Legal Issues

[crafty]

The problem here is that Gibson trademarked the basic body shape of the Les Paul in 1989. After seven years, you can sue the socks off anyone who tries to copy it. The PRS Singlecut/Tremonti models are for all intents and purposes Les Paul-killers. Especially the Tremonti with the contol layout. I think the problem PRS ran into was the question of the intent of PRS. Was it to copy the Les Paul or compete with it? Was it to confuse or establish a new design? I think the smoking gun was all of the memos and other internal documents seized under subpeona from PRS that established that they were trying to copy the Les Paul and confuse the market.

Now the question, will they ever come after smaller builders? Maybe. It's their perogative. They have a valid trademark, caselaw, and a court that will back them up.

The guitar business is going to get real interesting pretty soon. Look at all of the companies that are now part of Fender, Gibson, and Samick. The big three are about to throw down and companies like PRS are going to get swallowed up. I'd be willing to bet that Samick or Gibson owns Ibanez and ESP in five years. Even Parker is now owned by US Music, who also owns Washburn.

Edited October 20, 2004 by crafty

[westhemann]

well why don't you come up with your own original guitar instead of copying someone elses if you are worried about it?

of all the guitars i have built and am in the middle of building,only one of them was intended to look like a big name guitar,and that is the beast i am in the middle of right now.but even that one is probably quite a bit different dimensionally,because i only drew it out by eye...i didn't trace it or get plans

but if you are only using them for your own(as i do)then you are fine,i think

funny how this subject comes up at least twice a year and gets several pages added per day.

i mean really,are you heartbroken that you can't build an exact les paul replica and start marketing it as your own,or what?

some people try to think creatively,some people just try to duplicate others ideas.

[erikbojerik]

Warmoth builds a lot of different style guitars while USACG sell Fender knockoff's.

For the record, USACG bodies and headstocks all differ by the required 10-15% needed to avoid patent infringment. Some of it is obvious to the eye, some of it is more subtle. It just so happens that these design differences are set up so that you (as the customer) would be able to "make it a Fender" after about 30 minutes with a belt sander (if that's what lifts your skirt...).

[RGGR]

i mean really,are you heartbroken that you can't build an exact les paul replica and start marketing it as your own, or what?

some people try to think creatively, some people just try to duplicate others ideas.

I'm with you Westhemann.

Personally I let the big three inspire me and build something better. Better tone wood, better pick-ups, better neck construction. If I want a exact copy of a Gibson or Fender I will buy one. If I build one....I want it to be better.

And Picasso once said; "Good artists copy, great artists steal."

Edited October 20, 2004 by RGGR

[javacody]

Here is a link where a guy puts together guitars made out of aftermarket parts and sells them (with his own logos I believe):

http://www.nashguitars.com/Fender.htm

The big deal here can be explained with a comparative look at how things are done with other stringed instruments. Does one company own a trademark on Stradivari violins? There is only so much you can make different on a guitar before you start to alienate customers. I can appreciate Fender and Gibson trademarking their logos, but actual physical goods being trademarked? I should freakin trademark the wheel. Imagine the royalties I would collect!

[Lex Luthier]

Personally I let the big three inspire me and build something better. Better tone wood, better pick-ups, better neck construction. If I want a exact copy of a Gibson or Fender I will buy one.

Well said. All the guitars I've built except a solid wood body for my plywood body Strat have been original designs.

Are we just small fish not worth going after?

Bingo, there's no reason to go after someone like us, we're not a threat, just don't rip-off logos.

[RGGR]

With interest I read that link to Nashguitars. Says alot about the Fender company.

Seems the CBS years are back again.

Of course I understand Fender, cause if someone can make a living out of making Fender type guitars (selling them for $1100 a pop.) Fender thinks......hmmmm.....that's $40.000 a year less coming into Fenders' pockets, we need to get after these guys.

What they forget is, they're getting $40.000 worth of bad rep. And why would everybody and their grandmother be after those nice relic '59 strat copies....hmmmm......maybe, just maybe, because those brand new MIM strats are just all out crap.

