Big News - Fender Loses Trademark Case - Page 2

**elcid** · #16 03-26-2009, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by callen3615

They never learn.

I still can look back and laugh at people getting pissed when Paradise offered a guitar with a handle in it. Apparently putting a handle in a guitar is a big deal to some people here, but taking 90% of the design is no big deal. As long as it isn't Ibanez that was copied.

**GilkyBear** · #17 03-26-2009, 11:56 PM

Cid, this is the interweb, stop making valid points immediately

ColinMmmmm · #18 03-27-2009, 12:08 AM

I think it's too bad - but is this going to change anything? Are all these other guitar companies going to start making guitar bodies with the exact same dimensions as a strat? I think Fender should own the rights to the shape, but not to the specs, hardware etc. It does seem like a lot of companies benefit from the work Fender has done.

Pursuit · #19 03-27-2009, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustavo777

You can't trademark the perfect shape! In my opinion there are four perfect guitar shapes: the strat, the tele, the SG, and the Les Paul. Anything else is sub-perfect.

I will agree partially on the Les Paul and fully on the Tele. As for the Strat, meh, and the SG... NEVER!!!!

RG shape is reaaal comfortable though!!!

Have still to try the S.

So mine are Tele and RG shape, and maybe LP too.

**jono** · #20 03-27-2009, 05:08 AM

this looks like standard IP law to me. A company failed to employ common sense tantamount to bad business pratice in lacking foresight when they should have and were unable to demonstrate adequate protection of IP 50 years later.

Fender did invent "the" electric guitar, but they failed to protect the fact that they did, I think it's a very just outcome!

jb4674 · #21 03-27-2009, 09:15 AM

It's too bad the decision went against FMIC. I think they should've won that case but that's neither here not there. Though these things aren't set in stone, Fender might take the higher route and plead their case to the US Supreme Court and see what happens. I also think that companies like Suhr and Tom Anderson, etc should pay some sort of royalty to Fender for using their most popular body shape model and calling it something else.

Jimmy

The Euphor · #22 03-27-2009, 12:08 PM

Did Mr Suhr ask Fender if it was OK to use their design for his own guitars before he started building Suhr guitars? Yes, he did. Was it OK for them? Yes, it was.

Change of white shirts at Fender HQ, and now they tried to make it their design. Thank God the guy who invented the wheel is long gone...

On the other side. If Fender had won, how much would builders have to change their "Strat" to continue building them?

jb4674 · #23 03-27-2009, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Euphor

Did Mr Suhr ask Fender if it was OK to use their design for his own guitars before he started building Suhr guitars? Yes, he did. Was it OK for them? Yes, it was.

Change of white shirts at Fender HQ, and now they tried to make it their design. Thank God the guy who invented the wheel is long gone...

On the other side. If Fender had won, how much would builders have to change their "Strat" to continue building them?

John didn't have to ask Fender because he knew the design from working at the custom shop for many years.

If Fender had won, nothing would change, except that builders would have to pay a royalty fee to Fender for using their design, simple as that.

Jimmy

THEE HAMMER · #24 03-27-2009, 03:46 PM

I think there's a James Brown song that would go nicely here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHqUipinDyw

Amen.

**jemaholic** · #25 03-27-2009, 05:26 PM

Well, after PRS was handed the decision on the single-cutaway design (Les Paul)
they set a precedent involving body style patents.

It was only a matter of time before it caught up to FMIC.

~j

michblanch · #26 03-27-2009, 05:29 PM

I just wish Ibanez would somehow find a way to crush all of the knockoff makers.
I would consider what is happening to IBI more profound than what is happening to Fender.

Rich · #27 03-27-2009, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jemaholic

Well, after PRS was handed the decision on the single-cutaway design (Les Paul)
they set a precedent involving body style patents.

It was only a matter of time before it caught up to FMIC.

~j

Actually Gibson's own attorney's screwed that pooch. When ask directly if the PRSSC could be confused with the Les Paul they answered "No", sealing the fate of the lawsuit.

The Euphor · #28 03-27-2009, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jb4674

John didn't have to ask Fender because he knew the design from working at the custom shop for many years.

He didn't have to, but he did. Maybe because he knew it could be frowned upon - pure speculations, of course. No matter the reason, Fender approved of him using the design.

Takin' a Ride · #29 03-29-2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by michblanch

I just wish Ibanez would somehow find a way to crush all of the knockoff makers.
I would consider what is happening to IBI more profound than what is happening to Fender.

I don't really see any major market players knocking off Ibanez designs? What I see is a handful of one-man-shows selling knockoff Jem/RG bodies on auction sites.

UV-7-BK · #30 03-31-2009, 08:49 AM

Makes me wonder if Jackson has copyrighted their randy rhodes v shape, bc rich's warlock etc etc, gibson explorer.....the list goes on and on.... is this going to set a precedent??
Yeah, i think fender got bent over....but they did to little, to late me thinks!!!