Ted McCarty's estate and PRS suing Gibson

Black Plaid said:
Unfortunately, our law says that if you do not enforce your trademarks, you lose them.
Click to expand...
I understand quite a bit about trademark law and I think both of these cases should be dismissed for having no merit.

On the lawsuit against G, IMO using the word "Theodore" is about as telling as calling a guitar Bob. I doubt that the overwhelming majority of guitar buyers know who Ted McCarty is and even those who do know of him, know him as just that, Ted, not Theodore. Perhaps his estate and PRS are correct in their own circles, but I don't think so and a trademark dispute is about whether it would create confusion among the guitar buying public, not the perception of the plaintiffs on a private level.

On the counter lawsuit against PRS, G is acting as if the word silver is all their's, when it is not. Silverburst is their's for use on stringed instruments, but simply the word silver is not their's and never would be approved as a trademark (because it is too common a word, I have been denied trademarks for that exact reason). To think that they are contending "Silverburst" would be confused with "Silver Sky Nebula" is simply ridiculous in my eyes and therefore, case should be dismissed as having no merit.

This is my logic on why both of these suits are a waste of time and money. I have not read the full case filings in either instance but did read the article and understand the premise of each case! You do have to protect your trademarks, but both are a stretch beyond a reasonable persons logic for "buyer confusion" IMO! Your mileage obviously varies, and that is all good ;~)) I respect your opinion but legally disagree! Feel free to convince me of the merits of these cases.
 
Moondog Wily said:
I understand quite a bit about trademark law and I think both of these cases should be dismissed for having no merit.

On the lawsuit against G, IMO using the word "Theodore" is about as telling as calling a guitar Bob. I doubt that the overwhelming majority of guitar buyers know who Ted McCarty is and even those who do know of him, know him as just that, Ted, not Theodore. Perhaps his estate and PRS are correct in their own circles, but I don't think so and a trademark dispute is about whether it would create confusion among the guitar buying public, not the perception of the plaintiffs on a private level.

On the counter lawsuit against PRS, G is acting as if the word silver is all their's, when it is not. Silverburst is their's for use on stringed instruments, but simply the word silver is not their's and never would be approved as a trademark (because it is too common a word, I have been denied trademarks for that exact reason). To think that they are contending "Silverburst" would be confused with "Silver Sky Nebula" is simply ridiculous in my eyes and therefore, case should be dismissed as having no merit.

This is my logic on why both of these suits are a waste of time and money. I have not read the full case filings in either instance but did read the article and understand the premise of each case! You do have to protect your trademarks, but both are a stretch beyond a reasonable persons logic for "buyer confusion" IMO! Your mileage obviously varies, and that is all good ;~)) I respect your opinion but legally disagree! Feel free to convince me of the merits of these cases.
Click to expand...
Do you think it's a total coincidence that they named it Theodore? Don't you think that people would wonder why a company which has never given a guitar a person name that didn't have something significant to their history would suddenly name a guitar the equivalent of "Bob"?

It's clear they are, and have been, using the history associated with their brand to sell instruments. Any buyer is going to ask why it's called "Theodore" and the sales person is going to talk about McCarty.

They are trying to leverage a legacy name that the estate in question, and others using that name, do not wish them to.

Gibson's case is truly the only one that has no merit. If it did, Ozzy Osborne should come after Moondog Willy, because clearly dogs bark at the moon, and that was the name of an album he released to great success. you are clearly trying to imply that you are associated with Ozzy by using the Moondog monicker! 😂
 
Black Plaid said:
Do you think it's a total coincidence that they named it Theodore? Don't you think that people would wonder why a company which has never given a guitar a person name that didn't have something significant to their history would suddenly name a guitar the equivalent of "Bob"?

It's clear they are, and have been, using the history associated with their brand to sell instruments. Any buyer is going to ask why it's called "Theodore" and the sales person is going to talk about McCarty.

They are trying to leverage a legacy name that the estate in question, and others using that name, do not wish them to.

