Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CENTRAL DIVISION

GF SALES LLC, Plaintiff, v. FRED W. GRETSCH ENTERPRISES, LTD, Defendant. Civil Action No. ___________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION Plaintiff GF Sales LLC (“GF”), through its attorneys, brings this action and alleges against Defendant Fred W. Gretsch Enterprises, Ltd. (“Gretsch”) as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. GF brings this action for declaratory judgment and unfair competition to protect

its rights to sell its newly designed Xaviere Xtrem Vibrato products (Xtrem Floating Tailpiece, Xtrem Long Tail Vibrato, and Xtrem Top Mount Vibrato collectively referred to herein as “Xtrem Vibratos”).1 2. A “vibrato” is a device which allows a guitar player to raise or lower the pitch of

a guitar mechanically, thus creating a vibrato effect. Vibratos function by changing the tension of guitar strings, typically at the bridge or tailpiece, using a controlling lever. The lever enables the player to quickly vary the tension and sometimes the length of the strings temporarily, changing the pitch to create a vibrato or pitch bend effect. Vibratos can be installed on the surface of or inside the cavity of a guitar.
1

See generally product descriptions at Exhibit A.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 1

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 2 of 18

3.

Until recently, Bigsby Vibratos were the only widely used vibratos whose

operating mechanisms are located entirely on the surface of the guitar body, making them the only designs particularly suitable for hollow body and “slab” solid body guitars. 4. The Bigsby Tailpiece Vibratos (B3 and B7) attach to a guitar at the base of the

strings and incorporate a tailpiece. Their functional design makes them particularly suitable for hollow body or semi acoustic guitars. 5. The Bigsby Surface Mount Vibrato (B5) was the only widely available vibrato

that could mount to the surface of a flat topped or “slab” solid body electric guitar and operate suitably. 6. Paul A. Bigsby invented his Vibratos in the late 1940s/early 1950s and applied for

patent protection on the specific ornamental design features of his Vibratos in 1952 and 1953.2 His design patents issued in 1953 and expired fourteen years later. Upon expiration of the patents in 1967, the design of the Bigsby Vibratos was dedicated to the public. Soon thereafter, Paul Bigsby passed away. 7. Shortly before his death, Mr. Bigsby allegedly sold his famous name and

inventory to a business associate, Ted McCarty, the retired president of Gibson guitars. It is unclear what, if any, trademark rights associated with the Bigsby Vibratos were involved in the asset purchase by Mr. McCarty. 8. In May of 1999, the Defendant Gretsch allegedly purchased the Bigsby assets

from McCarty. Months later, Gretsch applied for trademark protection on the designs of the

2

See U.S. Design Patents D169,120 and D170,109, respectively, attached hereto as Exhibit B.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 2

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 3 of 18

Bigsby Vibratos – the same design on which patent protection expired more than thirty years prior.3 9. Upon information and belief, Bigsby Vibratos were not available for individual

sale for a substantial period of time when the products were controlled by Mr. McCarty. Any trademark rights associated with the Vibratos, therefore, may have been abandoned. 10. In late 2002, Gretsch and Fender Musical Instruments Corporation (“Fender”)

reached an agreement giving Fender exclusive control over the marketing, production, and distribution of Gretsch’s products. Fender is the world’s foremost manufacturer of guitars, amplifiers, and related equipment, with approximately 2,700 employees and over $700 million in revenue for 2011. 11. The Plaintiff, GF, is the parent company of guitarfetish.com, an innovative

website dedicated to selling guitars and guitar parts directly to end-users at wholesale prices. GF designs many of the products sold on the guitarfetish.com website, including the Xaviere Xtrem Vibratos. All research and development of the products sold on the Guitarfetish.com website is done in the company’s Westborough, Massachusetts headquarters. Guitarfetish.com was the first company to sell new and innovative guitar products under its own brand, Xaviere, on the internet only, direct to customers. 12. Founded in 2004, guitarfetish.com’s offices, warehouse, order fulfillment area,

and research and development facility are located in Westborough, Massachusetts. Guitarfetish.com has twelve full time employees. 13. GF designed its Xtrem Vibratos as an upgrade to the Bigsby Vibratos. Upon

information and belief, guitar enthusiasts had been complaining for years about the difficulty in
3

See U.S. Trademark Registrations 2,519,148, 2,508,599, and 2,519,147 attached hereto as Exhibit C.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 3

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 4 of 18

operating their Bigbsy Vibratos, and the resulting problems with the tone, sustain and effect of Bigsby products. 14. After years of research and development, GF designed a vibrato product with

superior functional capabilities and advertises its product as such: “Years in the making … the new Xtrem from Guitarfetish gives you all the great vintage sound that vintage tremolos4 made famous, but with modern levels of tone, sustain and tuning stability.” See, e.g., Exhibit A at 1. 15. Unhappy to find a competitor in the marketplace, Gretsch’s counsel soon

contacted GF, claiming infringement the belatedly acquired trademark and trade dress rights. Despite GF’s attempts to demonstrate to Gretsch the plethora of differences between the Bigbsy and Xtrem Vibratos, Gretsch demanded that GF license the Bigsby design trademarks or defend a trademark infringement lawsuit in federal court. 16. Instead of falling prey to Gretsch’s bully tactics and misuse of its purported

trademarks, GF seeks relief from this Court concerning its rights to develop a superior product for its customers and compete fairly in the marketplace against an industry giant. While GF has the utmost respect for the Gretsch, Fender and Bigsby products and their historical significance, the corporate interests that now purportedly own these brands cannot thwart innovation from small businesses. GF has designed a superior Vibrato that its customers have a right to purchase as an upgrade to their Bigsby Vibrato, which has remained largely unchanged since the early 1950s.

4

A vibrato is sometimes referred to as a “tremolo” or “trem” for short. In standard usage, tremolo is a rapid fluctuation of the volume of a note, while vibrato is a fluctuation in pitch. The origin of this nonstandard usage of the term by electric guitarists is attributed to Leo Fender, who also used the term "tremolo" to refer to what is really a vibrato effect.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 4

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 5 of 18

THE PARTIES 17. Plaintiff, GF is a limited liability company organized and existing under laws of GF is the parent company of guitarfetish.com.

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Guitarfetish.com sells guitars and guitar products directly to customers on the internet. 18. Defendant Gretsch is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Illinois. Upon information and belief, Gretsch’s principal offices are located at 200 Governor Treutlen Road, Pooler, Georgia, 3122. Gretsch, a historical manufacturer of guitars and guitar parts since 1883, is now in the fourth generation of family ownership. Gretsch markets its products under the brand names Gretsch®, Synchromatic®, Electromatic® and Bigsby®. As of January 1, 2003, Gretsch granted Fender the exclusive rights to develop, produce, market and distribute its products, including the Bigsby Vibratos, given Fender’s success in worldwide sales, marketing and distribution. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 19. GF brings this action pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.

§ 2201 and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A §11. This action presents a federal question arising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq. The Court has jurisdiction over this federal cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (trademarks). This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the cause of action under

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A §11. 20. Gretsch has engaged in continuous and systematic business in Massachusetts.

Gretsch’s products are exclusively marketed and distributed by Fender. Numerous distributors

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 5

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 6 of 18

of Gretsch’s products are located within this judicial district5 and online retailers6, upon information and belief, sell Gretsch products to customers located within Massachusetts. 21. Counsel for Gretsch has sent numerous letters and email correspondence to GF’s

trademark prosecution counsel located within this District asserting “willful trademark infringement and unfair competition under common law, state unfair trade law and the federal Lanham Act, which provide for injunctive relief and recovery of damages, including treble damages, and attorneys’ fees.”7 Gretsch’s counsel also threatened that it will “take other action

to protect its valuable intellectual property rights,”8 should GF not immediately stop selling its Xtrem Vibratos and that Gretsch does not believe “that additional extra-judicial correspondence regarding the various alleged distinctions between isolated features of the Gretsch and Xaviere … vibrato tailpieces would be productive.”9 22. The actions of Gretsch’s agents have created an actual controversy between the

parties and have caused harm in this District by way of unfair competition and threats of trademark infringement. 23. Venue is proper in this district under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1391(c) because

5

See, e.g., Guitar Center Stores Nos. 552 (Natick), 550 (Boston), 551 (Danvers), 554 (Milbury), 553 (North Attleboro); Union Music Inc., 142 Southbridge Street, Worcester, MA; City Music LLC, 240 Main Street, Gardener, MA; Downtown Sounds, Inc., 21 Pleasant Street, Northampton, MA, etc.

See, e.g., www.8thstreet.com, www.allmusicinc.com, www.alpha-music.com, www.andybabiuksfabgear.com, www.attrade.com.ua, www.bananasmusic.com, www.bizarreguitar.com, www.bluesangelmusic.com, www.cmcguitars.com, www.creamcitymusic.com, www.dannyd.com, www.dreamquestspecialties.com, www.drumcityguitarland.com, www.eddiesguitars.com, www.edroman.com, etc.
7

6

See May 21, 2012 Letter from W. Berridge to J. Abend attached hereto as Exhibit D. See June 25, 2012 Letter from W. Berridge to B. Chapin attached hereto as Exhibit E. See July 17, 2012 Email from J. Wasikowski to D. Rouille attached hereto as Exhibit F.

8

9

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 6

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 7 of 18

substantial activity giving rise to the claims herein occurred in this Judicial District. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Gretsch’s Purported Trademark Rights in the Bigsby Vibratos 24. Gretsch claims to have broad ownership of federally registered trademarks and

common law trademark and trade dress rights pertaining to the “distinctive configuration” of the Bigsby Vibratos. See Exhibits D-F. Gretsch, however, did not obtain its purported rights until almost fifty years after the product was brought to market and thirty years after the design patents protecting the “ornamental features” of the Vibratos expired. See Exhibit B. 25. Gretsch claims to have purchased its rights in the Bigsby Vibratos from Ted

McCarty, to whom Bigsby allegedly transferred some of his rights in the Vibratos shortly before his death in 1968. 26. Upon information and belief, Bigsby Vibratos were not available for individual

sale during a period of time the products were owned by Mr. McCarty, therefore suggesting that the asserted trademark rights may have been abandoned. 27. Certain aspects of the Bigsby Vibrato are purely functional or utilitarian, such as The controlling lever, or arm, activates the Vibrato and

its controlling lever and tapered shape.

allows for a change in the pitch of the guitar strings. The tapered or “V” shape is due to the width of the top of the Vibrato being wide enough to attach properly to the guitar strings (approximately 2 3/16 inches wide) and the width of the bottom narrow enough to attach to the curved bottom of a guitar or to a strap pin (1/4 inch) on the guitar’s bottom.10

Accordingly, the “V” shape is not a newly invented design element by Bigsby. Bridge designs predating Bigsby’s used the same “V” or tapered shape due to the practicality of the design (width of strings vs. curvature of base). See, e.g., 1930’s Martin Archtop Bridge Design depicted in Exhibit G.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 7

10

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 8 of 18

Problems with Bigsby Vibratos and Xtrem’s Solution 28. GF’s Xtrem Vibrato was designed and manufactured to overcome the problems

and issues experienced by users of the Bigsby Vibrato. The existing Bigsby product design consists of a rotating axle with six pins. The “ball end” of the strings fits over the pins, the string winds around the axle, and then over a bridge unit and is affixed by the tuners at the neck. The six pins can be very difficult to fit the strings to, and the way the strings are attached extends the length of the strings past any vibration point, lessening sustain. GF designed a “hinged sustain block” which allows for straight through stringing without fiddly pins, allowed for a much wider vibrato range, and increased sustain by approximately 25%. The Xtrem is an upgrade to the Bigsby and a superior functioning product. 29. Indeed, rather than suggest an affiliation with Bigsby or its vintage product, GF

seeks to differentiate itself as the newer, better brand of vibrato: “As great as vintage trems are, we always felt there was a better vibrato out there … just waiting for someone to make it! The Xtrems do not use the old fashioned ‘Axle’ that uncoils the strings - No more feeding the ball end onto those fiddly pins - Restringing is quick and painless, and our unique ‘hinge’ design means the strings are firmly retained by a large tone block of solid aluminum, pivoting and ball bearings, and controlled by a cast aluminum ‘sculpted’ arm - not a flat piece of sheet metal. It’s a really great unit - made to the highest standards and plated in heavy duty triple chromium plating.” See, e.g., Exhibit A at 1. Bigsby Claims Ownership of Exclusive Rights in “Vintage Trem” 30. Initially, GF compared its new product to Bigsby’s vintage product (using the

