Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP
423 F.3d 539 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of 'initial-interest confusion' does not apply to product shape trademarks where the alleged confusion is based solely on a competitor's product appearing similar from a distance, especially when sophisticated consumers would not be confused at the point of sale.
Facts:
- Gibson Guitar Corp. ('Gibson') has manufactured high-quality guitars for over 100 years.
- In 1952, Gibson introduced the Les Paul model, a solid-body, single-cutaway electric guitar.
- Gibson obtained a U.S. Trademark for the two-dimensional shape of its Les Paul guitar, which became 'incontestable' in 1999.
- Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP ('PRS') is a manufacturer of high-quality guitars that began operating a factory in 1985.
- In February 2000, PRS introduced its 'Singlecut' model, a solid-body, single-cutaway electric guitar with a similar body shape to the Gibson Les Paul.
- In March 2000, Gibson sent PRS a cease-and-desist letter demanding it stop producing and selling the Singlecut guitar.
Procedural Posture:
- Gibson Guitar Corp. filed a lawsuit against Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, alleging trademark infringement and other claims.
- PRS counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment that Gibson's trademark was invalid and not infringed.
- Gibson moved for partial summary judgment on its trademark-infringement claim, and PRS moved for summary judgment on all claims and counterclaims.
- The district court granted Gibson's motion for partial summary judgment and denied PRS's motion.
- Following the summary judgment ruling, the parties dismissed all other claims with prejudice.
- The district court then entered a permanent injunction against PRS, prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or distribution of its Singlecut guitar.
- PRS filed an interlocutory appeal of the permanent injunction and the underlying summary judgment order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a competitor's guitar that has a similar body shape to a trademarked guitar shape constitute trademark infringement under an 'initial-interest confusion' theory, when there is no possibility of confusion at the point of sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, J.
No. A competitor's guitar with a similar shape does not constitute trademark infringement under an 'initial-interest confusion' theory when point-of-sale confusion is absent. The court rejected Gibson's reliance on initial-interest confusion, where a consumer might be drawn to a PRS guitar from a distance thinking it is a Gibson, only to realize the truth upon closer inspection. The court reasoned that applying this doctrine to product shapes would improperly allow trademark holders to protect a 'penumbra' of similar shapes, stifling legitimate competition. Given Gibson's concession that sophisticated purchasers of these expensive guitars would not be confused at the point of sale, the court found no viable basis for an infringement claim. The court also dismissed theories of post-sale confusion, as PRS guitars are of high quality and thus do not tarnish Gibson's reputation, and a 'smoky-bar' theory of confusion, noting that such a mistake would likely help, not harm, Gibson's sales.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Kennedy, J.
No, but the majority's reasoning is flawed. The court should not have categorically rejected the initial-interest confusion doctrine for product shape trademarks. If a product shape can function as a trademark by identifying its source, it should be protectable under all recognized infringement theories. The proper inquiry, which the district court failed to conduct, is a factual one: does Gibson's guitar shape actually identify its source when viewed from the distance where confusion is alleged to occur? This judge would remand the case for this factual determination rather than granting summary judgment to PRS, because if the shape does serve as a source identifier from afar, then Gibson should be allowed to present its initial-interest confusion evidence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the scope of the 'initial-interest confusion' doctrine, particularly in the context of product configuration trademarks within the Sixth Circuit. It establishes that attracting a consumer's initial interest due to a general resemblance in product shape, without any likelihood of confusion at the point of purchase, is not actionable trademark infringement. The ruling reinforces the distinction between trademark law, which protects source identification, and patent law, which protects novel designs, thereby preventing trademark holders from using their marks to stifle legitimate competition in product design. Future cases involving product shape trademarks will likely require stronger evidence of actual consumer confusion as to source, rather than just momentary curiosity.
Unlock the full brief for Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP