IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—E.D. Tex.: Largely unfavorable post-judgment ruling for Gibson in infringement lawsuit against competitor, (Feb 17, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Jury findings on contributory infringement and genericness were supported by evidence; lack of willfulness barred treble damages and prejudgment interest deemed inequitable.

The federal district court in Sherman, Texas, has denied, in large part, Gibson, Inc.’s Rule 59 motion seeking a new trial or amendment of judgment in its trademark infringement lawsuit against a lesser-known competitor and its affiliates. The court upheld the jury’s determinations that the competing entity’s affiliate was not liable for contributory infringement and that Gibson’s ES Body Shape Design was generic. The court further refused to treble damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b), finding no willful infringement and concluding that enhanced damages would be punitive. It also denied prejudgment interest but granted mandatory post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (Gibson, Inc. v. Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-00358-ALM (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2026)).

Background. Gibson, Inc., a well-known manufacturer of electric and acoustic guitars, sued Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc., a competing guitar distributor, and Concordia Investment Partners, LLC, an affiliated investment entity. Gibson alleged that Armadillo infringed several of its iconic guitar body shapes and word marks and that Concordia contributorily infringed by directing or controlling Armadillo’s activities.

The asserted marks included four guitar body shape design marks—FLYING V, Explorer, ES Body Shape, and SG—along with the Dove Wing Headstock Design and two word marks, “HUMMINGBIRD” and “FLYING V.” After a second jury trial in March 2025, the jury found that Armadillo intentionally infringed several of the marks and sold counterfeits, but it concluded that Concordia did not contributorily infringe and that the ES Body Shape Design was generic and subject to cancellation.

Following the verdict, the court entered final judgment awarding Gibson $168,399.22 in disgorged profits and a permanent injunction against Armadillo but declined to award treble damages. Gibson then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a) and 59(e), arguing that the jury’s findings on contributory infringement and genericness were unsupported by the evidence, that treble damages were mandatory under § 1117(b) of the Lanham Act, and that it was entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest.

Contributory infringement. On the issue of contributory infringement, the court emphasized the deference owed to jury verdicts. Citing Smith v. Transworld Drilling Co., 773 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1985), and Gibraltar Savings v. LDBrinkman Corp., 860 F.2d 1275 (5th Cir. 1988), it reiterated that a new trial is warranted only when a verdict is against the great weight, not merely the preponderance, of the evidence.

The court held that Gibson bore the burden of proving contributory infringement and that the jury was entitled to weigh conflicting evidence regarding Concordia’s control and knowledge. Even if defendants did not present extensive rebuttal evidence, they were not required to do so. The existence of the Amended and Restated License Agreement between Concordia and Armadillo provided evidence from which the jury could assess the level of control. Because the record contained competent evidence supporting the verdict, the court refused to disturb it.

Genericness of the ES Body Shape. Gibson next challenged the jury’s cancellation of the ES Body Shape Design as generic. It argued that the USPTO had previously accepted the mark and that defendants failed to show genericness at the relevant times.

The court again deferred to the jury’s role as factfinder. Defendants’ expert testimony indicated that the ES shape had been widely used by third parties since the 1960s and functioned as the common name of a guitar body style rather than as a source indicator. The jury also heard admissions from Gibson’s own expert regarding third-party use. In light of this evidence, the court concluded that the genericness finding was not against the great weight of the evidence.

Treble damages. Gibson argued that § 1117(b) required treble damages for counterfeiting absent “extenuating circumstances.” The court rejected this position. Relying on Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v. BeckerTime, L.L.C., 96 F.4th 715 (5th Cir. 2024), it explained that treble damages under § 1117(b) require willful infringement and the jury had expressly found no willfulness. Without willfulness, the statutory mandate for trebling did not apply. The court also noted that § 1117(b) serves punitive and deterrent purposes, citing Microban Products Co. v. Iskin Inc., No. 14-cv-5980 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2016). It therefore declined to enhance the $168,399.22 disgorgement award.

Prejudgment and post-judgment interest. Turning to interest, the court observed that the Lanham Act does not expressly provide for prejudgment interest. Citing Whirlpool Corp. v. Shenzhen Sanlida Electric Technology Co., No. 2:22-cv-00027 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2025), and Neal Technologies, Inc. v. Unique Motorsports, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-00385 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2017), it reasoned that prejudgment interest is appropriate where necessary to make a plaintiff whole.

Here, the court had already placed Gibson “in roughly the same position it would have been had the infringement never occurred” by awarding disgorged profits. Additional interest would constitute an inequitable windfall. The court therefore denied prejudgment interest.

By contrast, it granted post-judgment interest as mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, citing Meaux Surface Protection, Inc. v. Fogleman, 607 F.3d 161 (5th Cir. 2010). The court ordered that interest accrue on the disgorgement award and any attorneys’ fees and costs awarded in subsequent proceedings.

Thus, the court granted the motion only to the extent of awarding post-judgment interest and denied all other requested relief.

The Case is No. 4:19-cv-00358-ALM.

Judge: Mazzant, A.

Attorneys: Andrea Bates (Bates & Bates, LLC) for Gibson, Inc. Jerry Robin Selinger (Patterson & Sheridan LLP) for Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc. and Concordia Investment Partners, LLC.

Companies: Gibson, Inc.; Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc.; Concordia Investment Partners, LLC

MainStory: TopStory Trademark TexasNews GCNNews