Amen to that.
Do you consider Tokai guitars counterfeits?
Please post that in the Site Feedback section. (Actually just look around there and you'll find the answer.)Tokai SA wrote: Btw, why can't I see the Logout link?...in fact I see no links on the top of the page.
So Gibson (not all the owners-sorry julle) is going to try convince us that Tokai LP and SG models are just counterfeit Gibsons, but the problem is: The don't say "Gibson" or "Made in U.S.A." anywhere and they also clearly pride themselves on branding their models with THEIR OWN brandname. That all said, If Gibson wins the debate on Tokai being a counterfeit, what are they then claiming? That all the PRS, ESP, Ibanez, etc guitars that have a single cutaway made of mahogany are also counterfeits? Biggest irony is that Tokai does not copy any ANY current model Gibsons, only the construction method of the old redundant way Gibson used to build instruments. You know, when they were worth buying.
If GIbson wants us to buy Gibsons. They must build them properly.
Business 101: Cut out competition, raise prices, cut corners and costs to increase profit.
Unfortunately they got the order wrong. You can't cut corners before cutting out the competition.
If GIbson wants us to buy Gibsons. They must build them properly.
Business 101: Cut out competition, raise prices, cut corners and costs to increase profit.
Unfortunately they got the order wrong. You can't cut corners before cutting out the competition.
What's with the sweeping statement about "all the guys buying (and selling) Gibsons"? In fact, if you go back through this thread it appears that the vast majority of people dislike Gibson's modus operandi re litigation, QC and resting on laurels, and that includes everyone who owns Gibsons, at least according to their signatures (or I know it independently). Also, most people have shown a lot of respect for Tokai.ryanguit wrote: Of course all the guys buying (and selling) Gibsons are going to try convince us that Tokai LP and SG models are just counterfeit Gibsons, but the problem is: The don't say "Gibson" or "Made in U.S.A." anywhere and they also clearly pride themselves on branding their models with THEIR OWN brandname. That all said, If Gibson wins the debate on Tokai being a counterfeit, what are they then claiming? That all the PRS, ESP, Ibanez, etc guitars that have a single cutaway made of mahogany are also counterfeits? Biggest irony is that Tokai does not copy any ANY current model Gibsons, only the construction method of the old redundant way Gibson used to build instruments. You know, when they were worth buying.
If GIbson wants us to buy Gibsons. They must build them properly.
Business 101: Cut out competition, raise prices, cut corners and costs to increase profit.
Unfortunately they got the order wrong. You can't cut corners before cutting out the competition.
In fact the only people who have come out swinging against Tokai have been pretty roundly shouted down by everyone else (and don't identify themselves as Gibson owners). So pound on Gibson all you want, but the Gibson players on here have played with a straight bat.
True. guitarforum.co.za is not a representation of what people say in person and on YouTube. I truly apologise for the generalisation. I came out swinging in a brawl that didn't exist. And worse, late. Cheers. I'll edit it shortly.
Sorry, man. I'm being over sensitive. Thanks for the classy reply.
Rather you say something, and I fix my error. No such thing as over-sensitive. Have a good one!
Jeez, this must be the most civilized spot on the internet.
?
?
My five cents... Were all musicians with preferences. I prefer Tokai above Gibson... but I dont hate on anyone who prefers Gibson above tokai or Fender above Tokai or whatever... I think the key here is to stick to your preferences. Respect other peoples preferences and keep on keeping on at the end of the day. I do get very riled up however when there's weekend warriors who clearly have no basis to form an opinion on other than what they read on other forums etc...
Dont disrespect me and i wont disrespect you. a guitar is a deeply personal thing and it should stay that way.
Dont disrespect me and i wont disrespect you. a guitar is a deeply personal thing and it should stay that way.
+ 1, I agree...they have and that's appreciated.el guapo wrote:the Gibson players on here have played with a straight bat.ryanguit wrote: Of course all the guys buying (and selling) Gibsons are going to try convince us that Tokai LP and SG models are just counterfeit Gibsons, but the problem is: The don't say "Gibson" or "Made in U.S.A." anywhere and they also clearly pride themselves on branding their models with THEIR OWN brandname. That all said, If Gibson wins the debate on Tokai being a counterfeit, what are they then claiming? That all the PRS, ESP, Ibanez, etc guitars that have a single cutaway made of mahogany are also counterfeits? Biggest irony is that Tokai does not copy any ANY current model Gibsons, only the construction method of the old redundant way Gibson used to build instruments. You know, when they were worth buying.
If GIbson wants us to buy Gibsons. They must build them properly.
Business 101: Cut out competition, raise prices, cut corners and costs to increase profit.
Unfortunately they got the order wrong. You can't cut corners before cutting out the competition.
