whats the current status on Fender trying to trademark body shapes?

Discussion in 'The Small Company Luthiers' started by AJ Love, May 12, 2005.

  1. AJ Love

    AJ Love Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,372
    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Location:
    Madison WI
    I am wondering how things are going on the legal front, and I'm concerned for the smaller luthier companies that imho make a superior product and offer superior customer service to Fender...
     
  2. george4908

    george4908 Member

    Messages:
    2,017
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    Bethesda, MD
    I wonder is Fender is considering going even further and trademaking some of the hardware. It just occured to me after seeing the new Lentz designs that they are still using the basic Tele bridge and control plate. God know how nasty things will get if they try to start cracking down on that.
     
  3. flicker180

    flicker180 Member

    Messages:
    778
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2005
    Location:
    Holden, MA
    what was the basic lawsuit about again?

    i missed it.

    dave
     
  4. Scrutinizer

    Scrutinizer Member

    Messages:
    1,322
    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2002
    Location:
    Lower Left
    An attempt to trademark the tele bridge would not be successful, assuming someone had enough $$ to pay the lawyers to fight it. They would argue that the tele bridge plate is the only way to achieve that particular tone.

    Gibson attempted to trademark the slope shoulder acoustic guitar shape - another manufacturer successfully challenged this, citing Gibson's own advertisement claiming that the slope shoulder body shape yielded a tone unachievable with any other shape.
     
  5. Shades

    Shades Member

    Messages:
    3,379
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    The great northwet
    Also, in the due diligence in defense of trademark dept., every cease and desist that they have sent to makers using the headstock who were also using the body asked only that they cease and desist on the headstock. This proves that they were aware of the use of both and chose to defend the headstock only.
     
  6. Gary F.

    Gary F. Member

    Messages:
    417
    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Location:
    Baltimore
    As I've become more comfortable with the 'wisp' headstock shape of Suhr and Anderson, the less emotionally attached I've become to the Fender 'ball' shape. The strat body shape though, is sublime, and i'm glad it is not the subject matter of Fender's ire. I would hope any reputable builder could live with developing an alternate headstock design; it seems fair to me.

    Gary
     
  7. Shades

    Shades Member

    Messages:
    3,379
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    The great northwet
    Well, currently it is. Despite the fact that they defended only the headstock for the entire history of the company(and that the a lack of due dilegence in protecting a trademark is legal grounds for loss of that trademark,) they are attempting to trademark the body shapes 50 years "after the fact."
     
  8. AJ Love

    AJ Love Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,372
    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Location:
    Madison WI
    because Of Fender's current greed in trying to trademark the body shapes, I will be very hesitant to purchase a Fender product again... the Suhr T guitar that I recently bought smokes any Fender I ever played anyways (Custom Shop, Vintage or production)
     
  9. Gary F.

    Gary F. Member

    Messages:
    417
    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Location:
    Baltimore



    Um, disregard my post, then, Shades. John's post led me to believe the body shape was not up for grabs. With the evidence of their lack of intervention over the strat body style for the past 50+ years , i can't imagine Fender will prevail, despite their deep pockets. I also can't imagine that Gibson's victory over PRS won't be overturned.
     
  10. Dave Orban

    Dave Orban Gold Supporting Member

    Messages:
    16,859
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    Trenton, NJ
    Oh.. you mean the one they stole from Paul Bigsby...? ;)
     
  11. The Eristic

    The Eristic Member

    Messages:
    1,619
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Location:
    Cartersville, GA
    Whoah, talk about BIG guns.
     
  12. eric102673

    eric102673 Member

    Messages:
    689
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2002
    Location:
    VA
    I'm actually surprised there aren't more of the smaller guys on the list. A lot of big talk but not too many folks stepping up to the plate it would seem. Interesting to see a couple guitar stores on that list.

    -e.
     
  13. HHB

    HHB Member

    Messages:
    6,643
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2002
    Location:
    East Flat Rock NC
    wow, Berhringer has balls LOL
     
  14. CS'56

    CS'56 Member

    Messages:
    1,252
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2002
    Me too!
    Melancon, Grosh, Warmoth, USAGC
     
  15. tonefreak

    tonefreak Member

    Messages:
    2,461
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Location:
    West Los Angeles, California
    Too bad more people aren't involved:

    Grosh
    Anderson
    Tyler
    Lentz (I guess he's not making 'S' Types any more)

    Just to name a few... these builders have made a pretty big name for themselves with the 'classic S type' as part of their line. There strength in numbers because the more that get involved the louder your voice!
     
  16. mude

    mude Supporting Member

    Messages:
    3,497
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    Also, just so people know, JS Technologies (on the list) is Suhr. Thanks.

    Evan.
     
  17. Zane

    Zane Member

    Messages:
    1,272
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Panther City ,TX
    Posted by tonefreak:
    Yep he had a design in his head,& it just came to fruition:dude
     
  18. Stan Malinowski

    Stan Malinowski Silver Supporting Member

    Messages:
    498
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    Southington, CT
    Directly from Tom Anderson:

     
  19. AJ Love

    AJ Love Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,372
    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Location:
    Madison WI
    I would hope G&L is fighting this...G&L is more Fender than Fender!
     
  20. John C

    John C Supporting Member

    Messages:
    4,436
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Location:
    Kansas City
    Back when this first came up last year I'm pretty sure Dave McClaren (sp?) of BBE/G&L posted on the "Guitars by Leo" discussion site that "G&L didn't have to worry about this" - but he didn't (or wouldn't) elaborate. Maybe they already have some arrangement with FMIC dating back to all the cross-filed lawsuits about Leo using his name on the G&L guitars.
     

Share This Page