|
Post by newey on Jan 22, 2010 22:53:43 GMT -5
This is probably old news to many, especially anyone in the actual for-profit guitar biz; this ruling came down in March, 2009, so it's hardly fresh news. Fender lost in the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) last year in its efforts to trademark the body shapes of the Strat, Tele and P bass. The Court ruled, not surprisingly, that 30+ years of copying had made the body shapes generic, and that the shapes had not acquired distinctiveness associated with Fender origins. For those interested in the Court's opinion, start reading about page 10 unless you really relish narrow procedural rulings. The rest of the opinion makes for interesting reading, including excerpts from the testimony of Hartley Peavey, among many others. The opinion in Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd., et al v. Fender Musical Instrument Corp. runs 75 pages or so, but it's in big type and double-spaced so it's not as long as it seems: ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91161403-OPP-246.pdfFor those not familiar with legal practice, it's helpful to know that the term "discovery" means the process whereby each side to a court case is compelled to disclose their proposed evidence to the other side in advance- a sort of "laying your cards on the table" so to speak, before you get in front of the judges.
|
|
|
Post by lpf3 on Jan 23, 2010 10:49:03 GMT -5
newey
That was interesting- It really started to get good on page 38, the "Failure to police" part where the opposers all said that they had been doing this for 50 years & no one complained until now.
I guess it would have been different if Leo had trademarked his designs from the get-go; but then at the time he had no way of knowing that they would become an icon of American culture.
-lpf3
|
|
|
Post by ijustwannastrat on Jan 23, 2010 11:04:17 GMT -5
I think that anybody should be able to use the body shapes, but should simply adknowledge that Fender created them. Maybe it's just the "simple" in me speaking.
|
|
|
Post by lpf3 on Jan 23, 2010 11:33:10 GMT -5
Funny-
I'm old enough so I actually do see those designs as exclusively Fender and see them different from the copies, even the high quality ones. I would think that the fact that there are 2 generations now who don't make that distinction would still bring plenty of business Fender's way just from brand recognition...........?
-lpf3
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jan 23, 2010 12:30:14 GMT -5
The only thing that's "funny" is that all they needed to do was go to the source, ask, and I'd tell them. I mean, it's not as if I'm in hiding or anything, right? After all, I am right here on one of the most important Forums on the entire innerweb, and they choose to ignore me. Sheesh! Those kids in the Supreme Court need to learn that there are infinitely better sources to tap, if they want to come to the correct decision. And they need to get off my lawn, too. And actually, as modest as I am, I freely admit that I'm not the originator of the saying "the map is not the territory". Stop bickering over a two-dimensional representation of a 3-D object. The only proper question for the survey was this: "I'm holding up this guitar, what is it, and who makes it?" The only proper answer would be: "It's a copy of a Fender Stratocaster, made by company X (determined as they read the headstock decal)." The story's over right there, pure and simple. But of course, if that's too simple for some doltsfolks to understand at first blush, then repeat the test with a Les Paul, and watch "Gibson" pop out of the respondent's mouth, first thing. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by gumbo on Jan 23, 2010 18:00:31 GMT -5
I guess the upside is that no-one copied the Edsel...
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jan 23, 2010 19:14:40 GMT -5
I say spank 'em harder! I've been p d at Fender ever since their internet vigilantes got my ebay ad pulled, for calling my guitar a "Hondo Strat copy", which is exactly what it was, but they get picky about words too, such as Strat. They should instead, be pleased that their design has been the standard to which others try to match. It only adds power to their brand. John
|
|
|
Post by wolf on Jan 23, 2010 22:05:04 GMT -5
I agree with John H about Fender vigilantes. I'm surprised that my guitar rewiring pages have not caught their attention. Perhaps it's because I always put the trademark ™ symbol whenever I mention Strat™. (I think my site comes up as a number 1 Google search result for "guitar rewiring" so I think Fender must be aware of me). Ever notice when companies such as DiMarzio, Seymour Duncan, etc mention the Fender Strat™ they state explicitly that Strat™ is a registered trademark and the Fender Corporation is not in any way associated with their company. By the way John did Fender mention the E-Bay ad wouldn't have been pulled if you had put the trademark on your use of the term Strat™?
(By the way, to make ™, hold down the "ALT" key, and at the same time type 0153 on the keypad.)
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jan 23, 2010 23:13:27 GMT -5
..... (By the way, to make ™, hold down the "ALT" key, and at the same time type 0153 on the keypad.) Or, for the internationally minded (those that don't have USA-centric keyboards), you can type in ™, and it'll do the same job. Just as the copyright symbol is entered by typing in ©. Note the semi-colon in red is also part of those structures. HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jan 23, 2010 23:32:43 GMT -5
There's also the numeric BB coding; "&" at the beginning, ";" at the end, and in between the two:
#153 = #169 = © #174 = ®
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jan 24, 2010 2:00:32 GMT -5
Ah, I was sure I was forgetting something... thanks, newey!
®
No sense in memorizing numbers, or going to a look-up table, when the mnemonic is an easily discerned abbreviation - trade, copy, reg, what's not to like here? ;D
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by wolf on Jan 24, 2010 2:35:51 GMT -5
Well I don't need to memorize those numbers either. I have a website page: www.1728.com/altchar.htmthat shows how to make those §pe©iª£ characters.
|
|