fender loses trademark application

[jason lollar]

what happens is people get focused on this "But just sitting down and tracing a Fender and then starting a guitar company is lazy and unimaginative." and they miss the whole point. the point is once they trademark the strat shape with ther double cutaway they come after everyone making a double cutaway because "its confusingly similar" and the wording of the law is vauge about that. I got a letter from fender for a guitar design that I didnt think had any similarity to a strat but they did so unless I wanted to throw money at it I had to stop.
does the photo look confusingly similar to the outline of a strat? I dont think so- remember were talking about the outline only. Now after the ruling i dont have to worry abvout fender busting my balls but I dont make guitars anymore anyway...
I just think its great they lost.

[David Schwab]

what happens is people get focused on this "But just sitting down and tracing a Fender and then starting a guitar company is lazy and unimaginative." and they miss the whole point. the point is once they trademark the strat shape with ther double cutaway they come after everyone making a double cutaway because "its confusingly similar" and the wording of the law is vauge about that. I got a letter from fender for a guitar design that I didnt think had any similarity to a strat but they did so unless I wanted to throw money at it I had to stop.
does the photo look confusingly similar to the outline of a strat? I dont think so- remember were talking about the outline only. Now after the ruling i dont have to worry abvout fender busting my balls but I dont make guitars anymore anyway...
I just think its great they lost.

Don't forget that they had a patent on the offset waist at one time and went after Gibson for an SG type instrument! Not similar at all.

As I said at this point they can't claim anything. PRS has a design patent on their shape, but it's not a copyright, so you would have to really do an exact copy to infringe on it. I think that would be the same with Fender. They already did this with their headstock shape, even though it wasn't original when Leo came up with it!

I like your guitar a lot. To me it looks like a Mustang with a Tele bridge, not a Strat. I made myself a Tele-ish guitar with some of the lines being directly copied from a Tele, but that was because I was going to build a tele, and then decided to change it. I can see where your guitar is Fender influenced. It looks like something Fender might have made, but they didn't, and I can't see where they would have anything to say about it. But think about it, if their models didn't exist, neither would your guitar. Same can be said for many guitars and basses out there. It's derivative. In your case derivative in a good way. But still has many details from Fenders.

But look at their motivation. Who even owns Fender now? I know they were sold a few years back from the people who bought it from CBS. They are after profit. They are buying up most of the competition. It's greed motivated.

Now if you came up with a totally original design and someone copied it, but changed it slightly while still looking a lot like your instrument, how would you feel about that?

I was mainly talking about companies like Lakland that just copy Fender basses, pretty much exactly. Where's the originality in that? You took design cues and did something new with it.

[jason lollar]

I would have mixed feelings if someone copied a new design of mine- good and bad. If I designed something 60 years ago that became a generic design everyone made and I was known for it I would be quite proud. Remember guys that dont buy Fenders are looking to not buy a Fender- they want some kind of different service or features or want to be different by not owning a Fender or they want to get to talk to the guy building it. The guys buying- I dont know Tylers or whatever- are not going to buy a Fender.
if you just look at what the spirit of that law is it doesnt matter- the law supports the ruling. you cant decide 60 years later you want the design back that has become generic.
It comes down to when the average person looks at a strat outline do they think- electric guitar- or do the think Fender corporation. Its as simple as that. Even the trademark office used strat outline as an example of a generic guitar- that was before all this and I wondered how that was going to fly- i mean there is your answer right there! I laughed when i saw that a few years back when all this was happening.
When I want to keep my design and logos I register them and i have alot of registered trademarks. Fender was short sighted. I think people should take responsibility for what they do- Fender screwed up years ago on this matter if they wanted it exclusive. Its sort of like giving a set of pickups to a magazine for a review- if they dont like it thats the chance you take- you dont threaten to sue them when they dont like it or ask them not to print it. Dont put it out there if you are not willing to deal with what happens.

[Possum]

....

I think does have their headstock shape protected. When I did work for EMG they saw an ad I did that had a Fender headstock in it and I had to change the shape or pull the ad. So you can't copy the Strat headstock shape or they WILL come after you. Same thing for Gibson.

[voodoochild]

But just sitting down and tracing a Fender and then starting a guitar company is lazy and unimaginative.

I thought that too when I was first getting started almost 15 years ago. The truth is that over time I found myself building Strats, Teles, P-Bass, and Jazz bass for the majority. The reason was price point and familiararity of the design. To be original I had to make everything from scratch, which took lots more time and I had to charge for it. Not to mention I don't have the CNC machinery. I eventually found myself ordering aftermarket bodies and necks from several reputable sources that offered discounts to businesses. There is abosolutely no way I could carve the neck or make a body for the price I could buy one already done. Sure you don't get to select the wood or be a chooser, but most of these companies will take it back if you don't like it. With that said I build mostly Fender style guitars for that reason and I can give the customer better quality through the end set up and I can charge a reasonable price. On ocassion I will build a "custom" one from scratch, but this seems to be for mostly the doctor lawyer type, you know the sit around the house and play. The actual musicians are going for the Fender style guitars because of what I mentioned above, price point and familiararity. I forgot to mention that I do not and will not copy the Fender headstocks. Just a quick modification and it's different.

