on the entertainment side and not the journalism side? Like, he's the CNN or Fox News of music gear. Sensational, barely factual, over-the-top takes to garner clicks and views. You watch him for entertainment, not information.
The thing about the Gibson vs Dean thing, the deans have the v shaped headstock, how would people get them confused for a Gibson based on just the body?
Fun fact...BASS Brewery, owns the first ever registered mark in 1875🍻
Yes, a triangle. 🔺
As a primary school teacher, I can confirm that we teach the shapes ‘Square’, ‘Circle’, ‘Rectangle’, and ‘Triangle®’.
Edit: Bass’ trademark is the first registered _in the uk_
I just googled "who owns the first registered trademark" and the hit is below (oddly, when I searched a few hours ago, Bass brewery was the first hit, although I do recall them saying it was the oldest in the UK. Google is certainly unreliable and the information definitely requires confirmation from a more trustworthy source.
1870 Averill Paints obtained the first registered US trademark. Lowenbrau claims to have the oldest continuously used trademark in the world - 1383. Stella Artois - claims continuous use of its mark since 1366.
Always so well reasoned and balanced. 👏 - Also loving the headstock hat. 😁
I'd like to say that I enjoyed this video and I also enjoy Glenn's content. I am not a slobbering fan, but I dig the usable info he conveys and share his views on many things.
That being said, Gibson is riding the money trail born from when they weren't the corporation they are now. I can only imagine how close they are to Marshall's business model with selling hats, key rings, and backpacks to make up for the money lost on sales to competitors who are doing whatever it takes to make a better product with better parts and without as much of that silly neck angle.
I have a Gibson LP Studio and like it a lot, but if Gibson died out tomorrow, it wouldn't have the effect on musicians they think it would. All empires fall eventually...even if they do make "authentic" guitars...whatever that is.
Reverend got a C&D from Gibson over their old volcano model. It is also an asymmetrical V. It was enough for them to discontinue the model.
Fricker is annoying....
I have a question.
Why aren't the entire shape taken into account? I mean the neck shape, the headstocks, and the electronics configuration.
Why is it just the body?
And as a small business owner myself... it is personal. I'm not messing with you! Don't mess with me!
That being said Gibson made it personal as no-one who is buying a custom build is even looking at Gibson. That buyer want's more than what Gibson offers us everyday people. Of course they will give mustaine whatever he want's but I guaranty that Gibson would'nt give me or you a second thought.
Anyway... I was just wondering.
Thank you KDH
The most protected part of a guitar legally is the headstock. It goes back to the Spanish luthiers having a "gentlemen's agreement" to each have their own unique design and this became enshrined in law. So the reason Gibson lost the case in Europe to Dean for example wasn't because of actual body shape or the thing as a whole but rather the headstock. Which of course is wildly different! So that answers the body part for you. When it comes to "not messing with each other" its simply a fact that Gibson (or whoever owns a trademark) HAS to send cease and desist notices to all and any infringements or they face the possibility of losing theirs. So this is why Gibson and Fender and other companies all "pick on the small guy". They would really not have to bother! They are merely protecting what is theirs as the law compels them to. Hope that all helps!
@@jp7963 Good to know.
Thank you
We have different fonts partly because the first ones were privately “owned”.
That Ibanez Les Paul looked really cool.
I do enjoy these "hobby lawyer" breakdowns dude - great video
Apparently the first Copyright was noted as the ‘Statute of Anne’ circa 1709 or 1710, not a lotta people know that.
Feels like Jackson should be upset with ESP/LDT for the KH V rather than Gibson.
I hate Gibson as much as the next “authentic” guitar player. But I’m familiar with the legal system. Thank you for this unbiased analysis.
so the law is designed to stifle competition and not gibson themselves. "we have to do it" LOL how inconvenient for them
It's not stifling competition -- it's protecting the rights of the original creators.
They're free to compete using their own designs. Not sure why it's so hard.
Imagine having to deal with working at an automotive factory with Glen fricker? They must have fired him for being so insufferable..
Union worker. They were stuck with him until he quit, lol.
I bought 3 USA Dean V guitars this year out of sheer spite because of Gibson lawyering. It was rather easy to tell the difference with the headstocks still being attached and the flawless quality.
So refreshing to see an objective analysis n not just vocal shrieking
Fender lost the trademark, but with that seems much more successful. Mainly because of attempting innovation, but not defending shapes.
Thankfully, the algorithm never fed me any of Glen’s content when I was getting into guitar. He seems like an ignorant.
