FMIC trademark

[KKauffman]

Found this ad for the Fender Custom Shop "Blackie" Tribute and I noticed that the trademark copy in the lower right hand corner states..."Fender Stratocaster and the distinctive headstock and body designs are the trademarks of FMIC." Sounds like Fender was successful in obtaining a trademark on the body designs.

http://www.coda-music.co.uk/Fender%20Cust%20Shop%20/Fender%20Blackie.pdf

By the way, for those of you that have won the lottery the MSRP on the Blackie Tribute is $24,000.00. :crazy

[AJ Love]

"Fender Stratocaster and the distinctive headstock and body designs are the trademarks of FMIC."

FMIC has been using that statement in ads ever since they started the process of trying to trademark the body shapes. I don't believe they have been successful in their attempts yet.

If they do manage to trademark the body shapes, folks like Lentz will be way ahead of the game...

[KKauffman]

AJ,

I wasn't aware of that. In that case they should omit the reference to the body designs until they receive trademark approval.

[killerburst]

Unless I've misunderstood what I've read, the new Trademark Act (2003) extends trademark registration to cover trade dress. Once the trade dress parameters have been established it is protected the same as any other trademark.

[clemduolian]

FMIC, like many other companies, prints the statement on everything because they are "staking a claim" and putting the world on notice. Then, IF they ever are successful at registration and decide to pursue action against alleged infringers, they can get more damages IF they are successful at proving infringement (those are big ifs).

In the ever changing world of intellectual property, a product's shape may be able to obtain trademark protection. If a shape has gained "secondary meaning" (e.g. the shape is associated with a specific source for the goods...think Coke bottle), it is probably protected (and arguably, a an inherently unique shape could be subject to trademark protection...). Still, Gibson just lost its suit against PRS over the single cutaway (read "Les Paul") shape.

Could Fender win a suit? Possibly (one never knows what a judge or jury will do or how well the attorneys will present the evidence). Generally, the question is whether the public/consumer is confused about who made the product (trademark identifies the source of the goods). Certainly, most consumers on this forum could tell a Lentz from a Fender, don't you think?!?!


Clem

[killerburst]

Certainly, most consumers on this forum could tell a Lentz from a Fender, don't you think?!?!

A Lentz S "copy"? No. Not from any distance or with poor lighting or with a partially obstructed view of the headstock. The only thing immediately distinguishable is the logo on the headstock. And I believe anybody not familiar with Lentz' work would likely assume that it is a Fender. Lentz' work is probably a bad analogy becasue he used the headstock shape as well, which is already registered and has been defended in court as a trademark.

Here's a better one: Would your next-door neighbor, preparing to buy a first guitar for his child, be able to tell a Fender Squier from a Hamer Slammer S-copy? If you covered the logos, he might not be able to tell you which is the Fender. I think that price point is a bigger concern for Fender than Lentz ever was. It certainly represents a much larger revenue stream for Fender.

[AJ Love]

A Lentz S "copy"?.

I was referring to the new Lentz guitars, the SSL, HSL, and DL-90

[fullerplast]

You guys also realize they are trying to get rid of do it yourself kits, necks and bodies as well.

Didn't know that, but not surprised. I don't know the terms of their licensing deals with folks like Warmoth or Allparts, but it seems as though it would be fairly easy for them to terminate when/if they expire.

I suspect if that does happen, we'll simply end up with the equivalent of the minor USACG headstock bump, now added to T and S bodies..... :jo

[AJ Love]

The Body shape is 100% functional, they allowed people to use it for 50 years,

I've heard that it is not at all a slam-dunk that such an argument will hold up in court


if they get this trademark then they will go after slanted bridge pickup, and many other parts that have become functional both for tone and playabilty.

I'm no lawyer but I think that it will be much much more difficult to trademark the slant of a pickup


They could still go after many guitars you guys say are safe and say they are still Fender inspired. They are looking to go public is what I hear.

Fortunately, "inspired" doesn't hold up in court at all when it comes to trademarks and copyrights.


What about a dreadnought martin or a Violin:confused:

Despite what I said earlier, I think this is your best argument: the body shape of a Violin

....

[clemduolian]

Probably not the best place to discuss arcane issues of intellectual property law :crazy, but....

the fact that the shape has been in use, without claims of "trademark status," for decades, woud tend to favor the argument that it has become "generic" and should not be protected by trademark. Then there are the arguments reagrding "purely functional" vs. inherently unique, secondary meaning/consumer confusion.

The bigger and scarier issue is that Congress and large business interests have made huge changes (for the worse) in copyright and trademark law recently, which have generally gone unnoticed by the public at large. These changes threaten creativity, technological advancement and small entrepreneurs (like talented luthiers, for one example). FMIC (and others) are tryng to take advantage of this dangerous trend (IMHO). Check out Lawrence Lessig's "The Future of Ideas" or creativecommons.com to learn more about such issues.