Gibson's case is truly the only one that has no merit. If it did, Ozzy Osborne should come after Moondog Willy, because clearly dogs bark at the moon, and that was the name of an album he released to great success. you are clearly trying to imply that you are associated with Ozzy by using the Moondog monicker! 😂
Click to expand...
Fair enough! I am glad we can agree that at least one of these suits has no merit ;~)) I did not get that impression from your initial response, it seemed more like a blanket statement to cover both suits in question.

As for the other one, neither of us (as far as I know) have read all the briefs, motions, initial complaint and other postings on this case so we are going based on what is in the article as far as legal arguments are concerned. Based on what I read in that article, I agree with G's position that PRS has not thus far shown how a consumer would be confused when they buying a limited production "Theodore" from a G guitars dealer. Nor was there anything in the article indicating the estate had provided evidence of how using the name "Theodore" for a guitar in their line would be an example of G using McCarty's image or likeness or infringe on his estate or namesake. Perhaps the estate or PRS, in the filings, have convincing arguments I have not read, but from a consumer standpoint, I neither believe, nor care if, Theodore is the name of the guitar, nor do I think that most consumers would get the impression that a "Theodore" is a Ted McCarty approved product. Lawyers are being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, so there are obviously arguments to both sides of the story, but based on what I have heard so far, I don't think PRS nor the McCarty estate have any TM claims on the word "Theodore" for stringed instruments and therefore, on that as well as other arguments above, I see this as a frivolous lawsuit based on what I know at this time ;~))

We shall see what happens. I will log into my Pacer account next week and download the files (assuming this court is in the Pacer system) so I can read through them to better understand the specifics of the case and I will PM you a link so you can review them as well if you see fit to do so. Not looking for a fight, like I said, lawyers getting paid a lot of money for this very fight, with a lot more detail than we have. Just saying, I think both are a waste of time and money in the courts, and if there is one thing I hate it is lawyers (who like the casinos, always win) growing their coffers especially when they are doing so on claims that have no merit (IMO). I see neither claim amounting to anyone loosing money, now or in the past or future, or being defamed with either naming convention ;~)) Now if Gibson tries to launch a new "McCarty" line, instant death to any such pipe dreams, PRS and likely the McCarty estate have that locked up and I support any and all actions, legal or otherwise, that PRS would take to shove that down their throats!

To answer your specific questions:

Q1: Do you think it's a total coincidence that they named it Theodore? No, I think they named this guitar as such to honor the individual who built the companies legacy (which I could not have told you until 2021 when I first learned it and I have owned Fenders, Martins and Steinbergers for decades). They likely would have preferred to call it "The McCarty" but did not to avoid this exact mess. Considering that nobody owned the TM for the word "Theodore", I think they made a good choice in thinking it was far enough removed from other trademarks and estate claims to legally do so. A judge or jury may ultimately agree with them, maybe not.

Q2: Don't you think that people would wonder why a company which has never given a guitar a person name that didn't have something significant to their history would suddenly name a guitar the equivalent of "Bob"? No, I do not think the average guitar buyer is going to wonder about something like that. I had never personally thought of any such thing in any of the 15 or so guitar purchases I have made in my life. When I purchased my McCarty 594 HBII WL, I had no idea who Ted McCarty was nor did I research the name of the guitar to find out. I did not care whose name was on it and still don't (I would probably have chosen a different model if it were called the Milli Vanili 594 so I do have limits). I doubt that most other guitar buyers care either. If this was a rock star endorsement type thing, might be a different story. But if you think the majority of guitar players are thinking "Wow, I really like this guitar, but who is it named after? Is this guitar endorsed by that individuals estate? Does this guitar's name infringe on anyone's TMs for stringed instruments? How do I find out more about this Theodore guy before I purchase this guitar that sounds and feels great?", then I think you are giving most guitar players a lot of credit for overthinking their six string purchase ;~)) I think most don't care and the ones who are buying a limited production run from G know exactly who Ted McCarty is, probably scoff at G calling it a Theodore because everybody called him Ted best I have heard, and already know that his estate nor PRS has anything to do with this guitar and if they don't, their salesmen could easily pass such information on to them if they had such a question.

BTW, I don't bark at the moon, I howl so Ozzy can shove it, his suit has no merit ;~))

But that is just me ;~)) I am not trying to change anybody's mind, just stating my legal opinion and responding to your questions. Let me know if I missed anything.
 
