Fender trying to copyright Strat and Tele body shapes

[andywa]

I found this on the Suhr site.

Apparently Fender is trying to put all of the makers of similar shaped guitars out of business, eg Lentz, Suhr, Melancon, Anderson, Grosh, et al, or force them to pay royalties on the body shapes.

While this forum is dedicated to fans of Fender, I think it would be better if Fender would compete in the marketplace by, say building better guitars

Anyway, I think there is some attempt at getting the high end makers of custom guitars together to fight this.

If anyone here knows any custom builders, perhaps they should be kept informed of whats going on.

[Franklin]

Gear post!!

[grito]

This just in! Paul Bigsby and Merle Travis will sue Fender over their headstock design!

[Cogs]

Well, they DID design & build them, so they have that right; but it seems like it's kind of late for that.
Does anyone have any REAL information on this, instead of a link to a forum that contains another link to another forum?
*edit* I just noticed one of the posters to both those threads is John Suhr himself. I suppose if anyone knows for sure it would be him, but still it would be nice to see something official from Fender.

[TL5]

Does anyone have any REAL information on this

The links posted didn't pass thru my firewall..

Wouldn't those shapes be protected by a "registered trademark" instead of "copyright" anyway?

[andywa]

I would not have posted except for the following, posted by Gerard Melancon...

We have done a trademark search and did not find anything however in the fax we received from Larry Davis , the owner of WD Music ,a copy of the findings from his attorney and it stated that the United States Patent and Tradmark Office(PTO) has approved these applications and they will be posted in the PTO's Official Gazette beginning March 16, 2004. If no opposition is filed against these marks within 30 days following the date of publication, the marks will be passed to registration. Mr. Davis is suggesting that everyone join together with one trademark attorney to fight this. I will keep you posted if I find anything else out.


Gerard Melancon

I assume he is completely above board with this.

<edit>
Taken together with this post by John Suhr, I tend to think this is true:

trademark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is true and we need to fight it in the next 2 weeks or next I'm sure are the other body shapes, the slanted single coil and single coil cover. It is silly they let everyone do this for 50 years, grow their buisiness and then try to chop their feet off. You think they should just make a better product to eliminate the competition. Downsized strat type body shapes will also be in trouble.

Most everyone I know is using Ron Bienstock for this, He handles many of the big players who would also be affected. If anyone would like his number send me an email to johnsuhr@suhrguitars.com

</edit>
I also believe Fender had the right to protect their designs, but after being in the public domain for 50 years I think its a little late.

Note: Both qoutes above are taken directly from the Melancon Guitars Forum http://www.melanconguitars.com/index.shtml

[Offshore Angler]

I'd think at this point the shapes are public domain. They should have done this earlier if they wanted to.

LOL, I can just see Fender asking G&L for royalties!

[NeoFauve]

It would be one thing for Leo or any of the surviving folks who actually DID design them to initiate this, but for FMIC to claim exclusive right to the sillouhettes or contours some 50 years after someone else created them strikes me as opportunistic and sleazy.

On one hand, it could encourage originality.
On the other, people are conditioned to see Fender and Gibson shapes as THE shapes. Originality rarely rarely succeeds or is profitable on the guitar design landscape.

Not cool. Makes me want to buy a McInturff or a PRS.

Imagine if Goodyear up and decided to copyright the circle.

[Williams]

Originally posted by Offshore Angler
I'd think at this point the shapes are public domain. They should have done this earlier if they wanted to.

LOL, I can just see Fender asking G&L for royalties!

Exactly -- PUBLIC DOMAIN
In other words if Fender wanted to protected their designs they should've done so 40 years ago when they first started. It is not fair nor lawful for them to do so now 40 years later when every guy and their mother has copied that design...

Furthermore, Leo Fender sold his company to CBS in the 60's and then it was bought out by Fender employees in the 80's -- right?? Therefore who really has the right to the design -- FMIC or Leo Fender's widow...or maybe George Fullerton...

-Kevin

[fezz parka]

Notice the shape of the body on the tele patent..