Having been in court and administrative proceedings regarding trademarks and copyrights many times, it is sad to say that $$ often determines who "wins" and that is frequently NOT who is right--legally or morally.

If you care about protecting creative freedom, get involved on these issues. The internet makes it easy to give comment/input to Congress (or local representatives) and to get information about how creative freedom is being eroded in the name of "protecting rights." This is happening right now.

O.K., off the soap box and back to playing gutiar and mandolin. Sometimes it feels like :horse but we've got to fight the good fight.

Clem

[Fuchsaudio]

Same silliness as the Vox diamond pattern and the Les Paul/PRS-SC battle.

All of a sudden a company decides they want exclusivity or protection on something they should have filed for 50 years ago.

[rickd]

"Blackie is the registered trademark of Eric Clapton."


WTF?

*renames dog*

[abergdahl]

Hmm let me think, Coke trademarked their bottle so that no one would by am other Cola mistaking it for a Coke.
If you see Scott Henderson with a strat like guitar i could probably mistake it for a Fender a by mistake by a Fender when it's really a Suhr i should get. As things stand now FENDER is the on winning customers by having artists using boutique guitars LOOKING like Fender. The chance that i first time guitar buyer picks up a Suhr "by mistake" is zero.
I can understand Fender and Gibson hunting cheap copies but i actually think that they BENIFIT from the Boutique look a likes. Suhr and other may actually HELP to sell Fender cheaper guitar, not to mention butique guitars having a Fender logo in the hands of a great player.

[JoeB63]

Hmm let me think, Coke trademarked their bottle so that no one would by am other Cola mistaking it for a Coke.
If you see Scott Henderson with a strat like guitar i could probably mistake it for a Fender a by mistake by a Fender when it's really a Suhr i should get. As things stand now FENDER is the on winning customers by having artists using boutique guitars LOOKING like Fender. The chance that i first time guitar buyer picks up a Suhr "by mistake" is zero.
I can understand Fender and Gibson hunting cheap copies but i actually think that they BENIFIT from the Boutique look a likes. Suhr and other may actually HELP to sell Fender cheaper guitar, not to mention butique guitars having a Fender logo in the hands of a great player.

By that logic, Fender should encourage any and all cloners -- to make exact copies, label and all.

And maybe Apple should encourage other companies to make exact copies of the iPod and to put an Apple logo on them. Just think -- it make more people buy Apple iPods.

Doesn't hold up.

[Vince]

Sounds like we've discussed a lot of the implications to this issue for buyers and builders. The thing that bothers me most about it all is the corporate ethical issue and what a "muscle" attempt to reclaim something that is long gone might say in the long run about a true American icon.

Of course, all the arguments about the functionality of certain shapes of guitars are completely legitimate. That should be reason enough to stop a trademark registration. But there is a more important issue.

As Suhr clearly illustrates with his story, Fender has known for years and years that they'd dropped the ball a long time ago for being able to legitimately register their body shapes as trademarks of their company.The law is clear as to what has to happen, and they just didn't do it. They could have claimed "acquired distinctiveness" a long time ago, hell, back in the seventies, but they didn't. So now fast forward a few years and you have Gibson filing over a shape on which they did have real trademark registration, and someone over at Fender finally says "holy S__t!! Mayber we better do something too!!!"

Well, sorry guys, but there was no fence around the pasture where you kept your prize bull for over 50 years, and it's really nobody's fault but your own that it went out and sired so many other generations. But your mistake doesn't mean you are now suddenly entitled to now own, or worse slaughter, the entire lineage that was started by your negligence.

So where's the ethical issue? I have a huge problem with any company who thinks they can exercise their muscle to intimidate the market and outspend, and thus "bully", all of the rest of the competition to get what they want, or think they deserve. Especially when they know that they have no legitimate claim to what they're trying to take. And especially since were talking about guitars.

Fender is a great company. They make great products and there are some really great folks at the healm over there. I think they know their consumer pretty well, and I think they're wise enough to understand that the kind of people who put them in the position to afford a full-time staff of 12 lawyers are the same people might not think it's too cool to flex corporate muscle for selfish reason, or to unethically or illegally limit (or at the very least, control) the options that their market might have.

At this point, I think they know that backing off and letting it go would be their best bet. After all, they've done nothing to protect "their" shapes for 50 years and it doesn't seem to have hurt them yet. They're just looking for the best way out so they can go back to focusing on better and more efficient ways of taking millions and millions of dollars of our money every year.

[mgrier1]

Vince,

Thanks for the best, most concise, well reasoned post yet on this subject...:AOK

It is often difficult for a company to see when the "inspired by" makers actually help the brand. Especially if they let the new innovations and changes influence their own products in return. Time for Fender to take a deep breath and relax... then focus on building better products at all levels of the line, not just the Masterbuilts, etc.