This fugly guitar is supposed to HONOUR Ted McCarthy? I would be insulted if it was me. OTOH, the PRS McCarty 594 is a fitting tribute to TM.
 
Moondog Wily said:
Fair enough! I am glad we can agree that at least one of these suits has no merit ;~)) I did not get that impression from your initial response, it seemed more like a blanket statement to cover both suits in question.

As for the other one, neither of us (as far as I know) have read all the briefs, motions, initial complaint and other postings on this case so we are going based on what is in the article as far as legal arguments are concerned. Based on what I read in that article, I agree with G's position that PRS has not thus far shown how a consumer would be confused when they buying a limited production "Theodore" from a G guitars dealer. Nor was there anything in the article indicating the estate had provided evidence of how using the name "Theodore" for a guitar in their line would be an example of G using McCarty's image or likeness or infringe on his estate or namesake. Perhaps the estate or PRS, in the filings, have convincing arguments I have not read, but from a consumer standpoint, I neither believe, nor care if, Theodore is the name of the guitar, nor do I think that most consumers would get the impression that a "Theodore" is a Ted McCarty approved product. Lawyers are being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, so there are obviously arguments to both sides of the story, but based on what I have heard so far, I don't think PRS nor the McCarty estate have any TM claims on the word "Theodore" for stringed instruments and therefore, on that as well as other arguments above, I see this as a frivolous lawsuit based on what I know at this time ;~))

We shall see what happens. I will log into my Pacer account next week and download the files (assuming this court is in the Pacer system) so I can read through them to better understand the specifics of the case and I will PM you a link so you can review them as well if you see fit to do so. Not looking for a fight, like I said, lawyers getting paid a lot of money for this very fight, with a lot more detail than we have. Just saying, I think both are a waste of time and money in the courts, and if there is one thing I hate it is lawyers (who like the casinos, always win) growing their coffers especially when they are doing so on claims that have no merit (IMO). I see neither claim amounting to anyone loosing money, now or in the past or future, or being defamed with either naming convention ;~)) Now if Gibson tries to launch a new "McCarty" line, instant death to any such pipe dreams, PRS and likely the McCarty estate have that locked up and I support any and all actions, legal or otherwise, that PRS would take to shove that down their throats!

To answer your specific questions:

Q1: Do you think it's a total coincidence that they named it Theodore? No, I think they named this guitar as such to honor the individual who built the companies legacy (which I could not have told you until 2021 when I first learned it and I have owned Fenders, Martins and Steinbergers for decades). They likely would have preferred to call it "The McCarty" but did not to avoid this exact mess. Considering that nobody owned the TM for the word "Theodore", I think they made a good choice in thinking it was far enough removed from other trademarks and estate claims to legally do so. A judge or jury may ultimately agree with them, maybe not.

Q2: Don't you think that people would wonder why a company which has never given a guitar a person name that didn't have something significant to their history would suddenly name a guitar the equivalent of "Bob"? No, I do not think the average guitar buyer is going to wonder about something like that. I had never personally thought of any such thing in any of the 15 or so guitar purchases I have made in my life. When I purchased my McCarty 594 HBII WL, I had no idea who Ted McCarty was nor did I research the name of the guitar to find out. I did not care whose name was on it and still don't (I would probably have chosen a different model if it were called the Milli Vanili 594 so I do have limits). I doubt that most other guitar buyers care either. If this was a rock star endorsement type thing, might be a different story. But if you think the majority of guitar players are thinking "Wow, I really like this guitar, but who is it named after? Is this guitar endorsed by that individuals estate? Does this guitar's name infringe on anyone's TMs for stringed instruments? How do I find out more about this Theodore guy before I purchase this guitar that sounds and feels great?", then I think you are giving most guitar players a lot of credit for overthinking their six string purchase ;~)) I think most don't care and the ones who are buying a limited production run from G know exactly who Ted McCarty is, probably scoff at G calling it a Theodore because everybody called him Ted best I have heard, and already know that his estate nor PRS has anything to do with this guitar and if they don't, their salesmen could easily pass such information on to them if they had such a question.

