Alan Ratcliffe wrote:

TGF wrote: Gibson and Fender fans will defend Gibson and Fender. Tokai fans will defend Tokai's.

That's very true.

Why didnt Tokai design their own guitars, like PRS, Gretsch, etc. Respectable and ORIGINAL guitar makers.

They do. The Tokai Talbo has always been one of my all time design favourites (alongside the like of Steinberger, Parker and Klein).

I've never read any thread on any forum where people were debating if a PRS or a Gretsch is a fake Gibson or Fender.

You weren't around when Big G were suing PRS over the Singlecut then?

Look, the whole question was are Tokais counterfeits or not. That has already been answered.

What few seem to realise is that Gibson are in the process of trying to shut Tokai's distribution down and getting a favourable ruling, stating that the LP, 335 and other body shapes are copyrighted or trademarked in SA will affect the distribution of every LP-alike in the country and will likely be used to spearhead getting similar rulings globally (which they have already failed at before - they are just trying to do an end run around it this time). And then G will be the only company free to manufacture guitars anything like those models, charge whatever they want for them.

And sorry, but they gave up that right by never copyrighting the designs in the first place (even if they had, I think they would have expired by now), and allowing other manufacturers to build those shapes over the last 5 decades. The legal facts is that by not copyrighting the design and not defending said copyright against imitators, they lost the right to do so now.

The simple fact is, they know they cannot compete unless they have a monopoly, and given their recent history and "like it or lump it" attitude to consumers, a monopoly would the worst possible thing as far as we consumers go. You don't see Fender, with their thousands of imitators struggling do you?

I don't even like Les Pauls or 335s myself, but I'd be stupid not to see that allowing G to get away with this latest dick move would be a bad thing for the industry.

I really really hope they do not get away with this move.

+1 to what Rabbit said. My fiance is an IP lawyer and we have discussed this topic ad nauseum and Gibson has no legal leg to stand on here, they are just using their legal team to scare the competition.

Guitar shapes are registed with the patent office as designs and they get exclusivity for 10-15 years.
After that it's public domain. That is the double edged sword of a patent ... once you patent something its public knowledge forever and once exclusivity expires its fair game for all and sundry.

The LP design patent was granted in 1955 so Gibson's exclusivity expired long before most of us were even born.
I know this because I got these http://www.amazon.com/GIBSON-GUITAR-Poster-Vintage-Reproduction/dp/B00IA3BP94 awesome printed copies of the original patents from my fiance for Christmas.


@Lance if these douchebags are really trying to drive you out of business PM me the actual legal docs where they state the exact nature of the infringements they are claiming and I will sic my girl on them in exchange for a big discount on a springysound ? If it ever actually gets to court I suggest we start a GFSA fund to contribute to your legal costs and start a social media campaign to bash the crap out of the overly litigious money-loving vampires at Gibson.

chrisbark wrote:
The LP design patent was granted in 1955 so Gibson's exclusivity expired long before most of us were even born.
I know this because I got these http://www.amazon.com/GIBSON-GUITAR-Poster-Vintage-Reproduction/dp/B00IA3BP94 awesome printed copies of the original patents from my fiance for Christmas.

THIS, I want this on my wall. Very cool. Doesn't have to say Gibson either. ?

From Charlie4: THIS, I want this on my wall. Very cool. Doesn't have to say Gibson either. ?

Off topic, but I would rather have this:
http://www.google.com/patents/US4656917
That picture on the title page is in a patent!!? ?

To paraphrase Kate Hudson in that movie - I love you Gibson, but right now I don't like you very much.

Why the suits at Gibson are apparently trying their very best to destroy the goodwill guitarists have towards them because of their heritage is a total mystery to me. It should be so simple for them. Create good quality guitars at reasonable prices, steer clear of controversy and watch the coffers fill up with sweet sweet profits. But that seems a bit hard for them.

