What Can I legally Sell..Talking about headstock & body shapes

[AngryHatter]

Time to pony up for a lawyer.
Or just damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

 

[Jusamies]

Trademarks have this nasty side of the holder having to enforce them, lest they lose it. It is kind of shitty that the G has to send C&D letters to random builders, but that's what they have to do to keep the trademark just in case they really need it. I'm not an expert about it and have no idea how the Tokais of the world can still keep operating (Thankfully they can. Those JP made "Customs" are sweet.) or why they have to target even the guitars that are noticeably different from theirs. Still they might not be a super evil corporation, just a regularly evil one.

I'm not saying they step on people's toes only because they have to, but the fact is they really do have to.

I firmly hold the belief that intellectual property laws around the world are in some dire need of updating to the 21st century, but there's expletive all I can do about it before I get to vote.

 

[DRF]

While of course there is one side to TM's that are good, because everyone thinks of the heritage companies that came up with an iconic design, there is a dark side to TM'S and that is where the company didn't even come up with the idea but had the legal means or investors to to aquire a TM.

EB immediately comes to mind with the 4+2, they were not the first ones, as a matter of fact I have an book on the history of guitars and it just reaffirms once more the old adage there are no new ideas.

The market is so flooded its almost the last frontier. Scratch that, it is the last frontier of guitar business. If you get a cease and desist from EB or Gibson, I suggest desisting. On the other hand if you get one from new joe blow investor group, I would really consider calling their bluff and make 'em pay legal fees.

 

[mux164]

^ that is so true, fenders headstock shape is very similar to bigsby's headstock from back in the day

 

[cmjohnson]

It's very interesting to go to the USPTO office and pick a guitar manufacturer's name, enter it in the freeform search, and start looking at the DEAD trademarks on file.

Did you know that according to the USPTO, the PRS bass body shape is not trademarked? If that information is accurate, you could legally use that body shape even if you made a guitar in that shape, not just a bass.

 

[fumblefinger]

pinefd - You just gave me another reason NOT to buy a Gibson.

 

[pinefd]

pinefd - You just gave me another reason NOT to buy a Gibson.

I appreciate that. And funny you say that. For years, I've been amassing a pretty decent collection of Historics and vintage Les Pauls, and I was easily one of Gibson's biggest cheerleaders/fanboys (and customers). Well, you better believe my attitude has changed quite a bit over the past couple of years. And while I completely understand them sending me the first C&D, the nasty way in which they handled the second one really ticked me off. Unless I experience a moment of sudden weakness (translation: GAS), or temporary insanity, Gibson will not get another dime of my business. Although I certainly won't have a problem continuing to buy vintage and...other.


Frank

 

[Bobby Mahogany]

PineFD, I had read something in another thread about you having had some problems with Gibson but now I know why.
Your guitar looks too good! That's your problem!
On my part, there's no question it's not a Gibson when I look at it.
The heastock and TRC tell it all. I guess it wasn't enough for them.

In any case, Congratulations on building such a fine instrument!

 

[Ronsonic]

Remember that protecting a trademark is required to keep it.

If you allow anyone to use it without prior agreement then everyone can. You have to protect them and be able to show your work. So they just beat up some guy who can't fight back once in awhile and save money in legal fees.

 

[Brian I]

^ that is so true, fenders headstock shape is very similar to bigsby's headstock from back in the day

1952 Telecaster

1948 Bigsby

1840's Martin

1820's Stauffer

It's all been done before...

 

[robertoa1a]

How can you have a paten on a shape? It is the shape of an acoustic with cut away(s).

Can I get a Patton on the circle and sue anyone that uses one? Of course not, that would be silly! Then WTF!!!

 

[Brian I]

I appreciate that. And funny you say that. For years, I've been amassing a pretty decent collection of Historics and vintage Les Pauls, and I was easily one of Gibson's biggest cheerleaders/fanboys (and customers). Well, you better believe my attitude has changed quite a bit over the past couple of years. And while I completely understand them sending me the first C&D, the nasty way in which they handled the second one really ticked me off. Unless I experience a moment of sudden weakness (translation: GAS), or temporary insanity, Gibson will not get another dime of my business. Although I certainly won't have a problem continuing to buy vintage and...other.


Frank

Sorry to hear of your troubles with Gibson's legal department, Frank. Your octave guitars are really amazing; it's a shame they can't get into the hands of players.

BTW, It would be cool if Gibson did what Martin does; Martin has a patent on their headstock design, their model designations, and a bunch of other things, but Chris Martin has said that he has no intention of going after makers using Martin's designs. Instead, they're using their patents to going after the manufactuers in the east who are making blatant Martin fakes.

 

[Stephmon]

It's all been done before...

The patented Gibson Mustache/gullwing/open book, detail has been used on Indian dilruba since before the electric guitar...

 

[houston]

Imagine if the Cremonese had the USPTO when they basically defined the modern violin (and voila and 'cello) in the early 1500's.

 

[Jim_E]

 

[pinefd]

^^^

No doubt that many of the designs currently in use and trademarked have been around for centuries. However, it doesn't necessarily matter who did it first, but it does matter who trademarked it first. Just ask DiMarzio, who, as we know, somehow managed to trademark (patent?) the double cream bobbin color for humbucker pickups, even though others had invented it, and had been using it for decades before he applied for the trademark. I'm guessing that up 'til then, no one had even imagined that you could get a trademark on a color.


Frank

 

[bruce bennett]

It's very interesting to go to the USPTO office and pick a guitar manufacturer's name, enter it in the freeform search, and start looking at the DEAD trademarks on file.

Did you know that according to the USPTO, the PRS bass body shape is not trademarked? If that information is accurate, you could legally use that body shape even if you made a guitar in that shape, not just a bass.

some of those "dead" ones are just "expired"
as trademarks have to be renewed every two years. they aren't "dead" as in available for you to use.. they are just dead trademark registration numbers. that have probably been renewed and the USPTO hasn't "cleaned house" in it's database yet.

we have several trademarks and they are a constant issue to keep up to date and retain their ownership.

and a trademark that's fairly new can be challenged by anyone at anytime which cause ALL SORTS of headaches for the trademark holder as the burden of proof falls on their shoulders and not the challengers.