Members BeeTL Posted November 20, 2008 Members Share Posted November 20, 2008 I'm curious to know if anyone has links to stories of small bass or guitar builders being pursued by FMIC for trademark infringement. As I understand it, Warmoth and Allparts necks with Fender headstocks are intended only for installation on Fender bodies, and may not have a Fender decal applied. It seems to be generally accepted by small builders to be OK to add a "custom" logo to a Fender style neck on a "partscaster", although it is technically NOT OK per Warmoth's licensing agreement if you actually read it. USACG makes unlicensed necks that can easily sanded to mimic a Fender profile and seems to be getting away with it, and some small builders are using modified USACG necks on partscasters that are being resold. So, assuming that slapping a logo on a "licensed" neck is a no-no, how would one go about validating whether a headstock design did not violate Fender's (or any other) trademark? Make a few thousand necks and wait for the subpoena? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Renfield Posted November 21, 2008 Members Share Posted November 21, 2008 So, assuming that slapping a logo on a "licensed" neck is a no-no, how would one go about validating whether a headstock design did not violate Fender's (or any other) trademark? Make a few thousand necks and wait for the subpoena? Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fingeringam Posted November 21, 2008 Members Share Posted November 21, 2008 Why can Bill Nash basses say Fender on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Renfield Posted November 21, 2008 Members Share Posted November 21, 2008 Why can Bill Nash basses say Fender on them? They don't. They have blank headstocks. He doesn't even put his own name on them, they are unlabeled instruments, you just have to know you have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fingeringam Posted November 21, 2008 Members Share Posted November 21, 2008 They don't. They have blank headstocks. He doesn't even put his own name on them, they are unlabeled instruments, you just have to know you have one. link Edit: ok now I saw the part where he said he added the decal, my bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BeeTL Posted November 21, 2008 Author Members Share Posted November 21, 2008 This (surprisingly) is the first I've heard of Bill Nash. I have to say that I'm impressed with what he's accomplished. He has some very interesting things to say on trademarks and relics here. It's interesting in that he has really carved a unique niche as a "no brand" brand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Renfield Posted November 21, 2008 Members Share Posted November 21, 2008 This (surprisingly) is the first I've heard of Bill Nash. I have to say that I'm impressed with what he's accomplished. He has some very interesting things to say on trademarks and relics here. It's interesting in that he has really carved a unique niche as a "no brand" brand. It is. Relic haters would still play his stuff many times. It's rather odd that. I love them personally, did a good job on my Hwy 1 if I may say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted November 21, 2008 Moderators Share Posted November 21, 2008 So, assuming that slapping a logo on a "licensed" neck is a no-no, how would one go about validating whether a headstock design did not violate Fender's (or any other) trademark? Make a few thousand necks and wait for the subpoena? Use a logo that is not confusingly similar such that a purchaser might confuse the bass as being made by Fender. Manufacture's often get official clearance from the FMIC legal department that a given design is acceptable to both parties. This prevents FMIC from changing their mind after sales pick up a bit. Also remember, that if you aren't using the bass in commerce in a way that the source identifier is likely to cause confusion, there is no real issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BeeTL Posted November 21, 2008 Author Members Share Posted November 21, 2008 No links, but I've read actual documents.Use a logo that is not confusingly similar such that a purchaser might confuse the bass as being made by Fender.Manufacture's often get official clearance from the FMIC legal department that a given design is acceptable to both parties. This prevents FMIC from changing their mind after sales pick up a bit.Also remember, that if you aren't using the bass in commerce in a way that the source identifier is likely to cause confusion, there is no real issue. You make a valid point (don't you always?) in that the direct route is often the easiest, and to be clear, I think I'm asking two questions: Q1. Can I put MY logo on a Fender licensed headstock (Warmoth/Allparts) and resell it under my "brand"?A1. Ask the FMIC legal department. Q2. Can I develop a 6 inline headstock design that has a similar "feel" without infringing the FMIC trademark?A2. ??? It's interesting to me that the G&L "lawsuit" headstock didn't survive, but SX and USACG seem to operate with impunity. Also, I can't imagine that one of my guitars (if there are more than one) would be confused as an FMIC product. That said, if I sold on eBay, it would be tempting to use phrases like "Fender Licensed Neck" and "Fender Original Vintage Pickups", etc. in the description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted November 21, 2008 Moderators Share Posted November 21, 2008 You make a valid point (don't you always?) in that the direct route is often the easiest, and to be clear, I think I'm asking two questions:Q1. Can I put MY logo on a Fender licensed headstock (Warmoth/Allparts) and resell it under my "brand"?A1. Ask the FMIC legal department. Q2. Can I develop a 6 inline headstock design that has a similar "feel" without infringing the FMIC trademark?A2. ???It's interesting to me that the G&L "lawsuit" headstock didn't survive, but SX and USACG seem to operate with impunity.Also, I can't imagine that one of my guitars (if there are more than one) would be confused as an FMIC product.That said, if I sold on eBay, it would be tempting to use phrases like "Fender Licensed Neck" and "Fender Original Vintage Pickups", etc. in the description. 