Bigsby name) in order to demonstrate the Xtrem’s superior features. Such fair use of the “Bigsby” mark was untenable by Gretsch. See Exhibit D. In an effort to reach resolution with

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 8

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 9 of 18

Gretsch, GF voluntarily ceased its legitimate use of the “Bigsby” name for product comparison purposes. Rather than compare its Xtrem to a “Bigsby” Vibrato by name, GF only references the historical product as a “vintage trem.” See id. 31. Gretsch, however, consistent in its overzealous enforcement of its purported

trademark rights, claims that it owns all references to a “vintage” product: “We also completely disagree with your comments regarding the … Bigbsy® focused advertising of the … Xtrem vibrato systems. Replacing some occurrences of the registered trademark[] ‘Bigsby’ … with the term ‘vintage’ does not remove the likelihood of confusion. Any consumer would clearly associate the code word ‘vintage’ with our client’s products, as does your own website as quoted above. This wording still implies that Gretsch endorses, licenses, or sponsors your client’s use of its infringing tailpieces when it is clear that Bigsby is the ‘vintage’ vibrato system your client is referencing.” See Exhibit E. 32. Gretsch is so quick to jump on a reference to a “vintage” vibrato because it knows

that Bigsby has enjoyed a virtual monopoly on vibratos for hollow body and slab guitars since the 1950s, first through its design patents, and now through its questionable, “after acquired trademark rights,” and market intimidation. Differences in the Design and Function of the Xtrem and Bigsby Vibratos 33. The Xtrem and Bigsby Vibratos both function by changing the tension of guitar

strings, typically at the bridge or tailpiece, using a controlling lever to raise or lower the pitch of a guitar mechanically, thus creating a vibrato effect. Both products have their operating

mechanisms entirely on the surface of a guitar (rather than within the cavity). Due to these similarities, the products will have some similar functional elements (e.g. arms and general product dimensions). The ornamental or fanciful design elements of the Vibratos, however, are

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 9

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 10 of 18

significantly different. 34. The Xtrem and Bigsby Vibratos differ in their respective size, shape, physical

dimensions and decorative presentation. 35. Xtrem and Bigsby each have vibrato product lines that mount differently to a

guitar: either on the surface of the guitar or to the guitar’s tailpiece. 36. Bigsby has two separate trademarks (U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 2,508,599

(‘599) and 2,519,148 (‘148)) attached hereto in Exhibit C) for the design of its Tailpiece Vibrato. The ‘148 shows a vibrato with an oval cut out in the middle of the tailpiece and the ‘599 depicts the same vibrato with a dark colored flat plate in the tailpiece center (shown in Figure 1 infra). None of the Xtrem designs utilize either oval cutouts or a flat plate. 37. GF’s Floating Tailpiece Vibrato (pictured in Figure 1 infra) and Long Tail

Vibrato (see Exhibit A), instead incorporate a series of vertical “bars” that fan out as a unique design feature. The texture of the fan elements is sand-cast.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 10

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 11 of 18

FIGURE 1: XTREM FLOATING TAILPIECE VIBRATO (U.S. TRADEMARK REGISTRATION ‘599).

COMPARED TO

BIGSBY’S TAILPIECE VIBRATO

38.

