Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
423 F.3d 539 (2005)


Facts

Gibson Guitar Corp. (Gibson) (plaintiff) had been producing musical instruments, including guitars, for over 100 years. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP (PRS) (defendant) began producing custom guitars in the mid-1970s. Gibson first produced its well-known Les Paul guitar in 1952. Gibson submitted a drawing to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and applied to register its solid-body, single-cutaway Les Paul guitars in 1987. The registration was approved in 1990. In 2000, PRS began manufacturing guitars in the same style as Gibson’s Les Paul guitars, with slight differences in proportions and size. Gibson sent PRS a cease and desist letter and then sued for an injunction. Gibson admitted that there was no evidence that consumers actually confused the products. Instead, the court found that there would likely be some initial confusion prior to the consumer’s purchase of PRS’s guitar as to its source because Gibson’s Les Paul, particularly its shape, was so famous. Therefore, the district court granted Gibson an injunction against PRS. PRS appealed this decision.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence/Dissent (Kennedy, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.