Gibson lost my business in 2017 along with millions of others. They don’t make em like they used to and they went insane with the price point
Hi KDH, when I interviewed Ken Haas from Reverend Guitars - ua-cam.com/video/fLmukta3o84/v-deo.html - we talked about the cease and desist that they received from Gibson regarding the Reverend Volcano guitar. Ken explained how their V shape guitar was sufficiently different from the Gibson trademark, but simply due to the legal expense of fighting back combined with the sales volume for the Volcano it simply made more sense for Reverend to discontinue the shape. Your video makes me wonder how often this happens to other builders. For example, we know that Gibson also targeted Mojo Hand FX for their Mister-O pedal right before the re-launch of the Maestro brand because the name sounded vaguely similar. Thanks for the great videos and I always appreciate the research you put into them.
Watching now
Gibson: Selling overpriced guitars to feed overpaid lawyers.
Yeah, this is pretty clear cut. Trademarks have to be defended or else you lose them. It’s baked into the system that way so if you don’t go after a small builder doing this, it opens the door for a much larger company to do it and then legally challenge you in court and say that you weren’t defending the trademark, so they thought you didn’t care!
Except everyone makes V guitars, like everyone makes Strat and LP shape guitars, and the law's concern is - will a customer think it's a Gibson? This kind of thing has already been through the courts, and the law said basically no reasonable person would think it's a Gibson just coz it's shaped like an LP. This is why Gibson isn't already taking the tonnes of companies who make V's and LP's to court, they know they'll lose - they are totally picking on the small guy. Glenn is right and KDH is wrong.
@@SenseiKreese Nah Glenn is wrong and KDH is right. He gave many examples of big guitar companies having trademark disputes with Gibson so you can't use the argument you just gave.
Someone making a Jimi Hendrix strat should be too embarrassed to go after others.
I do believe they got a rather sternly-worded letter from Fender's attorneys for that ugly abomination of a "Strat". Experience Hendrix, LLC (AKA "Sister" Janie) had a lot of egg on their faces for that stunt, too. One of ol' Henry "Harvard Business School Ponzi Scheme" Juszkiewicz's "genius ideas".
As if Gibson couldn't make enough money with replicas of Jimi's '69 custom Flying V, the '67 V he hand-painted himself, or white SG Customs. They could even sell a Les Paul Custom with a P-90 and a staple pickup as a Hendrix-themed collectible. Jimi played one of those very publically, on stage in concerts. Jimi played Epiphones too, before he became famous.
Keep in mind Gibson owned Epiphone used to make a S style guitar and a T style guitar.
I REALLY hope they lose this retrial.
Lets get back to the era of "make guitars in whatever shape you want, just don't copy headstocks".
After Gibson hopefully loses I want someone to make a set neck, LP shape guitar with a 6 on one side headstock.
As close as you can get to a Trini Lopez headstock without getting sued :)
Gotta comment here, quite a few of your videos present points I don’t entirely align with, but this was spot on. I feel Glenn just wants to bad mouth Gibson, but chose to use one of the few reasons that won’t work. All of the guitars he cited as OK are in fact different and not covered, shocker.
In fairness to Glenn re: jackson, the jackson custom shop has built symmetrical, round-horn King Vs that look very close to the Gibson, even recently
Glenn Fricker is the total opposite of KDH. That's why our faces want to melt when we hear his blabbering 😀
Well... so, to be completely fair with this matter, we'd have to build a time machine, travel back to the early 1980s, send cease and desist letters to Derrig and Max on Gibson's behalf, and create a parallel reality where Gibson isn't making millions of dollars because of Slash's influence
They just need to change the shape a bit more. I bet if Glenn invented the V, he’d be pissed too. Notice how Gibson isn’t suing Guild for the S-100 (SG).
Gibson did the same thing to Reverend a few years ago with their Volcano & Ron Asheton sig. models. They had a distinct asymmetric V shape. Gibson are sue happy.
The actual reason legally why Gibson was successful against those companies was due to the headstock. The headstock is the most protected part legally of a guitar (dating back to Spanish luthiers all having a unique design each) so this law carried on through the centuries. The actual V of the body isn't copyrighted as such. But as KDH says they HAVE to defend their Trademark or they lose it. End result? Casual observers deem them "sue happy" so gives them a bad name. For doing what they legally have to do!
Glen is both a Canadian and former auto worker, so he's pretty much an anti-big business union lefty (not a criticism, just a description). Your take is pretty much my take. I agree that Gibson could defend their IP in a less jerk-like manner (and if they did so they'd be heroes), but they're not required to.
C&D letters only seem “jerk like” to regular people. For companies with lawyers they are commonplace. It’s just normal legal communication with lots of normal scary sounding legal jargon.