The Bigsby ‘148 Tailpiece Vibrato features an oval relieved from the tapered

tailpiece. Since the V shape geometry of the tailpiece is functional, the oval, logo location and oval relief on the top of the unit are integral to the design trademark. The Xtrem uses no such ovals anywhere on the product, no logo is visible, and the size, shape and overall design of the bridge plate are completely different than the Bigsby designs. 39. The Bigsby Surface Mount Vibratos (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,519,147

(‘147)) are horseshoe shaped products with a curved bottom section (as shown in Figure 2 infra). The Xaviere Xtrem of similar function (top mount Vibrato with no associated tailpiece) utilizes a completely dissimilar design (also in Figure 2). The functional aspects of the units are relatively fixed: four screw mounting holes spaced at roughly the four corners of the unit and product
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 11

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 12 of 18

dimensions wide enough to accommodate the standard 2 3/16” string width of a modern electric guitar and less than 4 ¼” long to fit onto standard top-mount applications like the Fender Telecaster. The Xtrem design, however, changes nearly every single line, dimension, shape, angle, curve and contour of the Bigsby ‘147 Vibrato in order to differentiate the Xtrem product in the marketplace as a superior product alternative.

FIGURE 2: BIGSBY’S SURFACE VIBRATO (U.S. TRADEMARK REGISTRATION ‘147) COMPARED XTREM’S TOP MOUNT VIBRATO.

TO

40.

When comparing the Vibrato product lines as a whole, the Xtrems use a

completely different operating mechanism (hinged string block) than Bigsby (rotating axle). 41. The Xtrems all feature an “L Shaped” palm rest, their most prominent design

element. No such feature has ever been offered on the Bigsby Vibratos. 42. Xtrems come in different material finishes (chrome, nickel, black and gold).

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 12

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 13 of 18

Bigsby Vibratos are usually bare aluminum, which is not an option for the Xtrem. 43. 44. Xtrems feature square dimensional metal corners. Bigsby’s corners are rounded. GF purposefully designed its Xtrems as a functionally superior Vibrato product to

that of Bigsby and with design features which clearly distinguished the two brands. The Vibrato Consumer and Marketplace 45. GF’s Xtrem Vibratos sell for between $50 and $65 dollars per unit. Gretsch’s

Bigsby Vibratos cost approximately twice as much. 46. A consumer making such a significant purchase will exercise a high degree of

care in selecting the correct product. Indeed, guitars enthusiasts are known to be very exacting and purposeful in their research and understanding of guitars and guitar parts. 47. GF’s Xtrem Vibratos are only sold on their guitarfetish.com website and through

on-line distributors. Each product page depicting the Xtrems on guitarfetish.com contains a detailed explanation of the Xtrem’s superiority to “vintage trems.” See Exhibit A. GF markets its Vibratos in contrast to the historical Bigsby Vibrato. Indeed, no consumer could be confused as to what he/she is purchasing – an upgrade to their vintage vibrato. The Controversy Between the Parties 48. Gretsch claims that it owns the purported trademarks and trade dress rights for

the Bigsby Vibratos. See Exhibit D. Gretsch further claims that GF is infringing its trademarks and trade dress rights by “manufacturing, advertising, selling and displaying” the Xaviere Xtrem Vibratos. See Exhibit E. 49. On several occasions, counsel for Gretsch has demanded that GF cease its

“manufacturing, advertising, selling and displaying” the Xaviere Xtrem Vibratos or face legal action by Gretsch. See, e.g., Exhibits D-F.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 13

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 14 of 18

50.

The Parties have been unable to resolve their dispute regarding whether GF’s

Vibratos infringe Gretsch’s purported trademark and trade dress rights. GF therefore has a reasonable and strong apprehension that it will soon face a trademark and/or trade dress action from Gretsch. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of Trademarks 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. 51. their entirety. 52. A real and actual controversy exists between the parties regarding whether GF’s GF incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if set forth herein in

manufacture, advertisement, sales and displays of its Xaviere Xtrem Vibratos infringe any of Gretsch’s purported trademarks. The controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Following Gretsch’s recent conduct, GF is faced with the choice of either abandoning its rights to manufacture, advertise, sell and display its Xtrem Vibratos or risk liability for damages. 53. The controversy between GF and Gretsch thus demands specific relief through a

decree that GF may continue to manufacture, advertise, sell and display its Xtrem Vibratos without legal liability. The nature and extent of the adverse legal interests between GF and Gretsch are apparent, and the controversy is definite and concrete. 54. GF’s Xtrem Vibratos are not likely to cause any confusion, mistake, or deception

among consumers, including as to the source or origin of the products or as to any affiliation, association, sponsorship, or approval with or by Gretsch due to the myriad of differences between the respective comparative products, differences in marketing channels, and the degree

