## Facts

- Gibson owned a federal trademark registration for the “Les Paul” guitar body shape, registered as a two-dimensional outline drawing.
- PRS manufactured and sold the “Singlecut” line of solid-body, single-cutaway electric guitars.
- Gibson sued PRS under the Lanham Act, alleging the Singlecut infringed Gibson’s registered body-shape mark and would confuse consumers as to source.
- The parties disputed the scope of Gibson’s registration, including whether it covered three-dimensional guitars matching the outline and whether features shown in an accompanying photograph were part of the mark.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Gibson on infringement, denied PRS’s counterclaims, and entered a permanent injunction barring PRS from manufacturing, selling, or distributing Singlecut guitars.
- PRS appealed the injunction and the related summary-judgment rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether the registered two-dimensional drawing defined the scope of the product-configuration mark, or whether the mark extended to additional three-dimensional features shown in a registration photograph or in the product as sold.
2. Whether PRS’s Singlecut created a likelihood of confusion as to source under the Lanham Act, including initial-interest and post-sale confusion theories.
3. Whether summary judgment and a permanent injunction were proper on the record presented.

## Decision

- The court reversed the grant of summary judgment for Gibson on trademark infringement.
- The court reversed the denial of summary judgment for PRS.
- The court vacated the permanent injunction.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for PRS on Gibson’s trademark-infringement claim.
- The court held that, properly construed, Gibson’s registered mark was not infringed by PRS’s Singlecut because no reasonable factfinder could find a likelihood of confusion.

## Legal Principles

- The scope of a registered product-configuration mark is defined by the registration drawing; an accompanying photograph does not expand the mark beyond what is claimed in the drawing.
- Trademark law protects against uses likely to cause confusion as to source; it does not confer exclusive rights over all similar product shapes.
- Likelihood of confusion is assessed using a multi-factor test, and factors such as purchaser sophistication, price, prominent branding, and absence of point-of-sale confusion can weigh strongly against infringement.
- Initial-interest and post-sale confusion theories require evidentiary support; similarity in product shape alone, combined with clear source-identifying marks and knowledgeable purchasers, may be insufficient to show likely confusion.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where the undisputed evidence would not permit a reasonable factfinder to find a likelihood of confusion.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit limited the mark to the registered two-dimensional outline, found the record could not support a likelihood of confusion for PRS’s clearly branded, high-end Singlecut guitars, and therefore vacated the injunction and directed entry of judgment for PRS on Gibson’s infringement claim.


Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP, 423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005)