1. Are you aware of the currently pending litigation between FMIC and Lakland/Sadowsky/Lull/etc? 2. You are asking some specific questions that would require legal opinion/advice. For obvious reasons, I can't help you there unless we have an attorney-client relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BeeTL Posted November 21, 2008 Author Members Share Posted November 21, 2008 1. Are you aware of the currently pending litigation between FMIC and Lakland/Sadowsky/Lull/etc?2. You are asking some specific questions that would require legal opinion/advice. For obvious reasons, I can't help you there unless we have an attorney-client relationship. 1. No, I was not aware of that. 2. At some point that may be worth looking into... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mr.Mow Posted November 21, 2008 Members Share Posted November 21, 2008 The USACG headstock is different enough they can't be sued.. But yes, I personally know someone who was selling unfinished guitar necks that had a Strat or Tele headstock (no labelling on them though) and yes, Fender's lawyers told him to stop.. The fender headstock SHAPE is trademarked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pickdust Posted November 21, 2008 Members Share Posted November 21, 2008 1. Are you aware of the currently pending litigation between FMIC and Lakland/Sadowsky/Lull/etc? 2. You are asking some specific questions that would require legal opinion/advice. For obvious reasons, I can't help you there unless we have an attorney-client relationship. I was wondering when you were going to weigh in on this given your conversation with Dan this summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted November 21, 2008 Moderators Share Posted November 21, 2008 I was wondering when you were going to weigh in on this given your conversation with Dan this summer. Who, me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted November 21, 2008 Moderators Share Posted November 21, 2008 The fender headstock SHAPE is trademarked. Truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GRANKOR Posted November 21, 2008 Members Share Posted November 21, 2008 Fender slapping Lakland witha lawsuit is ridiculous, they aren't close beyond being a 4 in line style. The 5 strings are 3+2 as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted November 21, 2008 Moderators Share Posted November 21, 2008 Fender slapping Lakland witha lawsuit is ridiculous, they aren't close beyond being a 4 in line style. The 5 strings are 3+2 as well... The issue is body style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pickdust Posted November 21, 2008 Members Share Posted November 21, 2008 Who, me? I should have said given your "alleged" discussion with Dan this summer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BeeTL Posted November 21, 2008 Author Members Share Posted November 21, 2008 Well...Google has yielded some interesting information on the state of the union as it relates to Fender headstocks and possibly even body shapes. It will be interesting to see how things shake out, for sure. In the mean time, I'll proceed cautiously and may ultimately decide to go in a different direction, style-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GRANKOR Posted November 21, 2008 Members Share Posted November 21, 2008 The issue is body style. even worse! I hope that Fender loses this case as much as I like their instruments. The designs are over 50 years old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BeeTL Posted November 23, 2008 Author Members Share Posted November 23, 2008 Weird tangent...did/does Fender own/maintain a trademark on T/S/P/J pickup styles, as well as all the other bits like neck plates and control covers? It would be very interesting if Fender began enforcing those trademarks if they haven't been after all these years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members t3ch Posted November 23, 2008 Members Share Posted November 23, 2008 Doesn't just about everyone have the same body styles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members fingeringam Posted November 23, 2008 Members Share Posted November 23, 2008 Weird tangent...did/does Fender own/maintain a trademark on T/S/P/J pickup styles, as well as all the other bits like neck plates and control covers?It would be very interesting if Fender began enforcing those trademarks if they haven't been after all these years... That would blow Why is it that after authors die, their work can be recreated by another author and sold under his/her name without repercussion.IMO, since Leo is dead, all his creations should be free game for improvements and changes to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BeeTL Posted November 23, 2008 Author Members Share Posted November 23, 2008 Good summary Paul. Re the body shapes, to be a bit more accurate, I'd say the body shape trademarks were never registered with the USPTO. They actually had what is called a "common law" trademark based on first use and continued commerce of the shapes. Since then, FMIC has applied for registration of the shapes with the USPTO and that registration was opposed by a group of 18 other builders and component manufacturers. (The USPTO registration was actually granted, then revoked a total of 3 times by accident since it was under opposition.) All the depositions have been completed, all paperwork submitted, and the oral presentations completed earlier this month. The final decision is now pending.FWIW, this is very similar to the way Gibson trademarked the LP shape....it was done about 30 years after first use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.