A C&D gives the offending company an opportunity to avoid lawsuit. How is it being a jerk? They could have just sued him and made him close down forever. THAT would be trying to crush the competition. THAT would be being a jerk. The truth is, Vicious Guitars probably makes great guitars, but they have no original thought. Don't be surprised if their remedy for the Gibson C&D results in another C&D from Fender (Or EVH). They took the shape of an aircraft, and used the name of an already existing EVH guitar model, lol. No original thought at all.
Funny timing...this video about Trademark and Gibson also happens - for my personal YT feed - to feature a Short...that has an image that shows how Gibson basically copied the Star Trek logo for one of their body shapes. Say what you will, but since this video is about Trademark and how "important" it apparently is, I found it funny.
I still think it's either overstepping or there is the imbalance in how they're happy to threaten smaller ones but ignore some bigger players like Schecter (and IMO it was way more similar to Gibson's version than some of the others you claimed to be more similar, but I guess that's subjective) or at least exactly guys like Schecter are confident enough that Gibson won't actually follow through with the threats or if they do they'd lose, but from a small builder's perspective a letter like that IS TERRIFYING. And also I think the size of a business also matters, it's different when something is mass produced, thenI say send C&D all you want, but in case of ultra small handcrafted stuff... Think how Disney is famously zelalously overprotective of their IP but still you can get Disney themed items in Etsy that I BET aren't licenced and yet theycan operateand nobody has any problems with it... At least for as much asI can tell. Anyway, I'm not a legal expert, but I'd say tributes and fanart should be legal to make AND SELL for as long as they're at a microscopic scale like that, not large volume assembly line production if you know what I mean. So there's this kinda moral aspect to it as well why I think this does fall under bullying, cause I can't believe a tiny Canadian workshop could cause Gibson to lose the trademark in the US.
It's not just the body shape. Vicious was literally calling it the "Flying V." Schecter does not call their V shaped guitars a "Flying V." So there is direct market confusion. As far as enforcing trademarks between the US and Canada, NAFTA allows for trademark enforcement between the US, Canada, and Mexico.
I love how many people dislike Glen. He’s the man and people just don’t want to hear the truth.
People don’t listen to Glen Fricker because he tells the truth? Please. People don’t listen to him because he’s an obnoxious, arrogant blowhard who spreads misinformation under the guise of “honesty.” His so-called “truth” is riddled with bias, half-baked opinions, and blatant inaccuracies. Claiming tonewoods don’t matter? That pickups are irrelevant with high gain? These aren’t truths-they’re laughable oversimplifications that anyone with real experience can debunk.
The real issue isn’t that he’s “too honest”; it’s that he weaponizes his platform to scream his narrow, biased takes while mocking and belittling anyone who disagrees. Truth isn’t about being the loudest person in the room or doubling down on bad opinions-it’s about presenting facts backed by evidence. Fricker, on the other hand, thrives on controversy and clickbait, not honesty. People aren’t rejecting “truth”; they’re rejecting his toxic attitude, baseless claims, and relentless hypocrisy.
The usable guitar shapes that you can come up are limited. I think classical and acoustic guitar builders should sue gibson too for uising their guitar shape.
Satellite Guitars owned the trademark for the Coronet name and were crushed by Gibson in court, smaller companies can't compete with the legal fees. I had my domaine name stolen by a major corporation, I couldn't pay the basic legal fees to try and get them to stop, about $80,000. I wasted weeks on this, finally my domain provider stepped in. Gibson bullied PRS about owning the rights to the single cutaway. As a custom builder I get a lot of requests to build vintage guitar models that are rare and cost prohibitive for the average musician to play, it's not unoriginal, there is a market for it. The people that buy them are not confused about what they are getting. I was approached once by a customer that wanted a left handed Flying V, Gibson refused to make it for him. It is bullying to squash a small builder with these legal fees. I told my kids that the statue of justice holding the scales, on our towns court building ,represented that whoever piled more money on the scales won.
Dude! You have no idea how many times I have actually declined to build an exact copy of flying-V! I was specifically asked to make wings more “rounder”so it would look like an OG! These are people who clearly can afford a custom build, KNOW the design difference, chose NOT to pay $7k for a custom V and still ask someone else to build their dream V!
I didn't watch all of this (thoughtful) video, so not sure if this was mentioned, but I wonder if there is residual fall-out from the bizarre PR disaster known as the "Play Authentic" video. IIRC, Mark Agnesi warned other companies that "we're coming after you" re: legal action. This might be a reinforcement of the bully narrative, as smaller builders would have more to fear than the larger builders. In the massive wake of that old video, I don't think Gibson is perceived as "this is just standard business practice".