Edited October 21, 2004 by RGGR

[Kevan]

There's a TON more to this issue, so I'll just pile on something else to make it even more confusing. LOL

ALL of the About Time Designs designs are trademarked.

Yes- every single swirl since 1989.

Think about that one for a while.

The big companies aren't going to come after the little guy doning one-offs and two-offs. Gibson's not going to kick in your shop door and beat you with a Black Beauty. Why not? Because it's not worth it, and you're not taking away from their market share. This was the problem with Ibanez back in the late 70's and early 80's- the guitars they were building were BETTER than what the big companies here were putting out, and everyone knew it so they were selling a ton of them. I think it's the '74 Ibanez LP copy that's so coveted by collectors. It's a COPY, and it's worth a pretty penny.

With regards to the EVH clone thing: If I'm not mistaken, Scott only uses the shop where those EVH clone guitars were being built. I don't think he's part of the business in any way. At least, I hope he's not. :-)

And, we all know that EVH is sue-happy these days. I have the Registered "®" symbol after every VH reference on my site. Gotta cover my buns.

I'm afraid if I got to a VH concert and yell out "Van Halen Rocks!" I might get a letter in the mail about trademark infringement.

Fender is currently trying, very hard, to trademark and copyright the Strat and Tele body shape. Don't worry- there are guys fighting that. But still....after FIFTY (50) years, they're just getting around to this? Ummm....no. I don't see it happening.

***IF*** it did happen, and Fender is granted a trademark on the Strat and Tele body shapes, imagine what would happen:

- Every decent Strat and Tele copy manuf. would be GONE (Anderson, Shur, etc)

- GC would have 4 models of guitars: Strat, Tele, RG and LP. ("Mr. Fender? Yeah...It's George Orwell on Line 3.")

I can understand them wanting to protect their intellectual property, but 50 years later is a little too late in my book. I wish it was just a scare tactic, but I've heard from a bunch of people who are in on the fight against Fender, and it seems pretty real.

BTW- PRS owns the name "Mark Tremonti", so you might want to just call it the "That Guy Who Was In Creed Model". LMAO....this thing is just so silly, all the way around.

[LukeR]

I would like to add a bit to Kevan's statements- basically, I too doubt that a TM would be awarded after 50 years usage- at the very least, Anderson et al have some sort of an estoppel argument to stop challenge fender's proposed TM- I mean, these guys have been making strat copies for a long while (at Fender's knowledge)- they should have challenged it years ago- I guess its now too late...

Personally, I dont know where I stand on whether thats a good or bad thing.

I remeber some talk about the single cut PRS thing at a Les Paul forum. They were saying 'I cant believe Gibson would do that- I tried both the Single cut and a Les Paul, and I bought the Gibson. Gibson are just being pricks'.

Well, I think that these seasoned 'Les Paul' lovers would not have tried out a Single cut but for the fact that there are so many different similarities between the two.You dont need to be a genius to work out that the PRS Single cut was certainly based on the Les Paul.

And it was designed to compete with gibson for the single cutaway solid body market. They were comprable to the Les Paul (although fairly ugly, IMHO) and judging from the amount of players seen with them in guitar magazines, a sucessful line. If I was a director of Gibson, I sure would be trying to pass a resolution to attempt to get an injunction to stop PRS from making the guitar. (Which they did. And, in my opionion, the learned trial judge got it right).

well

flame away at me

Cheers,

Luke

[AlGeeEater]

Wait shouldnt this thread be in the off-topics section?

[RGGR]

Big guys vs. little guys, I mostly vote for the little guy.

[Scott Rosenberger]

With regards to the EVH clone thing: If I'm not mistaken, Scott only uses the shop where those EVH clone guitars were being built. I don't think he's part of the business in any way. At least, I hope he's not. :-)

Just to clarify,

We do not make VH® Clones anymore. PERIOD!

Now that my butt is covered,

Back to the conversation

[82DeanZ]

- GC would have 4 models of guitars: Strat, Tele, RG and LP

And that would be different from now how?

Seriously, though you make a very cogent argument Kevan. Orwellian indeed....

Best Regards,

Mike.