[curtisstetka]

Not even looking at the issue of whether this is "fair" or even good public relations, this does seem to be legal to me. How would it be illegal? I'm just asking.

I mean, Leo came up with the designs. When CBS bought his company, they bought everything, right? Even the name! When Leo Fender subsequently started other guitar building companies he couldn't called them "Fenders". Then, when FMIC bought out CBS they bought everything too right?

I'm not a lawyer but I don't see how it's illegal for FMIC to copyright/trademark/whatever a design that belongs to them. Especially since the design is so closely associated with their company. You show any guitarist on the planet the sillouette of a strat or a tele and they will know exactly what guitar that is.

Here's another point - does anyone know of other companies that have done this? For instance, does Gibson own rights to the shape of the Les Paul or the Flying V or Explorer or something????

For what it's worth, I do think it's a bit of a skunk move. Obviously Fender is feeling the bite from the builders making better strats.

[frank thomson]

imho, i hate the fact that anyone can use the fender headstock!

do fords say chevy?

then why don't everyone here just go buy a washburn?

it's just a guitar, right?!?

fo` real!

[Cogs]

I know that DiMarzio has a copyright (or whatever) on "double-cream" bobbins... what's THAT about?
It's not illegal for them to do this; in fact, probably ANYONE could do it & win if they were unchallenged in court. The thing is that Fender will probably go unchallenged because the little guys (who are making better guitars) don't have the dough to pay for a platoon of lawyers to see it through.

[Cogs]

Originally posted by frank thomson
imho, i hate the fact that anyone can use the fender headstock!

do fords say chevy?

then why don't everyone here just go buy a washburn?

it's just a guitar, right?!?

fo` real!

But just anyone CAN'T use the Fender headstock. It has to be "licenced by Fender". That is one thing (along w/the "F" logo) that they have protected.

[frank thomson]

DIG....

i also meant to include the body shape, too.

Sorry , but it just pisses me the hell off that anyone can use ANY Fender designs. That goes for saddles, dot spacing, and anything else that was on the first Telecasters or Strats.

Hey, didn't Gretsch sue Fender for the Broadcaster name?

You don't have to be the best, just the first!


Leo was ripped-off!

[MIKEH]

I personally don't think that a Trademark application will pass the challenges by other instrument manufacturers, but I'll be watching this closely. This is an idea that is misguided and out of touch with reality at best, and greedy and predatory at worst. It's almost as stupid as a vendor such as Martin trying to Trademark the dreadnaught body shape for acoustic guitars. Fucking lawyers. I'd betcha that's what is at the root of this issue.

This pisses me off enough that I'll think long and hard about purchasing another Fender product. Are you listening, Fender?
You are running the risk of alienating your customer base.

[frank thomson]

It seems to me that the only real true designs recently have come from Parker.


Hey Fezz, wasn't that patent for electronics, and basic design?

[Cogs]

Yup, lawyers. They'll get paid regardless of the outcome, don't you think?

[frank thomson]

yea, but MIKEH, what if you designed it, and everyone stole your design?

[Dangerine49]

I guess that 1954 memo to protect their product designs finally landed on somebody's desk!!

[Sven]

Originally posted by frank thomson
yea, but MIKEH, what if you designed it, and everyone stole your design?

Nice try Frank, but no cigar. The design should have been patented when it was done, NOT 50 years later. There has been no "stealing" of an unpatented design. It would be the same thing as me trying to patent the shape of tires, and trying to force other companies to pay me royalties.

It's simply too late.

[Kap'n]

Originally posted by Williams
In other words if Fender wanted to protected their designs they should've done so 40 years ago when they first started.

Or at least when the first copies came out. It's referred to as a "Trade Dress" issue.

http://www.inta.org/tradedress/

The shape of life savers, the coke bottle, etc, all fall into this.

Just like a Trade Mark, it's only value is if it is defended rigorously. By not defending the Stratocaster body shape as trade dress for fifty years, it should rightfully be considered part of the public domain. And it could probably be sucessfully argued, if someone, or group of people, had deep enough pockets.

