Lawsuit Guitars

[Chordchunker]

Getting a little tired of this buzzword nonsense.. This is the only "real" lawsuit and it was about the mustache hs design at Gibson..NOT because of Takamine, Yammie, etc.. Don`t fall for this BS on ebay...

 

Very easy to find this info on google on many different pages...

 

http://www.guitarattack.com/destroyer/lawsuit.htm

 

On June 28, 1977, Norlin, the parent company of Gibson, filed a lawsuit against Elger (Ibanez) in Philadelphia Federal District Court . The case was "Gibson Vs. Elger Co." with Gibson claiming trademark infringement based on the duplicate "open book" or "moustache" headstock design of the Ibanez copies. Allegedly Gibson had threatened to sue Elger/Ibanez for a long time regarding the use of the headstock which Norlin claimed as a Gibson trademark. Ironically, by the fall of 1976 Ibanez had redesigned their headstocks to look much like those found Guild guitars. The new headstock design even appeared in the 1976 catalog! So, conspiracy theorists, by the time the lawsuit was actually filed, the headstocks had already been changed. While "lawsuit" head generally means a Gibson copy headstock, the Ibanez headstock at the time of the lawsuit was actually a copy of a Guild headstock. It is an urban legend that the Gibson/Norlin lawsuit was filed against a number of Japanese companies. It is also commonly held it was over the exact copying of American designs. Neither of these urban legends are true.

[Opa John]

A good friend of mine has a very early mid-60s Dixon Hummingbird. He's not sure exactly when he got it, but I think the Dixon Hummingbird came out in about '63. Other than the name on the headstock, you can't tell it from a Gibson of the same era. Even has the little Gibson "crown" on the headstock. I've played it and it's a damn good sounding guitar! I read somewhere that it was supposedly built (for Dixon) by the same man who originally created the first one for Gibson when he still worked there.

 

I've often wondered why it never generated a Gibson lawsuit.

 

 

 

The only difference I see is the number of screws in the truss rod cover plate. I realize the tuning buttons are different, but Gibson used several different styles of buttons. And, the pickguard designs on these two guitars were identical.

[Pitar]

Interesting. So, the so-called lawsuit headstock guitars were shaped at the top edge like an open book (mustache) but at the time of the actual filing of the suit Ibanez had already switched to the Guild shape. Also, the pre-lawsuit guitars were not serialized. This is all about Ibanez (ELGER). The "Law Suit" era doesn't include the Takamine copies of Martin dreads, is another law suit altogether or, as the article suggests, urban myth and applicable only to Gibson vs ELGER? Very confusing.

[FretFiend.]

"Lawsuit" guitar has more interest and intrigue than "threatening letter from a lawyer" guitar.

[Chordchunker]

 

Interesting. So, the so-called lawsuit headstock guitars were shaped at the top edge like an open book (mustache) but at the time of the actual filing of the suit Ibanez had already switched to the Guild shape. Also, the pre-lawsuit guitars were not serialized. This is all about Ibanez (ELGER). The "Law Suit" era doesn't include the Takamine copies of Martin dreads, is another law suit altogether or, as the article suggests, urban myth and applicable only to Gibson vs ELGER? Very confusing.

 

 

It sort of is confusing but there is lot`s of info on the web that says the exact same thing, one of the reason`s "LAWSUIT GUITAR!!!!!" ads on ebay are a bunch of marketing nonsense = the point of this thread..

[Chordchunker]

 

"Lawsuit" guitar has more interest and intrigue than "threatening letter from a lawyer" guitar.

 

 

Yup..I`m an outlaw because i bought a "Lawsuit Guitar".

[fastblueheeler]

 

It sort of is confusing but there is lot`s of info on the web that says the exact same thing, one of the reason`s "LAWSUIT GUITAR!!!!!" ads on ebay are a bunch of marketing nonsense = the point of this thread..

 

 

It's not nonsense if it works and in many cases it does. The Tak "lawsuit" models have made me a few bucks.

[Howie22]

I thought the old Takamines were the "lawsuit" guitars?