[Kevan]

Just to clarify,

We do not make VH® Clones anymore. PERIOD!

Oh no.....don't tell me "we" means you're in business with "him".

Ugh.

[crafty]

But still....after FIFTY (50) years, they're just getting around to this? Ummm....no. I don't see it happening.

I agree. The hurdle that Fender is going to have to surmount is the fact that they've done literally *nothing* to protect their designs from copy over the years. They've protected the headstocks, yay, but they've done nothing to shut down Carvin, Valley Arts, Kramer, Samick, or any multitude of companies that ripped them off.

Gibson has been a lot more diligent in defending their designs from being copied and I think it will help them out a lot. But in the end, whether through settlement or reversal of the trial judge, I think we'll see new PRS Singlecuts and Tremontis again. Gibson is a corporation and they'll take a $200 licensing premium on every PRS they can if possible.

[Southpa]

Interesting place: http://www.tonezonenc.com/ibanez_guitar_gallery.htm

Notice a couple "lawsuit" guitars on display. I can only assume they were guitars whose "legality" was questioned at some point. These are Fender copies so I guess Ibanez took a few hits from them as well as Gibson, . Also notice the disclaimer at the bottom of the page, .

Ibanez sure stamped out a lot of guitars in those early days. I used to own a few and so did friends. I bought a Roadster (just body and neck for 10 bucks) that was pretty darn close to the strat with the exception of the headstock. The neck was a nice solid piece of maple, fretwork, nut etc. as good as a strat of that period. I don't know what kind of hardware, pickups etc. were used but I'll bet they weren't as good as "the real thang". I refinished and installed misc. used hardware, a prewired pickguard and it played great, gave it to my dad.

It sure would be ironic to see Ibanez kicking down your door for making and selling Jems,

Edited October 22, 2004 by Southpa

[Kevan]

Interesting place:  http://www.tonezonenc.com/ibanez_guitar_gallery.htm

Yeah- great webstore too. Good thing they went "all e-commerce".

(It's down as of the time of this posting)

Also notice the disclaimer at the bottom of the page.

"PARTS SOLD ON THIS WEB SITE ARE IMPORTS. WE ARE NOT REPRESENTING THEM AS PRODUCTS OF THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES. IBANEZ, STRATOCASTER, TELECASTER, PRECISION AND JAZZ ARE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS OF FENDER MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. LES PAUL IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION."

A couple of English classes, and a B in Grammar, and they'd be covered legally. As it is now, it makes zero sense, so.......dress nice....

It sure would be ironic to see Ibanez kicking down your door for making and selling Jems,

The folks here aren't a major threat to Ibanez. But if they were, they'd get a spiffy little C&D letter first.

Crafty- it's REALLY hard to shut down foreign companies (like Samick), because the laws in XXXXXX country are different than they are here. Yes, there are treaties that internationally cover patents and trademarks and copyrights, but.....the US seems to be the strictest enforcer of that. That's one of the reasons Fender said, "Screw it. We'll just buy you." with a couple of the foreign companines.

Let's live in La-La Land for a minute, and pretend that Fender does get a trademark on the Strat body shape. It's NOT going to stop Chinese factories from cranking out 20,000 a month and selling them worldwide. I promise you. It won't. They won't be selling any in the US, but....with more than 1,000,000 guitars sold worldwide each year, they'll be doing fine without US sales.

That's just how it works. Stopping it becomes a cash cow, and you have to figure out how much you're willing to feed that cow to protect your property. Apparently, Fender has a nice sized farm.

[crafty]

Crafty- it's REALLY hard to shut down foreign companies (like Samick), because the laws in XXXXXX country are different than they are here.

Oh, absolutely. What I was trying to say is that Fender has not been as diligent in defending their marks in countries that DO recognize the various trademark and patent treaties in force around the world. I have no doubt that Fender cannot stop Samick from making Strat copies in China, Indonesia, and Korea. However, Fender CAN stop their distribution in the EU and the US if they would bring an action against Samick's operations. It's probably way too late for that, but I doubt Fender's going to do anything against one of their "worldwide partners" any time soon.