Of course you already realize this with your own distinctive, unique, yet fender-inspired lineup.

Best,

Mike

[abergdahl]

By that logic, Fender should encourage any and all cloners -- to make exact copies, label and all.

And maybe Apple should encourage other companies to make exact copies of the iPod and to put an Apple logo on them. Just think -- it make more people buy Apple iPods.

Doesn't hold up.
There IS a difference, what did Slash's usage of LP clone do to Gibsons sales figures?
And some companies DO licence the usage of there logo to more prestigious companies for marketing or cross sell opportunities.

[tonedaddy]

And some companies DO licence the usage of there logo to more prestigious companies for marketing or cross sell opportunities.

You've completely lost me with this point.
Yes, it's a true statement, but companies usually only license their brands to make products that they can't or don't want to make themselves.

Take Harley-Davidson, for example.
H-D doesn't make leather jackets with the H-D logo on them.
Why?
Because it's not effective for them to own/obtain the resources to make/market that product.
So they license their logo to a company that makes leather jackets, and receive a licensing fee (and also benefit by the leather jackets building the H-D brand).

But Harley-Davidson would never think of licensing their logo to a motorcycle manufacturer would they?
Why would they do that when they have the resources to make/market the motorcycles themselves?


So you're not suggesting that Fender would ever license their logo to a boutique clone guitar maker, are you?

There's only 2 ways for Fender to go on the use of their logo with a boutique guitar maker:

1. Authorized use: license their logo to a boutique clone maker.
Again, why would they do that?
Why wouldn't they just make/market the high-end guitar themselves, since they have all the resources to do so? Just like Apple has the resources to make/market iPods themselves.

2. Unauthorized use: if they don't enforce/protect the authorized use of their logo, then they:
a) are allowing sales to go to companies that otherwise could go to Fender
b) risk losing their trademark protection due to lack of enforcement


I'm not trying to start an argument.
I'm just trying to understand how this point connects to your prior points (or JoeB63's points).


Note:
I personally don't object to anyone using the Fender logo on a guitar they build or own as it's none of my business.
OTOH, I'm not surprised and don't object when Fender takes measures to stop the unauthorized use of its logo.

And to be clear, my points have nothing to do with the use of Fender body shapes by anyone.
;)

[MikeP]

Well, sorry guys, but there was no fence around the pasture where you kept your prize bull for over 50 years, and it's really nobody's fault but your own that it went out and sired so many other generations. But your mistake doesn't mean you are now suddenly entitled to now own, or worse slaughter, the entire lineage that was started by your negligence.



http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_goodpost.gif
Best analogy I have ever heard on the subject !

[killerburst]

...Of course, all the arguments about the functionality of certain shapes of guitars are completely legitimate. That should be reason enough to stop a trademark registration. But there is a more important issue.

As Suhr clearly illustrates with his story, Fender has known for years and years that they'd dropped the ball a long time ago for being able to legitimately register their body shapes as trademarks of their company.The law is clear as to what has to happen, and they just didn't do it. They could have claimed "acquired distinctiveness" a long time ago, hell, back in the seventies, but they didn't. So now fast forward a few years and you have Gibson filing over a shape on which they did have real trademark registration, and someone over at Fender finally says "holy S__t!! Mayber we better do something too!!!"

Well, sorry guys, but there was no fence around the pasture where you kept your prize bull for over 50 years, and it's really nobody's fault but your own that it went out and sired so many other generations. But your mistake doesn't mean you are now suddenly entitled to now own, or worse slaughter, the entire lineage that was started by your negligence...



Part of the problem- perhaps a major part- is that trademark laws were changed dramatically in 2003, giving Fender an angle they hadn't had the 49 years prior.

[Curly]

."Fender Stratocaster and the distinctive headstock and body designs are the trademarks of FMIC."
sorry for reviving this ... the legal stuff is ZZZZZZZZZ for me

However, I would just point out that neither the strat or tele headstock were "original" or "innovative" to begin with

Leo said he copied "some Croatian instruments"

Stauffer had a similar headstock in the 19th Century:



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.rodgers/RTM/Graphics/Stauffer%20Guitar/Staufer%20Guitar1.jpg


the Strat headstock was "inspired" by Bigsby's guitar from 1946 (?):

http://www.bigsbyguitars.com/images/guitar_600.jpg

[michael30]

But Harley-Davidson would never think of licensing their logo to a motorcycle manufacturer would they?
Why would they do that when they have the resources to make/market the motorcycles themselves?


There was some kind of deal in the early 70's between H-D and some italian manufacturer who sold 125cc two-stroke motorcycles with the Harley-Davidson name on the tank.

