Rickenfakers on a Chinese website

[Ric5]

Also a "trademark" is like coca-cola logo. It is registered. No one else can sell a product with the coca-cola logo on it.

[Aceonbass]

Jeff....There is pending legal action against the manufacturers of the AllParts replacement Rick bass tailpiece. It seems they actually used the original casting in making their part, this will be the push of what happens to them when it finally goes to court. The Hipshot bridge was supposedly altered slightly so as not to violate the trademarked RIC shape.

[bill reed]

Originally Posted by Aceonbass

Jeff....There is pending legal action against the manufacturers of the AllParts replacement Rick bass tailpiece. It seems they actually used the original casting in making their part, this will be the push of what happens to them when it finally goes to court. The Hipshot bridge was supposedly altered slightly so as not to violate the trademarked RIC shape.

The hipshot bridge does not look the same as the Ric one and you can tell the diffrence quite easely. it is more a Ric style, than a copy!

[bill reed]

Originally Posted by Ric5

Also a "trademark" is like coca-cola logo. It is registered. No one else can sell a product with the coca-cola logo on it.

Using the Name Rickenbacker on any truss-rod cover not made by Rickenbacker would be illegal. It's the same as with the Name Coca-Cola.
I think one of the big differences is that Coca-cola is made on so many different continents that are easy then to enforce the patents/trademarks there as it also is being produced there. I know we have Coca-cola plants here in the UK.
Maybe if Rickenbacker had some basses made in say Germany then it would stop imports of copies into Europe as the patents/trademarks would be in force here.

[Aceonbass]

Bill...The Hipshot bridge ran into trouble with RIC not because it looked like it, but because they copied the specific "footprint" or shape of the stock piece, which has been registered as "trade dress" specific to their products. All your talk about RIC not having enforceable trademarks in Europe is not true. They do, they are enforceable, and they've taken legal action against violating parties. Unless you know exactly what you're talking about here, you should refrain from guessing.

[Ric5]

Trademarks cross borders.

[bootsox]

Originally Posted by bill reed

If Rickenbacker do not take out a "TRADEMARK" out in the UK then they can't enforce that (USA) trademark here. there has been companys making Ric copys since the late 60s and the only seem to have problems when trying to import to the USA and Canada and that how it should be as the have the trade rights there.
its the same thing with Fender and Gibson not taking out Tradmarks on there guitars and why there so many copys in the USA.
Rickenbacker do not have world wide-trademarks. thats why there are so many copys still around outside the USA and Canada.

it's a tough area to talk about. on one hand there's hardly any legal precedent of an American trademark being enforced overseas. On the other hand, we have the Berne Convention, which does a good job stating that American trademark (or trademark from any country, for that matter) is very much enforceable overseas.

[bill reed]

"There's a similar patent called a design patent which covers how a physical thing looks. You could get a design patent on a guitar body shape or headstock shape, but it's not the best protection, as design patents only last for 14 years. If the lifetime of your design is less than 14 years, that's fine, but if the lifetime is longer than 14 years (like that Rick bass design), then this is poor protection.

So, the way that you protect a unique design for a long time is via trademark. A trademark covers the overall appearance of an object that uniquely associates that object with it's manufacturer and they last a long time ."

Could it be that Rockenbetter changing from 20 frets like the Ric to 22 frets makes the body and neck diffrent, the body is 1/4 of an inch thicker and the bridge is already diffrent by lying flat on the body and not cut into the body like Ric. maybe enought for there Trademark not to work outside the USA.

[bill reed]

Originally Posted by Aceonbass

Bill...The Hipshot bridge ran into trouble with RIC not because it looked like it, but because they copied the specific "footprint" or shape of the stock piece, which has been registered as "trade dress" specific to their products. All your talk about RIC not having enforceable trademarks in Europe is not true. They do, they are enforceable, and they've taken legal action against violating parties. Unless you know exactly what you're talking about here, you should refrain from guessing.

As far as I'm aware the company I got my Rockinbetter from were trading legally and was sold to me legally.
They are a very well respected music shop and are a Tokia dealer.
I have looked at Rockinbetter basses ever time I went down to London.
It took me 10 years looking before I finally bought one.
I have tried to find out on the Internet what copyright Rickenbacker held but could not find any.
I'm sure the do have some patent or trade rights but not able to find any listed on the Internet,
If you know of a site I can read about then I would be very thankful if you would let me know of them.
You are right in I do not know that much about USA trade rights and was only giving my view.