[David Schwab]

I would have mixed feelings if someone copied a new design of mine- good and bad. If I designed something 60 years ago that became a generic design everyone made and I was known for it I would be quite proud. Remember guys that dont buy Fenders are looking to not buy a Fender- they want some kind of different service or features or want to be different by not owning a Fender or they want to get to talk to the guy building it. The guys buying- I dont know Tylers or whatever- are not going to buy a Fender.
if you just look at what the spirit of that law is it doesnt matter- the law supports the ruling. you cant decide 60 years later you want the design back that has become generic.
It comes down to when the average person looks at a strat outline do they think- electric guitar- or do the think Fender corporation. Its as simple as that. Even the trademark office used strat outline as an example of a generic guitar- that was before all this and I wondered how that was going to fly- i mean there is your answer right there! I laughed when i saw that a few years back when all this was happening.
When I want to keep my design and logos I register them and i have alot of registered trademarks. Fender was short sighted. I think people should take responsibility for what they do- Fender screwed up years ago on this matter if they wanted it exclusive. Its sort of like giving a set of pickups to a magazine for a review- if they dont like it thats the chance you take- you dont threaten to sue them when they dont like it or ask them not to print it. Dont put it out there if you are not willing to deal with what happens.

I don't disagree with you, but I guess I kept myself from doing anything that reminded me of something I've seen. Probably just so people wouldn't say I copied it.

And I really like that guitar! I'd buy one of those. Nice work.

[David Schwab]

I thought that too when I was first getting started almost 15 years ago. The truth is that over time I found myself building Strats, Teles, P-Bass, and Jazz bass for the majority. The reason was price point and familiararity of the design. To be original I had to make everything from scratch, which took lots more time and I had to charge for it. Not to mention I don't have the CNC machinery. I eventually found myself ordering aftermarket bodies and necks from several reputable sources that offered discounts to businesses. There is abosolutely no way I could carve the neck or make a body for the price I could buy one already done. Sure you don't get to select the wood or be a chooser, but most of these companies will take it back if you don't like it. With that said I build mostly Fender style guitars for that reason and I can give the customer better quality through the end set up and I can charge a reasonable price. On ocassion I will build a "custom" one from scratch, but this seems to be for mostly the doctor lawyer type, you know the sit around the house and play. The actual musicians are going for the Fender style guitars because of what I mentioned above, price point and familiararity.

It's not that hard building from scratch. You don't need CNC either. Just make patterns and jigs from plywood and MDF and you are set. Some builders like their stuff to all be a little different, but I wanted uniformity from one instrument to another. So everything was well thought out and I made all my patterns. There was still hand work, like contouring bodies and shaping necks, but that's the fun part! I like to use power tools... angle grinders, belt sanders, routers, etc. My partner I had when I started SGD (whom I still share a workshop with) liked to do stuff with hand tools.

I would work on three basses at a time, and at one point got them down to about 40 hours, not counting sanding and finishing. Boy I hate sanding!

I'm planning on doing some simpler basses, alder bodies, less laminations and stuff. I should be able to do those faster.

Back in 1995 when I started out:

[voodoochild]

I agree its not hard to build from scratch. I have done so many times. Right after I graduated from Roberto Venn in '95 I was all about scratch builds. The thing is I can put together licensed necks and bodies in 1/10 of the time it takes to build from scratch. And I can sell them a lot easier to the working musician. Thats just my experience though. Nice looking work by the way. I dig the shapes a lot.

[David Schwab]

I agree its not hard to build from scratch. I have done so many times. Right after I graduated from Roberto Venn in '95 I was all about scratch builds. The thing is I can put together licensed necks and bodies in 1/10 of the time it takes to build from scratch. And I can sell them a lot easier to the working musician. Thats just my experience though. Nice looking work by the way. I dig the shapes a lot.

Thanks! I do a lot of parts guitars lately. I just finished a Strat type with a floyd, etc., last week.

[JGundry]

Very nice Dave. I love the looks of those bass shapes! A trick for designing a body contour that some people think Stradivari used it use the natural curvature of a string to come up with the instrument contours. You place a guitar or violin string on a board anchored strategically with pegs and you go about making the body contour. The result is a contour with no straight lines that flows naturally.

[soundmasterg]

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.

The letter to F. C. Hall was because before Mr. Hall bought Rickenbacker, he ran Radio Tel, who was the distributor for Fender, and to do advertising, they had to have the rights to do so. I guess Fender never changed things when the Halls bought RIC, and RIC being the type of business they are, they never tried to get around the spirit of the letter and make their own Fenders. That guitar you posted is Fender-like in that it is a slab body and a bolt on neck, but thats really the only similarity. Its actually quite a bit uglier than any Fender. I've got a 230 myself, which has that same shape.