[Chordchunker]

 

I thought the old Takamines were the "lawsuit" guitars?

 

 

Lots think that, but it was actually Ibanez.(ELGER).

 

Here is another good article:

 

http://www.jazzguitar.be/lawsuit_guitars.html

[Chordchunker]

 

It's not nonsense if it works and in many cases it does. The Tak "lawsuit" models have made me a few bucks.

 

 

How about a "ZAGER MODIFIED LAWSUIT GUITAR!!!!!".. might help you make even a few extra bucks.

[fastblueheeler]

 

How about a "ZAGER MODIFIED LAWSUIT GUITAR!!!!!".. might help you make even a few extra bucks.

 

 

I don't think there's a collectables market for Zager modified guitars and that's what this is about. Lots of folks like to collect Japanese guitars from the "Lawsuit" era. That's why the prices are high - supply and demand. It doesn't matter that there was only one real lawsuit. Most people collecting these guitars know that but it's become a generic term for any guitar made in the 70's that copies a Martin, Gibson or Guild. I've run across several over the years that were priced cheap and I sold them at a nice profit. I sold the last one, A Tak F340S, on CL to a guy from Florida (I'm in Texas). He bought it sight unseen and I made $350 on the deal. Both of us were happy.

[OldGuitarPlayer]

It has been common knowledge since the 1970's that Gibson filed some sort of legal action against Ibanez for their copies of the Gibson "open book" headstocks. It was only about Ibanez and had nothing to so with Takamine or any other Japanese guitar company. Now anyone with a crappy Univox or El Degas Japanese Les Paul copy for sale advertises them as "lawsuit" models in an effort to inflate the prices of such guitars.

[Glenn F]

Interesting. My cousin just sent me this pic taken of me in 1979. Looks like a Gibby J-200 copy, and the headstock looks very close, but I can't make out the brand.

 

 

[Chordchunker]

 

It has been common knowledge since the 1970's that Gibson filed some sort of legal action against Ibanez for their copies of the Gibson "open book" headstocks. It was only about Ibanez and had nothing to so with Takamine or any other Japanese guitar company. Now anyone with a crappy Univox or El Degas Japanese Les Paul copy for sale advertises them as "lawsuit" models in an effort to inflate the prices of such guitars.

 

 

Yes! Someone finally gets it!!

[Chordchunker]

Interesting. My cousin just sent me this pic taken of me in 1979. Looks like a Gibby J-200 copy, and the headstock looks very close, but I can't make out the brand.

 

I can tell it was 1979...Look at those red eyes...lol

[Chordchunker]

 

I don't think there's a collectables market for Zager modified guitars and that's what this is about. Lots of folks like to collect Japanese guitars from the "Lawsuit" era. That's why the prices are high - supply and demand. It doesn't matter that there was only one real lawsuit. Most people collecting these guitars know that but it's become a generic term for any guitar made in the 70's that copies a Martin, Gibson or Guild. I've run across several over the years that were priced cheap and I sold them at a nice profit. I sold the last one, A Tak F340S, on CL to a guy from Florida (I'm in Texas). He bought it sight unseen and I made $350 on the deal. Both of us were happy.

 

 

I agree with older Japanese guitars being collectible, but because they are for the most part damn good guitars, not because of some fabricated buzzword "Lawsuit".

[Pitar]

 

Yes! Someone finally gets it!!

 

 

I got it from your first post identifying which companies were involved and the physical details prompting Gibson to take action. There's just been so much talk about this subject and with all the plainly visible evidence of other makes doing similar copying it stands to reason that there had to be other infringements actions taken. Takamine obviously blatantly copied Martin and there's been much ado about it. Takamine has since desisted with their questionable practice but why do that if it bolstered sales? As it turns out Martin did write a letter threatening Takamine with legal action. I suppose we can call those guitars Martin Threat Letter Guitars?