[Aceonbass]

Bill....This subject comes up now and then on two websites primarily dealing with Rickenbacker guitars and basses. The first is http://www.rickenbacker.com/ . The second is http://www.rickresource.com/ .

[bill reed]

thanks for the links. have been on the first link many times over the years but never seen anything that relates to the law in the UK, not been on the second, looks good,
thanks again

[bill reed]

found out that Ric took out a trademark on there headstock and TRC in the uk (2002). only the headstock and TRC not the body or anything else as far as i can find out.
the headstock shown in the trademark picture has the Rickinbacker name and the headstock together.
i take it you cant have a guitar with that headstock style and a TRC with Rickinbacker in the UK.
having a diffrent name on the headstock may not infringe the trademark as you could not get them mixed up as being the same, bit like how Gibson lost there case.
maybe that why Rockinbetter are sold in the Uk legal.

[Aceonbass]

The headstock and truss rod cover are trade marked as separate designs, combined or not, and the body has been trademarked in Europe as well. John Hall recently posted a PDF of said trademark over at the Rickenbacker Resource Forum for an inquiring mind. Unlike Fender and Gibson, RIC has had all this covered for some time. Here's a link to that discussion. Part way down the first page you'll find the US trademark, while the European trademark is further down the page in a PDF. http://www.rickresource.com/forum/vi...?f=87&t=407784

[Coolhandjjl]

I'm going back to the OP's position of why he wants a fake Rick. In an industry that is under constant assault with eroding royalties, rampant piracy, etc., why would a musician want to contribute to such activities? If the OP ever decides to write music, than he better not get his undies in an uproar if someone else rips off his tune and sells it to McDonalds or something like that.

[bill reed]

Originally Posted by Aceonbass

The headstock and truss rod cover are trade marked as separate designs, combined or not, and the body has been trademarked in Europe as well. John Hall recently posted a PDF of said trademark over at Rickenbacker's forum for an inquiring mind. Unlike Fender and Gibson, RIC has had all this covered for some time.

I can't find anything but the Headstock and TRC, the picture is of a hand drawn headstock with the TRC fitted, and also a hand drawn TRC on it own. there were given a Trade mark in the Uk in 2002. i have seen the papers on this.
I searched but not found anything more listed for the UK. there maybe for Europe but nothing else for the UK.
If you know of where i can look up more on the UK, I would be more than happy to do that. not intrested on what is trademarked in the USA, only what is trademarked here in the UK. Indie and Shrine and Retrovibe made Ric style body guitars but have diffrent headstocks so maybe thats how they get round it.

[Aceonbass]

Bill....I posted a link to a discussion containing a diagram showing that the body design was covered in the UK. Just because you can't find specifically what you're looking for doesn't mean it doesn't exist. RIC has been smart in trademarking every aspect of their designs. A guitar company copying any element of their trademark in counties where they are protected will end up on the wrong end of RIC's legal team. Saying someone can get away with stealing the boy shape as long as the headstock isn't used is like saying you can steal the chorus of a song as long as you don't steal the verse. If you want to know more, then go to RIC's corporate website and ask. Unlike the the stockholders of Gibson or Fender, RIC's CEO will actually talk about their product there..

[ImaStupidBaby]

Originally Posted by BigOldHarry

did you look at the Stingray 5???

How can they get away with this - this is blatant copyright infringement...

china has pretty lax laws when it comes to IP

[John Schoen]

John Hall was spreading the love for his company on a UK forum a couple of months ago with these trademarks (the headstock and truss rod cover). He did not post the file about the body shape there so they changed the rules in their For Sale section asking that you don't show the headstock if you are selling a Rick copy. I think mr. Hall would have said something about the body shape too if he had a trademark on that.

[Aceonbass]

OKAY....READ MY EARLIER POST. IT IS TRADEMARKED IN EUROPE! JEEZE, WHEN DID IGNORANCE OF THE FACTS BECOME A SUBSTITUTE FOR THEM?