I've been following this thread fo quite a few days and there are such good arguments laid out I really didn't feel like I could add much to the conversation but it just occurred to me;
If I wanted to buy an instrument for 20k to 50k which is pretty much the whole Tokai/Gibson pricing spectrum - I sure as hell would know exactly what i'm buying - it's not like I'd go into a shop looking for a Gibson and walk out with a Tokai by mistake or under false pretenses and feel cheated. If I bought a Tokai over a Gibson it's because I chose to do so.
Gibson's argument of consumers being cheated is bull.. Anyone buying one of these instruments know exactly what they want. Now if I bought a Gibson les paul and it turns out it was a Chinese fake.......
If I wanted to buy an instrument for 20k to 50k which is pretty much the whole Tokai/Gibson pricing spectrum - I sure as hell would know exactly what i'm buying - it's not like I'd go into a shop looking for a Gibson and walk out with a Tokai by mistake or under false pretenses and feel cheated. If I bought a Tokai over a Gibson it's because I chose to do so.
Gibson's argument of consumers being cheated is bull.. Anyone buying one of these instruments know exactly what they want. Now if I bought a Gibson les paul and it turns out it was a Chinese fake.......
Violins are proudly advertised as Strad or Guanari copies. Even says so on the label. Hehe
Case very much open, I'm afraid.PJH wrote: The original question was "Do you consider Tokai guitar counterfeit"
The definition in the dictionary is: "made in imitation so as to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine".
Tokai puts their own name on the headstock.
Therefore the answer is No, they do not make counterfeit guitars.
They make copies or maybe "replicas" (a name that I prefer).
Case closed.
The definition in your (or any) dictionary is irrelevant. If this is a legal issue being raised in SA than it's the definition under South African law that counts. And I don't—like, it would appear from the comments, everybody else—have a sufficiently in-depth knowledge of that to answer the original question.
I certainly consider many Tokai guitars to be shameless rip-offs, even though they can also be very, very good musical instruments. Whether that is legally right or wrong in this jurisdiction, is another matter entirely.
"Analogous" examples from other jurisdictions are, frankly, unhelpful, as is the repeated stating that they were not the first and a very far from being the only shameless rip-offs on the market. As are comments seeming to suggest that the high quality of the instruments somehow diminishes the rip-off aspect.
I do know that South Africa has been beefing up its anti-counterfeiting laws, since the country is a major dumping-ground for counterfeit goods, and it could be that Gibson (or its representatives) has spotted a crack that could trip Tokai (or its representatives) up. If that's the case and if the Gibson side is correct, then Tokai guitars are—in South Africa—counterfeits; if not, then they are not. That's how the law works. Whether any of us "consider" them to be counterfeits is pretty much irrelevant...
Interesting, but I would be surprised if the law seeing something clearly labeled "Tokai" legally regarded it as counterfeit, keeping in mind future imports of cheaper brands could also be regarded as illegal if they had a 'similar shape"(and the economic impact of that?). Remembering this in a country where the vast majority could not possibly afford a "Gibson" even a "Epiphone" for that matter!
Having dealt with commercial lawyers in several countries, nothing would surprise me!studmissile wrote: Interesting, but I would be surprised if the law seeing something clearly labeled "Tokai" legally regarded it as counterfeit, keeping in mind future imports of cheaper brands could also be regarded as illegal if they had a 'similar shape"(and the economic impact of that?). Remebering this in a country where the vast majority could not possibly afford a "Gibson" even a "Epiphone" for that matter!
For example, if the shape is considered (in SA) to be Gibson's property then a copy of that shape could well be regarded as "counterfeiting" (if the legislation that covers this is anti-counterfeiting legislation rather than more conventional IP protection). And if Gibson wins one case it has precedent that it can use to move rapidly against other suppliers of similarly-shaped instruments. I'm not saying that will happen—merely suggesting a way in which it might unfold...
Most counterfeiting cases involve products that most people can't afford (which is a key reason why they are likely to be faked, when you think about it).
I agree that the law works in mysterious ways, its wonders to perform. But it seems highly unlikely from a common-sense perspective that, even if a court rules for Gibson, that they'll declare them "counterfeit" as per Gibson's laughable slander - as opposed to in violation of copyright or trademarks or whatever bogus case they manage to slip through. The dictionary and the law do agree to a certain extent.
Well. I'll tell you one thing. It'll be sad to live in the only country in the world where a kid can't buy a strat copy. All those shameless rip-offs would only be available to everyone else in the whole world. But at least we could hold our heads high, knowing that we've made a great moral stand. ?
Well. I'll tell you one thing. It'll be sad to live in the only country in the world where a kid can't buy a strat copy. All those shameless rip-offs would only be available to everyone else in the whole world. But at least we could hold our heads high, knowing that we've made a great moral stand. ?
I guess I can sort of see why Gibson is upset by people using body shapes that their company designed before any of them were working there. They'd consider that kind of thing beneath them.
I'll just leave this here:
I'll just leave this here:
If the Judge in matters like this, is a guitarist, the case will be very short lived!