[Chordchunker]

I got it from your first post identifying which companies were involved and the physical details prompting Gibson to take action. There's just been so much talk about this subject and with all the plainly visible evidence of other makes doing similar copying it stands to reason that there had to be other infringements actions taken. Takamine obviously blatantly copied Martin and there's been much ado about it. Takamine has since desisted with their questionable practice but why do that if it bolstered sales? As it turns out Martin did write a letter threatening Takamine with legal action. I suppose we can call those guitars Martin Threat Letter Guitars?

 

There are some pretty fart smellers on this BBS, so I fingered you knew where I`m coming from..

[OldGuitarPlayer]

Interesting. My cousin just sent me this pic taken of me in 1979. Looks like a Gibby J-200 copy, and the headstock looks very close, but I can't make out the brand.

 

Looks like it's an El Degas?

[Samilyn]

IFIRC, the Martin vs Takamine non-lawsuit was all about the script Tak used on their headstocks.

 

It was identical to the Martin gold-colored script and read:

 

"Takamine, est 1968" as opposed to "CF Martin & Co, est 1833". Additionally, the Tak headstock shape was indistinguishable from Martin.

 

I used to own a "lawsuit" Tak (1979 F400S 12-string) and I say that from a distance, it was nearly impossible to distinguish from a Martin until one got close enough to read the lettering.

 

Here's an 1986 pic of me playing that Tak - sorry, kinda dinky - but check out the headstock.

 

[FretFiend.]

That's true. I recall seeing something somewhere that said that attorneys for CFM sent Takamine a nasty letter threatening legal action if the headstocks weren't changed. Tak changed the headstocks and that was the end of that. No real lawsuit, but those guitars are called "lawsuit" guitars anyway.

[fastblueheeler]

 

That's true. I recall seeing something somewhere that said that attorneys for CFM sent Takamine a nasty letter threatening legal action if the headstocks weren't changed. Tak changed the headstocks and that was the end of that. No real lawsuit, but those guitars are called "lawsuit" guitars anyway.

 

 

That's my understanding. Since we're going from memory, I recall reading that Martin was looking for a Japanese company to make their Sigma line. Takamine was in the running and made a prototype. Martin went with some one else and Tak decided to make and sell their model. May or may not be true. I didn't google.

[Terry Allan Hall]

 

That's my understanding. Since we're going from memory, I recall reading that Martin was looking for a Japanese company to make their Sigma line. Takamine was in the running and made a prototype. Martin went with some one else and Tak decided to make and sell their model. May or may not be true. I didn't google.

 

 

I've heard that story, as well.

[Samilyn]

 

That's my understanding. Since we're going from memory, I recall reading that Martin was looking for a Japanese company to make their Sigma line. Takamine was in the running and made a prototype. Martin went with some one else and Tak decided to make and sell their model. May or may not be true. I didn't google.

 

 

I seem to remember hearing something like that too.

 

I also vaguely recall hearing/reading that the bracing was supposedly identical to the D-28, which of course set the benchmark for dreads. Dunno if that was true or not and I no longer have the dear old Tak for comparison. If I did have it, you can bet I'd be curious enough to grab a mirror and check it out against hubby's '66 D-28.

 

I can honestly say, however, that the Tak that I had was a pretty incredible git - a true tone monster. The build quality was excellent, too, and the woods were drool-worthy. Wish I'd never parted with it.

[Alan Roberts]

IFIRC, the Martin vs Takamine non-lawsuit was all about the script Tak used on their headstocks. It was identical to the Martin gold-colored script and read: "Takamine, est 1968" as opposed to "CF Martin & Co, est 1833". Additionally, the Tak headstock shape was indistinguishable from Martin. I used to own a "lawsuit" Tak (1979 F400S 12-string) and I say that from a distance, it was nearly impossible to distinguish from a Martin until one got close enough to read the lettering. Here's an 1986 pic of me playing that Tak - sorry, kinda dinky - but check out the headstock.

 

I copied this from another site, but it's basically the story I was told by several reps when I was a Takamine dealer.

 

 

 

 

From the Acoustic Guitar Forum .com website :

"No, far from it. Takamine has nothing to do with Sigma or Martin for that matter.

 

Well, not quite, Bogdan. You're missing a crucial part of the story.

