Gibsonhas filed a motion accusing Armadillo, parent company of院长吉他，蔑视法院，指责其未能根据其法律战斗的最终判决行事，并在最近接受采访时“吹牛”Guitar.com即使在陪审团裁定侵权之后，该公司仍将继续制造V和Z吉他。
吉布森（Gibson）在8月8日提出的主张中提出的主要论点涉及迪恩（Dean）V和Z吉他在其网站上的持续存在。最终判决的措辞清楚地表明，现在“玛迪洛（Armadillo）已被“永久禁止其[…] Luna Athena 501吉他，[…] Dean Gran Sport Guitar的制造，广告和/或出售；[…]吉他的轴承，使用或用“蜂鸟”一词的方式进行广告； […] Dean V Guitar;和[…] Dean Z Guitar。”
但是，正如吉布森（Gibson）的动议指出的那样，今天（2022年8月12日）访问了Dean网站，您仍然可以在Dean V和Dean Z系列中看到多个吉他的页面 - 最终判决后两周。吉布森（Gibson）的动议确实指出，被指控侵犯SG身体形状的Gran Sport模式“几乎立即”从Dean的网站上消失了。
The second plank of Gibson’s argument relates to an interview conducted byGuitar.com与阿玛迪洛（Armadillo）当时的首席执行官埃文·鲁宾逊（Evan Rubinson）一起。在陪审团判决后不久进行的采访中（2022年5月27日）we asked Rubinson several questions about the verdict，迪恩的计划是什么。
我们问：“陪审团裁定吉布森的商标不是通用的，迪恩会从其产品线中删除任何模型吗？”
Rubinson responded: “We have no plans to drop the Dean V and Z guitars, nor the Dean Evo headstock design, as the jury found no trademark liability on any of those. That said, the case is by no means over – there will likely be a post-trial briefing, and Gibson may potentially appeal the verdict, despite their touted victory.”
The jury verdict did in fact find that Armadillo had infringed on almost all alleged trademarks – including the Flying V and the Explorer body shapes with the Dean V and Dean Z. The only trademark Dean did not infringe on in some way was the “Flying V”单词标记。
鲁宾逊的全部采访Guitar.com与吉布森的文件一起被提交作为证据。该动议指责玛迪洛（Armadillo）temp视上面的报价，称这是鲁宾逊（Rubinson）的“吹牛”。它还认为，当他当时担任Armadillo的首席执行官时，报价构成了Armadillo“ Braggs”，它将继续推销并至少出售Dean V和Dean Z Guitars。”
吉布森（Gibson）的动议补充说：“吉布森（Gibson）不同意鲁宾逊（Rubinson）的解释，它假设违背将以法院的命令结束。”从本质上讲，这意味着吉布森（Gibson）一开始就没有考虑鲁宾逊（Rubinson）固有的鄙视，但是由于迪恩（Dean）并没有删除其V和Z吉他的清单，因此它已经与此案有关。
吉布森（Gibson）要求“法院应罚款Armadillo以确保遵守该命令。”该议案还指出，“鉴于Armadillo对法院命令的蔑视，在这种情况下，罚款，监禁和管理员任命是适当的。”
Gibson also requests that the “reasonable costs and fees” incurred by the new filing are awarded to it by the court, as “A jury found infringement […] yet Gibson has had to continue to incur attorney fees to continue to monitor Armadillo’s unlawful activities, as well as the fees associated preparing and filing this Motion for Civil Contempt.”
And finally, Gibson’s motion states that it reserves the right to “request compensatory sanctions beyond costs and fees” once it has had the time to establish what those might be.