Greg

[martin manning]

Very nice Dave. I love the looks of those bass shapes! A trick for designing a body contour that some people think Stradivari used it use the natural curvature of a string to come up with the instrument contours. You place a guitar or violin string on a board anchored strategically with pegs and you go about making the body contour. The result is a contour with no straight lines that flows naturally.

That technique is known as drawing curves using a spline, which refers to the thin strip of material sometimes used to reinforce a joint in wood, etc., or fix a circular shaft from rotation. Shipbuilders used it extensively to loft hull shapes. Same root as splinter, maybe. That terminology has of course carried over into the math and later the CAD lexicons, where a "spline fit" is a smooth mathematical curve that passes through prescribed points. Drifting off topic here, but I really get a kick out of these kinds of connections.

MPM

[Mark Hammer]

When the kerfuffle between Gibson and PRS over the Single-Cut was resolved in favour of PRS, I sent a letter into Vintage Guitar about it, which the editor liked enough to tell me that he did, and to pass it on to George Gruhn, who e-mailed me with compliments not 20 minutes after that.

The gist of the letter was this: Gibson had dug themselves into a hole over the course of several decades by progressively diluting their "brand", and were now turning to their legal department to fix something their marketing department had done poorly. And that's what Fender tried to do here too. For those of us of a certain age, while we might be able to purchase ersatz copies of Fender or Gibson instruments, deep inside we always thought of those two as "the real deal" and as something we would always one day save up for and actually own. As time went on and both Fender and Gibson went after the low-end budget market with their own ersatz copies, the brand simply evaporated for everyone except collectors or pros. Put another way, if I can "buy a Fender" for $250, and I can buy another brand for the same money or less that compares favourably, then where does my lust for Fender go? Down the dumper is where.

I find it interesting that there are still two rather iconic guitar "brands" that one tends not to see direct competition for. One is Rickenbacker, although they have had to fight tooth and nail for that, but have generally done so with more gusto, consistency, and success than Fender or Gibson ever did, Turser copies notwithstanding. I note that they have never pursued the budget market very aggressively; certainly not in the last 2 decades. The other iconic brand is Gretsch, who have also met precious little opposition, simply because they generally focussed on higher-end labour-intensive products, and generally ignored the budget market. They have introduced lower-priced models in recent years, though, and that might be the thin edge of the wedge. For the time being, though, neither have to fight the same court battles Fender and Gibson did. To my mind, they enjoyed that degree of success and freedom from aggravation precisely because they stuck to their guns and brand, rather than chasing after the budget market.

I might add, as well, that it's not just guitar body shapes. Where Fender amps enjoyed a reputation as standard-bearers in the amplifier industry for many years, the seemingly unrestrained corporate desire to slap the Fender name on anything and everything with a speaker and volume knob, regardless of quality, has left many with a diminished desire to focus all their money earmarked for a "good amp" principally on a Fender. All those reissues are fabulous amps, and deserving of our money, but is I bought myself a used Frontman or Sidekick for $50-150, then I already "own a Fender", so my G.A.S. quest can be safely directed elsewhere now.

So, from where I stand, as far as Fender and Gibson's desire to have better control of their brand and trademark items, that boat has sailed from the Pacific coast and is well on its way to China.

[Clint Searcy]

Thanks Mark. That's an interesting view I had never though of before. Something to think about as I price my own work.


The other iconic brand is Gretsch, who have also met precious little opposition, simply because they generally focussed on higher-end labour-intensive products, and generally ignored the budget market. They have introduced lower-priced models in recent years, though, and that might be the thin edge of the wedge. For the time being, though, neither have to fight the same court battles Fender and Gibson did.

Fender owns Gretsch now. This may be why you see the change lately and will provide an interesting study of your theory.

Thanks!

[David Schwab]

Very nice Dave. I love the looks of those bass shapes! A trick for designing a body contour that some people think Stradivari used it use the natural curvature of a string to come up with the instrument contours. You place a guitar or violin string on a board anchored strategically with pegs and you go about making the body contour. The result is a contour with no straight lines that flows naturally.

Thanks Jon. I was very conscious about the flow of the lines. That's all part of the "golden ratio". When lines match that they look natural.

It's an interesting story actually. My original plan was to build a semi hollow bass that looked kind of like a Gretsch. So I started out with a full size drawing and stuck it on the kitchen wall, so it was the first thing I saw in morning.

Then I started changing lines. After almost a year I had something I liked. The body became much smaller and was no longer a hollow body.

Then I took the drawing and used French curves and one of those bendable things for drawing curves and started cleaning things up.

The best compliment I had was from a female guitarist I used to play with who said it looked like a woman's body!

Here's what the maple took bass looks like today with Hipshop hardware. If I started making them again I'm going to have a custom bridge made that curved like the body. The last bass I made in this series had a longer lower horn. This shape slips off your leg too easily if you are sitting.