I have already made up my mind that the current Gibson management will not see a single cent of mine, and it has nothing to do with Tokai guitars. The current board at Gibson are slowly killing a brand which I really love and until they either change their business practices or gets bought out by another company I cannot in good conscience support them - and that sucks. A Gibson Les Paul has been one my dream guitars ever since I started playing, but I just can't justify to myself buying a new one.

Nope, when I finally do succumb to Les Paul gas (and I have been very, very close to doing it in the last month or two) it will be a Tokai that I get. If Gibson makes it impossible for me to buy into their heritage without sacrificing my principles, then at least I can get a quality alternative at a much better price while actually supporting a company (and business owner) that I respect.

Well, now I'm definitely going to buy another Tokai.

To me it feels like Gibson have been riding on its good name and reputation for a long time now, while neglecting quality control and good workmanship. It's finally catching up with them, and now they are trying to shut down the distribution of an company that actually do make quality guitars?

At least this proves that Tokai is doing something right with their guitars...

I am joining this conversation at a late stage and most of what could be said was said, and I agree with most of it. Just a couple of points to consider:

1) Yes, Tokai makes copies, not counterfeits, copies like a million other companies, but they basically copy every single aspect of the guitar as apposed to some of the others that will at least change the headstock, as the Epiphone Strat in one of the earlier posts. That is probably why Ibanez decided to change there designs way back when...

2) Gibson only has to take one company to court and get a ruling and all the other "copies" will have to submit to the same decision, so they take the one that is the biggest competition......makes sense. So this is not just a fight against Tokai, but against all the other guys as well. So, if Gibson wins, this will mean you will have to play a Gibson or Epiphone if you want a LP/SG/335, etc. shape guitar.

3) Would we except copies of pedals, that looks exactly like the originals so easy and without any question? I have seen people dissing pedal builders for copying/cloning a "brand" pedal and now those same people are trying to defend Tokai here? Thus, do we except all copying/cloning?

4) This is a business decision, not a personal attack on anyone. We must remember, there are shareholder that wants profit and as much of it as possible. If I had shares in Gibson I would be behind this 100%, or even if i just worked there.

Personally, I think Gibson waited to long and if they wanted to complain, they should have complained ages ago to give their argument any credit! Gibson is obviously trying a new approach, if we look at recent events.... the 29% increase on the guitars, a limited amount of new models being released for 2015 and now trying to get rid of the competition. Apparently there are less models to be built, so the quality should be better.....?

So this looks like their plan: Great quality guitars (don't know if the 2015 models have improved), that costs an arm and a leg and a kidney and half your liver and getting rid of the competition that does the same for half the price... ???

I own 3 Gibsons and 3 Epiphones and I think what they are doing is a bit of a reach and probably won't succeed. I also think having competition is good and personally I have no problem with the Tokais or any of the other brands that build copies. But what I think doesn't really matter, legislation will show what can and can't be done.

A lot of really good and insightful (inciteful? ? ) stuff from lots of people here. Great discussion.

One thing I will add is that I feel somewhat sorry for Gibson (and Fender to a less obvious degree) in that they just can't win on the progress/development front. The second they try anything different (and yes, most of their attempts are pretty miserable) they are shouted down for betraying their roots, etc ("I don't want to see new-fangled gizmos on mah Lez Pawl"). Ok, I don't want auto-tuners either, but they get lambasted for being unimaginative, feel they have to try something and then get lambasted for that too.

Also, we should remember on behalf of all guitar manufacturers that there are real limits on how much you can do on a design front. A guitar is going to need a long skinny bit around 25 inches long that you can wrap your hand around (sorry for the phallic imagery), that probably needs be be joined to a bigger shapey bit that needs to allow hand access to the upper end of the long skinny bit (ie either be swept back like a V or cutaways or some combo thereof), and that needs to be big enough to sound good, balance the weight of the long skinny bit, and hopefully allow the player to play comfortably, possibly even while sitting. The other end must (unless you're Ned S) hold 6 tuning pegs (which weigh a bit so your possible length of headstock is limited) so your options are 6, 5+1, 4+2, 3+3 or the other way around. When you really think about it, there are only so many ways a guitar can look. And people have been thinking about it HARD for 65+years (just electric). Even leaving aside those of us who are slaves to tradition (how ironic is it that the aural basis of young/rebellion - the electric guitar through an overdriven tube amp - has not been improved on in 60 years??) expecting original design at this stage in the game is to a large extent asking for the impossible.

