• Connect
  • Bookmark Us
  • AF Twitter
  • AF YouTube
  • AF LinkedIn
  • Subscribe
  • Subscription Link
Arent Fox
  • Firm

    • History

    • Awards & Recognitions

    • Diversity

      • Overview
      • Diversity Scholarship
      • Employees on Diversity
      • LGBT Initiative
      • Women’s Leadership Development Initiative
    • Alumni

    • Pro Bono

      • Overview
      • Current Pro Bono Work
      • Community Involvement
      • Pro Bono Newsletter
      • Pro Bono Awards & Honors
      • FAQ: Pro Bono & Working at Arent Fox
    • Leadership

      • Firm Management
      • Administrative Leadership
  • Deals & Cases

  • People

  • Practices & Industries

    • Practices

      • Advertising, Promotions & Data Security
      • Government Relations
      • Antitrust & Competition Law
      • Health Care
      • Appellate
      • Insurance & Reinsurance
      • Bankruptcy & Financial Restructuring
      • Intellectual Property
      • Commercial Litigation
      • International Trade
      • Communications, Technology & Mobile
      • Labor & Employment
      • Construction
      • Municipal & Project Finance
      • Consumer Product Safety
      • OSHA
      • Corporate & Securities
      • Political Law
      • ERISA
      • Real Estate
      • Environmental
      • Tax
      • FDA Practice (Food & Drug)
      • Wealth Planning & Management
      • Finance
      • White Collar & Investigations
      • Government Contractor Services
    • Industries

      • Automotive
      • Energy Law & Policy
      • Fashion, Luxury Goods & Retail
      • Government Real Estate & Public Buildings
      • Hospitality
      • Life Sciences
      • Long Term Care & Senior Living
      • Media & Entertainment
      • Medical Devices
      • Nonprofit
      • Sports
  • Newsroom

    • Alerts

    • Events

    • Media Mentions

    • Press Releases

    • Social Media

    • Subscribe

  • Careers

    • Lawyers

    • Law Students

    • Professional Staff

  • Contact

    • Washington, DC

    • New York, NY

    • Los Angeles, CA

    Alerts

    • Newsroom Overview
      • Alerts

        Alerts by Criteria

        E.g., 1 / 21 / 2013
        E.g., 1 / 21 / 2013
      • Events
      • Media Mentions
      • Press Releases
      • Social Media
      • Subscribe

    You are here

    Home » Newsroom » Alerts

    Share

    • Printer-friendly version
    • Send by email
    • A Title
    • A Title
    • A Title
    • A
    • A
    • A

    Supreme Court Declines to Review Ruling in Noted Battle Between Guitar Makers

    June 21, 2006

    The Supreme Court recently declined to review a 2005 federal appeals court ruling that the Singlecut® guitar manufactured by Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP (PRS) does not infringe the trademark registration owned by Gibson Guitar Corporation for its Les Paul® guitars. Gibson had sued for trademark infringement shortly after Paul Reed Smith introduced the Singlecut® guitar model in 2000. Gibson argued that the Singlecut® model was too similar to the trademark registration it owned for its famous Les Paul® model and created confusion in the marketplace.

    In 2004, the Middle District of Tennessee issued a permanent injunction preventing PRS from manufacturing, selling and distributing its Singlecut® guitars. The Sixth Circuit later vacated the injunction, ruling that the PRS guitar did not infringe Gibson’s trademark. The appeals court noted that the parties had agreed to dismiss their trade dress claims and explained that the trial court “confused trademark law with trade-dress law” by expanding Gibson’s trademark registration for the Les Paul® guitar’s body shape to cover design features of the guitar, such as the placement and style of knobs and switches and the color of the guitar. The Sixth Circuit held that the trial erred by relying on specimens that Gibson submitted with the application showing the entire Les Paul® guitar rather than the two-dimensional shape depicted in the application drawing to determine whether Gibson’s trademark was infringed.

    The Sixth Circuit also found that the evidence offered by Gibson of initial-interest confusion and post-sale confusion could not substitute for evidence that consumers were confused at the point of sale. The court specifically pointed out that Gibson had conceded that the expense of the guitars and the sophistication of consumers would likely avoid confusion at the point of sale. Absent evidence of consumer confusion at the point of sale, the Sixth Circuit found no basis for Gibson’s trademark infringement claim.

    The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in this case settles the closely watched legal battle between the guitar makers and appears to give competing guitar manufacturers the green light to continue selling guitars very similar to the popular Les Paul® model.

    Anthony Lupo
    202.857.6353
    lupo.anthony@arentfox.com

    Halle Markus
    202.857.6113
    markus.halle@arentfox.com

    Related People

    • Anthony V. Lupo
    • Halle Markus

    Related Practices

    Advertising, Promotions & Data Security
    Intellectual Property
    • Firm
    • Deals & Cases
    • People
    • Practices & Industries
    • Newsroom
    • Careers
    • Contact

    Footer Main

    • Firm
    • Deals & Cases
    • People
    • Practices & Industries
    • Newsroom
    • Careers
    • Subscribe
    • Alumni
    • Diversity
    • Legal Notice
    • Privacy Policy
    • Social Media Disclaimer
    • Nondiscrimination
    • Site Map
    • Client/Staff Login

    Offices

    • Washington, DC
      1717 K Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: 202.857.6000
    • New York, NY
      1675 Broadway
      New York, New York 10019
      Tel: 212.484.3900
    • Los Angeles, CA
      555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor
      Los Angeles, California 90013
      Tel: 213.629.7400
    • © Copyright 2013 Arent Fox LLP. All Rights Reserved.

      Legal Disclaimer
      Contents may contain attorney advertising under the laws of some states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.