Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
fender loses trademark application
Collapse
X
-
Here's some interesting commentary on it from the Rickenbacker corporate forum that you may find interesting.
Greg
http://www.rickenbacker.com/forum_vi...ademark%20case
-
Yowza!
This is what happens if you try to get a monopoly
by trademarking a generic cultural artifact : it takes 6 years and
a dozen smaller entities to invalidate your claim.
The Court just told FMIC to go away, but stopped short of saying FMIC had
a "Lack Of Standing", legalese for being full of shit.
If you read pages 3 and 4, its a Who's Who of guitar makers and sellers.
Way down in the opposition list is James Triggs, once a master luthier at Gibson.
The court gives many examples of why the Fender claim on guitar body shapes
is too generic.
The last paragraph on page 75 is the money shot:
Decision: Each of the consolidated oppositions is-drh
sustained against the application(s) against which they were
brought based on the claim of genericness and in the
alternative that the configurations have not acquired
distinctiveness; and application Serial Nos. 76516126,
76516127 and 76515928 are refused registration.He who moderates least moderates best.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by jason lollar View PostAlot of people miss the point still- we dont go around gunning for fender, people ask us to make them teles and strats because its GENERIC!
Comment
-
Well I guess (taking some more plusses out of this) that my strat is now a 'pre-trademark denial' Strat (in a similar way to what pre-CBS was to the mid-'60s)Building a better world (one tube amp at a time)
"I have never had to invoke a formula to fight oscillation in a guitar amp."- Enzo
Comment
-
Originally posted by DrStrangelove View PostThe Court just told FMIC to go away, but stopped short of saying FMIC had
a "Lack Of Standing", legalese for being full of shit.
Standing relates to whether an individual has a legitimate case or controversy to put before the court, ie: they have "to have a dog in this fight". I wouldn't have had any standing to object to this trademark in the sense that I have no commercial interest in Fender obtaining the trademark or not. A guitarmaker or vendor dealing in vaguely Strat-like guitars, however, certainly does, and the court recognized that. Fender automatically has standing in this controversy because it's their application being opposed - they certainly have a dog in that fight.
Comment
-
...
But can you CALL it tele or a strat??? Aren't those words trademarked?http://www.SDpickups.com
Stephens Design Pickups
Comment
-
Originally posted by Possum View PostBut can you CALL it tele or a strat??? Aren't those words trademarked?
Comment
-
I think Fender should have done this a long time ago. There is really no reason that other companies should be allowed to make copies of their guitar shapes, and even outright copies, as in the case of some of the bass makers. Gibson went after the Asian guitar makers back in the 70's. You don't see Ibanez making Gibson, or even Fender look-a-likes anymore!
When I see these companies making Jazz bass copies, even if they are higher quality, I just think that's not cool. They did no design work, and are making a profit off of Leo and company's work. Where's the originality? It's OK to have something that reminds you of a Tele or P bass, but not every detail. That's stealing other people's work. Just like it would be if it was a song, with just the name changed, or even pickups.
Because other makers have been doing it so long, those designs have become generic, and now that's what players want. There is no originality anymore. And this has allowed Fender and Gibson to become monopolies. Even though it seems there are more choices because of the cloners, there isn't, because it's still the same design. Then people want the "real" thing, and there you go. As if Fender and Gibson are the only guitars made. You can see this effect in pickup shapes.
However at this point in time trying to protect their designs after allowing others to copy them for decades seems a bit unfair.
And this only happens in the guitar world. What if every car looked like a Ford Taurus, but from different makers and with different names? Boring!
Did everyone see the letter from Leo Fender to F. C. Hall? I wonder what THAT was about? It's funny that John Hall said they had no interest in making Fender Style guitars... eh hem, but they DID, and they were even designed by Forrest White, formerly of Fender. Anyone remember those?
More like a tele than anything Ric ever made... bolt on neck and all.
Last edited by David Schwab; 03-28-2009, 01:13 PM.It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure. — Albert Einstein
http://coneyislandguitars.com
www.soundcloud.com/davidravenmoon
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Schwab View PostI think Fender should have done this a long time ago...
Originally posted by David Schwab View PostAnd this only happens in the guitar world. What if every car looked like a Ford Taurus, but from different makers and with different names? Boring!
Electric guitars may be one of the only places in the musical instrument industry where there is still some significant variation in overall shape.
MPM
Comment
-
There are still original designs out there. And I also think it's OK when someone revives a defunct model, like with Bruce making the scroll basses, or some of the stuff from Eastwood. That stuff is cool because you can't get them anymore.
But just sitting down and tracing a Fender and then starting a guitar company is lazy and unimaginative.It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure. — Albert Einstein
http://coneyislandguitars.com
www.soundcloud.com/davidravenmoon
Comment
Comment