Yes.

Ironstine wrote: Yes.

YES ..... ?? ? ?

A copy? YES ..... counterfeit? ..... definitely NOT.

Tokai (The name/logo) on the headstock does not say anything BUT Tokai.

I think most of the guys here have already made the point.

+1 Rabbit. You nailed it.

Rabbit, Ironstine, you guys are the only ones making sense.
Yes, there are only a few ways to design an electric guitar....but there are FEW ways. You dont have to copy another guitars exact design and every single characteristics from headstock to strap lock, slap your name on it and be proud, as Tokai does.

Yes, PRS was sued, bla bla bla. Yes they built a single cut guitar SIMILAR to a Les Paul design BUT they did not build a Les Paul, put PRS on the headstock and sell it proudly.

Rabbit wrote:

Like I said previously, this feels a lot like a car manufacturer claiming that nobody else may manufacture hatchbacks...
[/quote]

Yes, theres no "Tokai" car manufacturer in the car industry because VW does not build an M3 with VW badges and BMW does not build a GTi with BMW badges.

I'm not condoning the fact that Gibson and Fender tries to stop other guitar manufacturers from building similar guitars to theirs. And altho Gibson, Fender, Ibanez, etc copied a design at some point, it never became their primary goal. Tokai, on the other hand, exists because they copy. Quite pathetic actually.

TGF wrote:

I'm not condoning the fact that Gibson and Fender tries to stop other guitar manufacturers from building similar guitars to theirs. And altho Gibson, Fender, Ibanez, etc copied a design at some point, it never became their primary goal. Tokai, on the other hand, exists because they copy. Quite pathetic actually.

While I agree with you, the question was about counterfeiting, NOT about copying. ?

psyx wrote: The headstock says Tokai, the case says Tokai, the quality and excellent craftsmanship says Tokai and the Sound says that this is an awesome guitar.

I buy a Tokai because I want a Tokai. Tokai has earned it's place as a manufacturer who does not need to hide behind well made copies.

+1 Me too .... and I I own a few of both, Gibsons, and Tokais. LPs, and ESs

Oh, in the unlikely event Tokais were no longer available, would that mean Gibson would sell more LPs in SA?? I seriously doubt it! Just a thought.

It's so simple it hardly needs to be spelled out. Are Tokai's counterfeit Gibsons? In other words, do Tokai make guitars to deceive people into buying them thinking they're actually Gibsons?

No.

To do that, they would have to take off the big letters saying "Tokai" on the headstocks. Because no one ever thought that they were buying a Gibson when it has some other maker's brand-name on the headstock.

The entire question is a total non-starter. It's a rhetorical device designed to group Tokais with criminals who pretend their products were made by a more reputable brand. A child could see through it.

And another thing. As a person who owns two Gibsons and one Tokai - who plays live music - I have plenty of people giving me compliments on my Gibsons (if this does it for you folks, then Tokais aren't for you). I have never had anyone compliment my Tokai. It's just as pretty.

But people don't think it's exciting because they can see it's not a Gibson.

What this thread is REALLY about is the definition of counterfeit vs. copy. It could exist in its exact form in an English linguistic discussion.
To me, music is art, and art should always strive to be original and inspiring.
If Tokai was music itself, it would be "The Parlotones".
I think im going to copy the entire Jimi Hendrix discography and call it Scooby Dooby Sponge Bob Feces. Its not the same, it has a different name on the "headstock"! Give me a break....
If a Photo of a Tokai "les Paul" is anything less then 5mp big you cant tell if its a Gibson or not. This due to the fact that they copied absolutely everything from shape to name placement.
The biggest thing that annoys me concerning this topic is the unoriginality, and im shocked that people on a website promoting creativity condone it. Then again look at SA music...