Doesn't that open a further case of a unhealthy monopoly in a developing market?Mike wrote:Having dealt with commercial lawyers in several countries, nothing would surprise me!studmissile wrote: Interesting, but I would be surprised if the law seeing something clearly labeled "Tokai" legally regarded it as counterfeit, keeping in mind future imports of cheaper brands could also be regarded as illegal if they had a 'similar shape"(and the economic impact of that?). Remebering this in a country where the vast majority could not possibly afford a "Gibson" even a "Epiphone" for that matter!
For example, if the shape is considered (in SA) to be Gibson's property then a copy of that shape could well be regarded as "counterfeiting" (if the legislation that covers this is anti-counterfeiting legislation rather than more conventional IP protection). And if Gibson wins one case it has precedent that it can use to move rapidly against other suppliers of similarly-shaped instruments. I'm not saying that will happen—merely suggesting a way in which it might unfold...
Most counterfeiting cases involve products that most people can't afford (which is a key reason why they are likely to be faked, when you think about it).
Most counterfeiting cases involve products that most people can't afford.... hence cheaper "no name brands" to avoid tradmark infringement and supply the market in a legal manner.
I have a reasonable knowledge of counterfeit laws in SA, in fact all SA law.Mike wrote:Case very much open, I'm afraid.PJH wrote: The original question was "Do you consider Tokai guitar counterfeit"
The definition in the dictionary is: "made in imitation so as to be passed off fraudulently or deceptively as genuine".
Tokai puts their own name on the headstock.
Therefore the answer is No, they do not make counterfeit guitars.
They make copies or maybe "replicas" (a name that I prefer).
Case closed.
The definition in your (or any) dictionary is irrelevant. If this is a legal issue being raised in SA than it's the definition under South African law that counts. And I don't—like, it would appear from the comments, everybody else—have a sufficiently in-depth knowledge of that to answer the original question.
I certainly consider many Tokai guitars to be shameless rip-offs, even though they can also be very, very good musical instruments. Whether that is legally right or wrong in this jurisdiction, is another matter entirely.
"Analogous" examples from other jurisdictions are, frankly, unhelpful, as is the repeated stating that they were not the first and a very far from being the only shameless rip-offs on the market. As are comments seeming to suggest that the high quality of the instruments somehow diminishes the rip-off aspect.
I do know that South Africa has been beefing up its anti-counterfeiting laws, since the country is a major dumping-ground for counterfeit goods, and it could be that Gibson (or its representatives) has spotted a crack that could trip Tokai (or its representatives) up. If that's the case and if the Gibson side is correct, then Tokai guitars are—in South Africa—counterfeits; if not, then they are not. That's how the law works. Whether any of us "consider" them to be counterfeits is pretty much irrelevant...
Tokai being classified as counterfeits is not debatable, they are not counterfeits.
Gibsons patents expired 14 years after they were registered, that's a few decades ago.
Gibson do not have trademarks for their body shapes in SA.
They have two trademarks both registered in SA in 1975.
The SG "Standard" scratchplate shape and the 'bell shaped truss rod cover'.
I don't think Gibsons legal team have spotted any cracks...I'll tell you why I say that.
In my founding affidavit to Gibson I mention the Fender Trademark Applications case in the USA that started in 2004 and ended in 2009...(btw, practically 100% of guitarists around the world don't even know about this case).
I can mention the Fender Trademark Case in my founding affidavit but the law doesn't allow me to actually provide proof/evidence, unless they (Gibson) themselves bring it up in their affidavits, then I can by law supply the proof when I reply in my following affidavit.
In my founding affidavit I mention that in 2004 Fender (FMIC) applied for trademarks on the Stratocaster, Telecaster and P-Bass shapes in the USA.
I mention that the trademark applications were opposed by 17 of the worlds biggest guitar companies including Tom Anderson, John Suhr, ESP, Peavey, etc, etc...I mention all 17 opposers.
I also mention that in 2009 the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favour of the 17 "opposers" on the grounds that after 50 years the shapes are now considered "generic" in the guitar world.
Thus Fender did not get trademarks on their body shapes and any guitar company in the world can make guitars with those shapes.
The head of Gibsons legal department in his "answering affidavit" replied to my mention of the Fender Trademark case saying, "this is unsubstantiated heresy and no evidence of such a case exists".
Well, that's odd, on the 31/3/2009 Gibson themselves published the result of the Fender Trademark case on their (Gibsons) website, yet the head of their legal department didn't know such a case existed? ???
Here's the full transcript of the Fender Trademark Trial...this is now introduced into my evidence because they brought it up and claimed it doesn't exist.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9cwi5n6f4cbsdhv/Fender%20Trademark%20case%20USA.pdf?dl=0
Guitarists who own all sorts of different guitar brands are fine with the fact that Fender the most iconic guitar company in history were refused trademarks by the USA Trademark Council, but the same decision shouldn't apply to Gibson in South Africa?
The Fender Trademark Case is the "precedent" you speak of.