BTW, I don't bark at the moon, I howl so Ozzy can shove it, his suit has no merit ;~))

But that is just me ;~)) I am not trying to change anybody's mind, just stating my legal opinion and responding to your questions. Let me know if I missed anything.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your position, and you have sound arguments, but I also kinda hate what Gibson has become, so I am obviously biased. The last thing Gibson cares about is honoring anything, they just want to appease their investors who want that $$$, yo.

The game is rigged, the lawyers are always going to win.

Honestly it's probably the McCarty estate looking for a payout, and asking PRS to help them out. Knowing Paul, he's got a soft spot for McCarty and acquiesced to them. This is all just through my jaded, yet rose coloured glasses, of course.

I just got off the phone with Sharon O., her people are going to be in touch...
 
DougGuitar said:
This fugly guitar is supposed to HONOUR Ted McCarthy? I would be insulted if it was me. OTOH, the PRS McCarty 594 is a fitting tribute to TM.
Click to expand...
I agree whole heartedly that it is a FUGLY guitar! That said, from what I understand in that article, it was his design and I doubt they produced it to "dis-honor" him!! At least he had the sense to not have it put into production ;~))
 
Black Plaid said:
I appreciate your position, and you have sound arguments, but I also kinda hate what Gibson has become, so I am obviously biased. The last thing Gibson cares about is honoring anything, they just want to appease their investors who want that $$$, yo.

The game is rigged, the lawyers are always going to win.

Honestly it's probably the McCarty estate looking for a payout, and asking PRS to help them out. Knowing Paul, he's got a soft spot for McCarty and acquiesced to them. This is all just through my jaded, yet rose coloured glasses, of course.

I just got off the phone with Sharon O., her people are going to be in touch...
Click to expand...
So now I am going to suffer the Blizzard of Oz! Thanks, thanks a lot!!

I hear ya man, I have never owned a G and doubt I ever will. I don't like any large corporations because they (like lawyers) have only one thing in mind and that is more money!!

Peace and love to all!!!
 
Moondog Wily said:
I agree whole heartedly that it is a FUGLY guitar! That said, from what I understand in that article, it was his design and I doubt they produced it to "dis-honor" him!! At least he had the sense to not have it put into production ;~))
Click to expand...
Hold on now, Gibson is saying "This is an original design by Ted McCarty we are creating and naming it Theodore because no one would ever associate this with McCarty?"

That's some serious double-speak.
 
Moondog Wily said:
So now I am going to suffer the Blizzard of Oz! Thanks, thanks a lot!!

I hear ya man, I have never owned a G and doubt I ever will. I don't like any large corporations because they (like lawyers) have only one thing in mind and that is more money!!

Peace and love to all!!!
Click to expand...
What you said is all true. The last straw for me with G was when they hired that smart ass guy from Norm's Rare Guitars (forget his name).
 
Black Plaid said:
Hold on now, Gibson is saying "This is an original design by Ted McCarty we are creating and naming it Theodore because no one would ever associate this with McCarty?"

That's some serious double-speak.
Click to expand...
From the article "The instrument was, according to Gibson’s Mat Koehler, based on an unused Ted McCarty design, one only recently discovered in the brand’s archives.".
 
Gibson seems to have a Santana P90 as well.

Gibson Rick Beato Les Paul Special Double Cut Electric Guitar

Get the guaranteed best price on Solid Body Electric Guitars like the Gibson Rick Beato Les Paul Special Double Cut Electric Guitar at Musician's Friend. Get a low price and free shipping on...
www.musiciansfriend.com www.musiciansfriend.com

Hats off to Gibson,
Both guitars look amazing. I actually want both ❤
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RobRiggs
NF53 and Myles Kennedy Best Sellers
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
SinSir
SinSir
SinSir
Gibson '59 recreation PAF pickups
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
SteveGlitch
SteveGlitch
ToneRangerAudio
NGD - 2009 Limited Ted McCarty SC-245
2
Replies
23
Views
407
sergiodeblanc
sergiodeblanc
littlebadboy
PRS has re-engineered the shape of its tuners
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
SonicBlue
SonicBlue
shinksma
PRS New SE models: Swamp Ash Special, CE, and Quilted Maple CU24
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
shinksma
shinksma
Back
Top