[Huckleberry]

This is really sad. I'm actually ASHAMED of them!

[MIKEH]

It's Leo Fender's design. CBS, then FMIC bought the rights to the name and existing patents and trademarks. Leo continued on with G&L after his legally mandated time to stay out of the guitar business had expired. Why wouldn't G&L have as much claim to the design as Fender?

[frank thomson]

Originally posted by Sven
Nice try Frank, but no cigar. The design should have been patented when it was done, NOT 50 years later. There has been no "stealing" of an unpatented design. It would be the same thing as me trying to patent the shape of tires, and trying to force other companies to pay me royalties.

It's simply too late.

well i guess if you look at it that way!:tw59

[Electron]

I have a patent application before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, for a tremolo stabilizer. One thing I recall seeing in their on-line documentation was something about if a patent isn't applied for within one year of it being on the market, it's public domain & no patent will be issued.

[andywa]

If Fender is successful, this would give them the right to charge whatever royalty they wanted from the other manufacturers. Perhaps, a one-time/annual payment, or a per-unit royalty.

G&L could probably negotiate a deal because of their size, but what about the guys like Scott Lentz, John Suhr, and the others? For them its all about building the absolute best guitars available because there was/is a market for higher quality - I'm sure for the boutique builders its as much a labor of love as a business.

Does Fender then drive the boutique builders out of business, then force the consumer to buy lesser quality? If Fender made the commitment to quality that these other guys do, there probably wouldn't be any competition.

<edit>
Its bad enough when US companies lay off American workers to outsource their manufacturing overseas, but when a company tries to force their American competition out of business, so that they can then sell more Korean or Chinese made guitars, well that just gets my goat.... baaaaa
</edit>

[Jerry Shaw]

Well Leo ripped off Bigsby when coming up with the telecaster too. Look at the headstock on the original Bigsby. Thats a Fender design?
http://www.hendrixguitars.com/PaulBigsby.htm

Forrest White pretty much admits that Leo "borrowed" heavily from Bigsby on his first solid bodies, in his book about his career in Fender.

This is another case of a gigantic business looking to drive out the competition. If this is true, I'll think twice about buying a fender

[Huckleberry]

I'm not kidding, I'm so pissed off I wanna sell my DRRI.

[Old Tele man]

Honest, I'm not REALLY trying to be a Fender-basher, but this is yet another example of how the present-day FMIC is NOT even remotely affilicated with the "spirit" of the Fender company that Leo Fender developed. It's just corporate greed, money and lawyers with a 'big' capital-"F" in their name...and since they're privately-owned, they can't even "blame" it on the "stock-holders!"

[Williams]

What is the point of all this anyway?? Just to put those boutique guitar makers out of business?? Does Suhr, Anderson, Lentz, and others really pose that much of a threat to FMIC that they have to pull something like this?? I don't think so... there is no way small companies like the above mentioned can hurt a large company like FMIC with their "clones" -- as good as they are. They can't make enough guitars to compete at the same level.

-Kevin

[andywa]

Originally posted by Williams
What is the point of all this anyway?? Just to put those boutique guitar makers out of business?? Does Suhr, Anderson, Lentz, and others really pose that much of a threat to FMIC that they have to pull something like this?? I don't think so... there is no way small companies like the above mentioned can hurt a large company like FMIC with their "clones" -- as good as they are. They can't make enough guitars to compete at the same level.

-Kevin

I suspect Fender is more concerned with the large scale clone makers, perhaps even some future Chinese company coming along and selling clones at about 20% of Fender's price.

The boutique builders will just get swept up with the rest.

It just burns me up that I may be denied the opportunity to get a Lentz when I finally save up the money.

<edit>
FWIW, Disney, in relentless pursuit of copyright infringers, would sue ANY operator of a day-care including private homes if they dared paint an unlicensed Disney character on a wall of their home.
</edit>

[BradKM]

I'm all for it. I'm familiar with the laws governing this type of thing and don't think they'll succeed, but it was a major oversight by Leo that should have been corrected decades ago.