 

The only connection they had with Martin (and what probably got your imagination started) was in the early 80's when they've manufactured some guitars highly resembling the Martin design. I understand only in appearance (headstock shape and style of lettering), as they sound quite different from any Martin.

 

These guitars are known as "Takamine lawsuit guitars" (Martin never officially sued them for infringing copyright, but Takamine got the message and moved on).

 

Bogdan - As I wrote, you're missing part of the history there.

 

What happened was that Takamine was, indeed, an independent firm when the C.F. Martin company decided to start having an overseas factory produce a line of Martin-designed instruments, to be labeled and sold as Sigma guitars. This was during the mid- to late-1970's.

 

Takamine was the firm selected by Martin to build the Sigma line. Contracts were signed, and upper level Martin employees went to Japan to the Takamine factory in order to oversee the tooling up process. These Martin representatives basically showed the Takamine workforce how to build Martin guitars, the only significant difference being that the backs and sides were to be made of laminated woods instead of solid wood.

 

But before Martin could bring the Sigma line of guitars out on the market, the Takamine company itself was purchased by the Kaman Corporation, which also made Ovation guitars, one of Martin's main domestic business rivals at the time.

 

Rather than buy their imported guitars from a competing American guitar company, Martin had to go through the whole process of tooling up another Asian factory to get their Sigma guitars built.

 

In the meantime, Kaman Corporation introduced Takamine guitars to the American market, and did a few innovative things with them at the time.

 

One was to use solid cedar tops on many of their models, which had been unheard of on steel string acoustic guitar in the North American market prior to that. Another was to use the electronic pickup technology that they'd already had success with in their Ovation product line and to apply it to more traditionally-styled flattop guitars.

 

You're correct that the cedar topped-Takamine steel strings didn't sound anything like Martins, but the spruce topped Taks mostly definitely sounded like Martin guitars, as well as looking like them. That was a large part of their appeal at the time - they looked and sounded a great deal like Martins, with the additional advantage (on the pickup-equipped models) of being easy to use onstage.

 

I almost got one for just that reason - I was making a living as a professional musician at the time, and here was a "plug-n-play" great-sounding stage-ready guitar for substantially less money than a Martin. Martin itself didn't come out with guitars with pickups in them for at least a couple of years after that.

 

But the reason that the Takamine guitars of this period looked so much like Martin guitars was that, in fact, the Martin company had tooled up the Takamine factory to build Martin-copy Sigmas. They just ended up being Martin-copy Takamines, instead.

 

You are correct that there was never actually a lawsuit. Martin's attorneys sent a "cease and desist" letter to Takamine and to the Kaman Corporation, and the letter was complied with. The Takamine peghead shape and peghead logo were both changed so that there could be no mistaking a Takamine for a Martin or vice versa.

 

In a (possibly) interesting side note, the peghead shape Takamine ended up going with was a very close match to one already in use by a California custom guitarbuilder named Lloyd R. Baggs.

 

It wasn't an intentional rip-off on Takamine/Kaman's part, but Baggs had a clear case, having built guitars with this peghead design for years prior to Takamine using it.

 

Rather than go through an expensive legal action, which neither side wanted, Mr. Baggs agreed to letting Takamine use the peghad design in exchange for a reasonably small number of Takamine acoustic guitar pickups. These were a proprietary design and not available as an aftermarket item, but were considered at the time to be the best-sounding acoustic guitar pickups around, to the point where country musicians like Ricky Skaggs were buying Takamine guitars just to get the pickups, so they could remove them and install them in their Martins.

 

Anyway, Takamine sent the ten or twenty guitar pickups (or whatever the number was) to Lloyd Baggs, who looked at them and said: "I could make these." He tinkered with the design a little bit, and then came out with the L.R. Baggs LB6 pickup, which in turn represented an improvement on the Takamine design.

 

And so the L.R. Baggs Electronics company was born, and has remained an innovative force in the guitar electronics field ever since.

 

So it's kind of an interesting history there, with the "Law of Unintended Consequences" coming into play several times.

 

Hope that makes sense.

 

 

Wade Hampton Miller"