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 14

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 15 of 18

of a care that a consumer would exercise before making a purchase of a vibrato. 55. 56. GF’s usage of term “vintage trems” does not violate Gretsch’s trademark rights. GF seeks a declaration that its Xtrem Vibratos do not infringe any of Gretsch’s

purported trademarks so that there will be no controversy clouding GF’s right to continue to manufacture, advertise, sell and display its Xtrem Vibratos. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of Trade Dress 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) 57. their entirety. 58. A real and actual controversy exists between the parties regarding whether GF’s GF incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if set forth herein in

manufacture, advertisement, sales and displays of its Xaviere Xtrem Vibratos infringe any of Gretsch’s purported trade dress rights. The controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Following Gretsch’s recent conduct, GF is faced with the choice of either abandoning its rights to manufacture, advertise, sell and display its Xtrem Vibratos or risk liability for damages. 59. The controversy between GF and Gretsch thus demands specific relief through a

decree that GF may continue to manufacture, advertise, sell and display its Xtrem Vibratos without legal liability. The nature and extent of the adverse legal interests between GF and Gretsch are apparent, and the controversy is definite and concrete. 60. GF’s Xtrem Vibratos are not likely to cause any confusion, mistake, or deception

among consumers, including as to the source or origin of the product or as to any affiliation, association, sponsorship, or approval with or by Gretsch due to the myriad of differences

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 15

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 16 of 18

between the respective comparative products, differences in marketing channels, and the degree of a care that a consumer would exercise before making a purchase of a vibrato. 61. GF seeks a declaration that its Xtrem Vibratos do not infringe any of Gretsch’s

purported trade dress rights so that there will be no controversy clouding GF’s right to continue to manufacture, advertise, sell and display its Xtrem Vibratos. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Unfair Competition Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A §11 62. their entirety. 63. Gretsch has engaged in the following deceptive acts and practices and methods of GF incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if set forth herein in

unfair competition: (i) purported enforcement of invalid design patent rights; (2) purported enforcement of the functional aspects of its design trademarks; (3) engaging in a scheme of bullying and intimidation to retain its monopoly on surface mount and tailpiece vibratos; (4) intentionally claiming overly broad trademark rights, including in the generic term “vintage trem,”; (5) attempting to enforce trademark rights when the products are clearly dissimilar in design; and (6) obtaining trademark rights that may have been abandoned. 64. Gretsch’s deceptive acts and practices and methods of unfair competition have

been committed or engaged in without privilege or justification, and through improper means. 65. damages. As a consequence of the foregoing, GF has suffered, and will continue to suffer

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 16

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 17 of 18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, GF respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment: A. Declaring that GF’s Xaviere Xtrem Vibratos do not infringe Gretsch’s purported trademarks; B. Declaring that GF’s Xaviere Xtrem Vibratos do not infringe Gretsch’s purported trade dress rights; C. Enjoining Gretsch, its agents, attorneys, and assigns from asserting any trademark or trade dress claims against GF or any other person in connection with the Xaviere Xtrem Vibratos or any related product; D. Cancelling Gretsch’s federally registered trademarks pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1064 and 1119 as abandoned, functional, and/or for misuse; E. Declaring that this case is exceptional and awarding GF its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; F. Enter judgment in favor of GF with respect to its Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A cause of action; G. H. I. J. Award multiple damages pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A; Award GF its costs and attorney’s fees, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws c. 93A; Award interest on damages; and Awarding any other relief the Court deems just and proper. JURY DEMAND GF hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues triable before a jury.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 17

Case 4:12-cv-40087-TSH Document 1 Filed 07/27/12 Page 18 of 18

Respectfully Submitted by GF Sales LLC, By and through its attorney,

Dated: July 27, 2012

/s/ Catherine Rajwani Catherine I. Rajwani, Esq. (BBO#674443) THE HARBOR LAW GROUP 300 West Main Street, Building A, Unit 1 Northborough, MA 01532 Phone: (508) 393-9244 Fax: (508) 393-9245 Email: crajwani@harborlaw.com

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK AND TRADE DRESS RIGHTS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION – PAGE 18