Ironstine wrote: What this thread is REALLY about is the definition of counterfeit vs. copy.

There we agree. Case closed.

Gibsons are as much copies of the original 1950s guitars as Tokai, Heritage, et. al. The company has changed hands a few times (CMI, ECL, Norlin, Henry) since the originals and the design and construction has changed repeatedly over the years. Production was even stopped for a few years. Tooling and dies were lost and destroyed over the years and they had to deconstruct the originals as much as anyone else to try and copy them accurately - whether they are 100% successful in this is also debatable.

Players are to blame for any unoriginality. Makers who stray too far from the classic designs always struggle to sell them, regardless of how much better they are. Even the most successful modern brands and models have their feet firmly planted in the classics. What do you own and play? That's right - something basically designed 60 years ago. If originality was such a priority for you, you'd be playing a Steinberger, or a Parker, or a Klein, or a Forshage, or a Talbo.

For me the simple facts are:
- Gibson originally created these guitars
- Everyone who makes them (including Gibson) either copies the original models or has their own take with variations on the theme (or both).
- The "copies" are not illegal (regardless of Gibson's current or past efforts). They are not even immoral. They simply keep the makers on their toes and provide the end users with choice - as any good competition between brands does.
- Gibson's Standard models have quality control issues (IINM, didn't you have issues with your LP?). Other manufacturer's in the same or lower price ranges have no such issues.
- Gibson's custom shop models are overpriced. If someone else can make it to the same or better quality standard for half the price and still be building them nearly 40 years later, that tells you something.

Alan Ratcliffe wrote:

Ironstine wrote: What this thread is REALLY about is the definition of counterfeit vs. copy.

There we agree. Case closed.

Gibsons are as much copies of the original 1950s guitars as Tokai, Heritage, et. al. The company has changed hands a few times (CMI, ECL, Norlin, Henry) since the originals and the design and construction has changed repeatedly over the years. Production was even stopped for a few years. Tooling and dies were lost and destroyed over the years and they had to deconstruct the originals as much as anyone else to try and copy them accurately - whether they are 100% successful in this is also debatable.

Players are to blame for any unoriginality. Makers who stray too far from the classic designs always struggle to sell them, regardless of how much better they are. Even the most successful modern brands and models have their feet firmly planted in the classics. What do you own and play? That's right - something basically designed 60 years ago. If originality was such a priority for you, you'd be playing a Steinberger, or a Parker, or a Klein, or a Forshage, or a Talbo. [Or a Teuffel]

For me the simple facts are:
- Gibson originally created these guitars
- Everyone who makes them (including Gibson) either copies the original models or has their own take with variations on the theme (or both). [We could also say this about other things like cars, boats, glasses, appliances...]
- The "copies" are not illegal (regardless of Gibson's current or past efforts). They are not even immoral. They simply keep the makers on their toes and provide the end users with choice - as any good competition between brands does.
- Gibson's Standard models have quality control issues (IINM, didn't you have issues with your LP?). Other manufacturer's in the same or lower price ranges have no such issues.
- Gibson's custom shop models are overpriced. If someone else can make it to the same or better quality standard for half the price and still be building them nearly 40 years later, that tells you something.

What Alan said. And that's really it in a nutshell.

I only had issues with my les paul after i had it set up by a luthier....
The issue here is not about quality of either Gibson or Tokai. From what i can tell Tokai's are made really well.
Gibson are TOTALLY overpriced, but that is not the issue either.
Many car manufacturers have changed ownership etc, and i don't hear people discussing if its still a REAL (insert car)
A les paul was original way back when it was designed, so how is that no longer original? Is there a statue of limitations on originality?

I went into a music store keen to get a new guitar, i played a few Tokais, some Charvels, LTD EC-1000 etc, all les paul copys. I then later on bought a gibson les paul, and guess which guitar i prefer the most?
Fender Stratocaster.