[Old Tele man]

...in legal terms, it's called "...exercising DUE DILIGENCE..."

...or simply "protecting" what's YOURS!

[Huckleberry]

By that logic, Fender should encourage any and all cloners -- to make exact copies, label and all.

And maybe Apple should encourage other companies to make exact copies of the iPod and to put an Apple logo on them. Just think -- it make more people buy Apple iPods.

Doesn't hold up.


I believe Mr. Suhr's pont is this:

I'm Joe Budding Guitarguy. I go see a band, and I'm blown away by the guitarist's instrument & tone. I say "I want one of those". Turns out it's a Suhr Classic. 3 grand worth of Suhr Classic. I can't swing the 3k, but hey: this here Strat is under a grand! Heck, there's some under $400! And suddenly my ears...under the influence of my wallet...say "sounds close enough!"

Point: Fender ('cuz I din't have the 3 grand for the Suhr).

[Leucadian]

...C.F. Martin was an apprentice to Johan Stauffer in Austria before he came to the U.S...

[sampleinajar]

It isnt over yet and will continue.
They dont have anything on the trademark it is still in court.

The Body shape is 100% functional, they allowed people to use it for 50 years, if they get this trademark then they will go after slanted bridge pickup, and many other parts that have become functional both for tone and playabilty. It will be a shame and the consumer will suffer more than the makers. They could still go after many guitars you guys say are safe and say they are still Fender inspired. They are looking to go public is what I hear.

Any consumer can look at the headstock and as long as the companies Logo is clearly in place then there should be no confusion in the make of the instrument. This trademark is to try and build their worth when going public. They should take the money they are spending on this and just make a better instrument for less money. Then there would be no market for the other companies. You guys also realize they are trying to get rid of do it yourself kits, necks and bodies as well.

What about a dreadnought martin or a Violin:confused:

This is quite depressing. Is there anything that we, the average consumer, can do to voice our displeasure over this?

Thanks John,

Steve

[abergdahl]

I will not buy ANY Fender or Gibson products made the last 10 years because of this bullshit from their side. I will also try to make out some text that i will have in the sig line on every post on every forum stating this.
If enough people to this it MAY get the suits at the big companies to think, maybe. I do own a 61 SG that is the only piece of gear bearing a big company logo in all my collection. The rest of my stuff is small company or custom on offs. I feel no need at all for a newer Gibson or Fender. Suhr, Chapin, Gustafsson, Roukangas, Soloway, Cougar et al is actually cheaper than Fender or Gibson CS stuff here in Sweden AND of MUCH higher quality.
Any suggestions on a good sig text??

[abergdahl]

I'm confused by this statement, maybe you need a period after Fender ?:confused:
There is now a period after Fender - Period. All I'm trying to say is that I have boycotted Fender and Gibson products since I'm not impressed with their quality, pricing or the way they treat small luthiers that are not stealing their market at all.

[abergdahl]

I didnt think you were lumping me in with Gibson and Fender
:BEER
Now THAT would have been rude ;)

[AJ Love]

I didnt think you were lumping me in with Gibson and Fender


The only way to lump Suhr in with Fender is to point out that Suhr himself built some of the best Fender guitars of all-time, back when he worked for the Fender Custom Shop.

Suhr Guitars *smoke* FMIC Fender Guitars left right and all day, imho

[Scott Lentz]

People should take John Suhr serious,because what he says could be right around the corner. If FMIC, which is not Leo Fender, has its way, it will disrupt the whole guitar business and plung it into chaos!
Simply because it has the money to do so!!!

[tonedaddy]

There was some kind of deal in the early 70's between H-D and some italian manufacturer who sold 125cc two-stroke motorcycles with the Harley-Davidson name on the tank.
The difference in your example is that during that time, H-D was a brand of the leisure products conglomerate AMF (yeah, the bowling people), and AMF had an Italian-based motorcyle manufacturer named Aermacchi which they used to produce those bikes.

In the early 70's, they came out with a Baja 100 series that was literally nothing more than a re-hashed Italian street bike stripped down for trail use.

Later in that decade, they beefed up the bike a bit and sold a 125 and 250 enduro street/dirt series, with a more authentic dirt-bike design (H-D actually made a foray into motocross racing with it), but the engine power was peaky, and the bike was a bit heavy, see:
http://www.motorcyclemuseum.org/classics/bike.asp?id=76

Bottom line it wasn't a very good dirt bike that was street legal.
Not a good combination if you think about it, which I didn't at the time.
I bought the 250 enduro model, and was lucky enough to dump it at no loss after 30 days.

So again, it wasn't a deal with an unrelated manufacturer or a licensing deal, it was using a foreign subsidiary to produce a class of product (smaller/2-stroke) that the US factory had no resources to produce.