If you’re a music lover—or just someone who’s ever walked past a guitar display in a store—you’ve probably seen the iconic Gibson body shapes or headstocks. They’re instantly recognizable to seasoned musicians and casual fans alike. When people saw Dean-branded guitars with similar shapes show up in stores, some of them knew that a serious trademark issue was brewing. Below, our friends from Trademark Lawyer Law Firm discuss Gibson Vs. Dean and trademarking a shape.
Gibson Vs. Dean: A Trademark Trial Every Brand Owner Should Study
Now, the Fifth Circuit has weighed in on the high-stakes legal battle between Gibson and Armadillo (the owner of Dean Guitars), and the result is a warning to every trademark owner and challenger out there: the rules of evidence matter, and timing can make or break your case.
Here’s the short version: Gibson sued Armadillo for trademark infringement, claiming that Dean guitars copied their famous Flying V, Explorer, SG, and other protected body and headstock designs. The jury agreed with Gibson—but Armadillo had argued from the start that these shapes were either generic or so widely used that they no longer functioned as valid trademarks.
So why did Armadillo lose? The court excluded decades of evidence showing other companies had used similar guitar designs—evidence that could have helped prove Gibson’s trademarks had become generic.
But now, on appeal, the Fifth Circuit has ruled that excluding that historical evidence was a mistake.
The appellate court found that the lower court wrongly relied on a narrow five-year cutoff, rejecting relevant third-party-use evidence from before 1992. This wasn’t just a technicality. That older evidence was central to Armadillo’s defense that the shapes Gibson claimed were protectable were actually commonplace in the industry—even decades before.
The Fifth Circuit reminded us that genericness isn’t limited to what happened recently. If a product’s shape or name has been used so broadly over time that consumers associate it with the product itself—rather than a specific brand—it’s not a trademark. It’s public domain. And that’s true no matter how many years have passed.
Why This Matters
Here’s why this matters for you:
If you’re defending a trademark, be prepared to prove that it’s distinct and still source-identifying—not just recently, but over the long haul.
If you’re challenging a trademark, don’t let an artificial time cutoff stop you from presenting the full history of the mark and its industry use.
And whether you’re on offense or defense, make sure your evidence strategy is solid. As this case shows, one evidentiary ruling can flip an entire jury verdict.
This case is also a good reminder that trademark law doesn’t only protect names and logos. It can apply to shapes, sounds, colors, and even product packaging—but only when those features truly act as source indicators. If your competitors and customers treat something as a generic or commonly used design, even your most famous mark can be vulnerable.
Bottom line? Don’t assume your brand is bulletproof just because it’s been around a while. And don’t assume you can’t fight back just because someone else got there first.
If you’re navigating trademark disputes—especially those involving product design, historical use, or claims of genericness—get legal guidance from a trademark litigation lawyer early. The difference between winning and losing might come down to what gets let in as evidence, and what gets shut out.