I don't think it's as big of an issue with the Tele (although it was revolutionary as a solid body, the styling was pretty vanilla). But the Stratocaster body was a major leap forward in terms of ergonomic design, and I don't think it's been equaled since.

I once read an interview with Leo where he talked about walking into a music store in the late 70s and early 80s. He was shocked to see the walls full of his designs being put out by other manufacturers. Of course, I think he realized that by this time it was too late to put the cat back into the bag.

Don't knock the businessmen at Fender on this. It only makes sense to try to reign in competitors using designs that your company developed (and drop the "it was Leo, White, Tavares, and Carson" line...the people working at Chevrolet shouldn't have to design a new engine their first day on the job, and once all the old guys there are dead, Toyota shouldn't have the right to start cranking out '57 Bel Airs).

I also agree that this seems to be a move aimed more at the cheapo knockoff importers than the boutique builders most of us are so fond of. That being said, I don't have much sympathy for guys crying because they won't be allowed to copy someone else's design any longer. If they're really great builders and inovators, let them come up with some real design improvements. I think it would be good for the industry as a whole, and have had fantastic discussions in the past focusing on what guitar stores might look like today if Fender, Gibson, and others had protected their designs from day one.

[frank thomson]

ok, now 4 another Q:

if other mfg's are allowed to use a similar shapes, how much should/would they be allowed to change the design?

are they allowed to make the lower bout 1/16" smaller???

1/4"???

both bouts smaller???

or does the guitar have to look like a 2x12 w/ strings???


How different is different?

[BradKM]

That's the thing that would be hard to quantify, Frank, especially given the variance of Strat bodies over the years. Given that fact, Gibson has been fairly successful in persuading Asian importers to reshape the lower horns on their LP copies in recent years in order to avoid lawsuits. Dillion, Rondo's brands, and the self-branded Samick stuff have all been changed. Fender could probably use the simple threat of legal action to make that happen.

[Don]

Originally posted by andywa
I suspect Fender is more concerned with the large scale clone makers, perhaps even some future Chinese company coming along and selling clones at about 20% of Fender's price.
</edit>

Andy's got a point.

At the shop where my son takes lessons they sell Jay Turser clones and they're VASTLY superior (light weight solid body with sunburst or transparent finishes, die-cast tuners, they play nice) to a Squier for less money ($129 is the regular marked price).

[Don]

I've been saying this for a while now-

Fender has become a greedy, out of touch conglomerate similar to CBS. They just swallow up smaller companies and try to earn the highest market share.

I was a designer at one of the worlds largest toy companies and we were told by the CEO that our product was profit for the share holders. Toys were just a means to an end.

I'm sure it's the same at Fender.

[EJG]

This will really be interesting to watch. I feel strongly both ways!

I understand and agree with BradKM, but I also agree that 50 years after the fact seems a bit late to start worrying about it. And I'm confident that its the low-end manufacturers that FMIC is after.

BTW, I have a Yamaha Pacifica. Its a strat knock-off, but if you look closely, it doesn't have the *exact* dimensions of a strat. The upper bout is a bit longer, the neck pocket depth isn't exactly the same (so Warmoth necks won't fit the Yamaha), etc. I wonder if the designers at Yamaha were concerned with this possibility when the guitar was designed?

[BradKM]

Yamaha has never put much stock in exact copies, which I admire. I doubt they were thinking about it at all. I've always found the Pacifica bodies to be much more comfortable for me than Strats...and Mustang bodies fit me better than any other.

[ronworld]

How can Fender hope to get a copywright to apply to every stratish or teleish design ever made by getting one NOW.
I have never heard of a retro-claim after a copywright has been registered? Surely such a move would unethical and downright dangerous. To set such presidence would open the door for every scam merchant in the world to register a design on something. and try to argue in court it was there's all along. I for one would probebly Boycott Fender products in future if this got through. I would feel sick every time I picked my strat or tele up. Just like when you find out a favourite musician has been charged with a distastefull crime, and you cant bear to listen to them any more.