I remember reading something about Sterling Ball having a trademark or something on the 3+1 headstock design ...is this true? Is it protected in any way in the US?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
3+1 tuner layout, protected?
- Thread starter wilser
- Start date
Yeah, I wanna know too, because I think if I ever get into building basses, that's the kind of tuner layout I would use. Although I think the answer is yes, but based on the headstock shape as well. Could be wrong, though.
My understanding is that the trademark refers to the terms "3+1" and "4+2" in reference to bass guitar headstocks. In other words, you can build one, but you can't call it a "3+1" as the term is trademarked.
I believe they would have to hold a patent for the design in addition to the trademark to prevent others from using it, like the fanned fret guitar. I would guess that if they did hold a patent for the design, it would be all over their advertising.
On the other hand, I'm not an attorney or an expert on trademark law, so you might do well to email them directly and check it out...
I believe they would have to hold a patent for the design in addition to the trademark to prevent others from using it, like the fanned fret guitar. I would guess that if they did hold a patent for the design, it would be all over their advertising.
On the other hand, I'm not an attorney or an expert on trademark law, so you might do well to email them directly and check it out...
AFAIK Forrest White (a former Fender manager) is the one who came with 3+1 thing and had trademark for Musicman. Now Ernie Ball should have the rights...
BTW I hate any layout with +1 (3+1, 4+1, 11+1
)
- Jun 6, 2004
- 6,351
- 543
- 66
- Disclosures
- Owner and builder Clementbass
I would like to know this too. I stopped doing it back at bass #30 because i was warned of that from Guard at Bass Central. Nice guy wish he still worked there.....t
I remember there were some Ibanez basses in the 80s and 90s (EX series?) that had a 3+1 and 4+1 layout ...is that an indication of it not being trademarked?
Do it a 1+3, one on the top and three on the bottom. That is what I was going to do on my bass until I decided to go headless.
lowsound
lowsound
3+1 is good for me but i got a EBSR5 and the 4+1 is a bit... for me, id prefer the good old lakland 3+2, i hope this answers your completely unrelated question... woops...
Sterling Ball is currently in litigation with the British government for using the term "Pounds Sterling"
I've always wondered about this. I found the registration at uspto.gov. The registration number is 1495728. But it doesn't claim 3+1 explicitly, just has a line drawing of the 3+1 headstock just like fender has their headstock trademarked and Sadowsky has their headstoks trademarked. But I don't think the arrangement of 3 tuning machines on one side and 1 on the other is trademarked as long as you don't use the same headstock shape. Then again, I'm not a lawyer.
Would have posted a direct link, but the uspto website caches your responses and it's difficult to link to an individual page.
Would have posted a direct link, but the uspto website caches your responses and it's difficult to link to an individual page.
- Dec 20, 2004
- 4,267
- 2,481
- Disclosures
- Player-Builder-Founder: Honey Badger Pickups & Regenerate Guitar Works
interesting to see that in registration 1273186 (now cancelled) they had this very curious disclaimer
"No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the configuration of the instrument head, apart from the mark as shown"
and this type of mark
"The mark comprises the arrangement of the instrument string posts and tuning keys, the head of the instrument being shown in phantom to identify the location of the string posts and tuning keys."
This registration is now active under 74044289. It appears to be the document activated by a renewal of the license. This is also specific for a 4+2 tuner configuration for a guitar
all the best,
R
"No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the configuration of the instrument head, apart from the mark as shown"
and this type of mark
"The mark comprises the arrangement of the instrument string posts and tuning keys, the head of the instrument being shown in phantom to identify the location of the string posts and tuning keys."
This registration is now active under 74044289. It appears to be the document activated by a renewal of the license. This is also specific for a 4+2 tuner configuration for a guitar
all the best,
R
hmmm, who owns this last trademark? Carvin has a 4/2 Holdsworth guitar.
edit: nevermind, it's ernie ball.
edit: nevermind, it's ernie ball.
Interesting...
well then based on this statement...
The mark comprises the arrangement of the instrument string posts and tuning keys, the head of the instrument being shown in phantom to identify the location of the string posts and tuning keys.
you CAN put 3 on one side and 1 on the other...
it appears that "the mark" is the COMPILATION of all of these things...
things to avoid, however, just to be safe...
1...don't use the same shaped headstock...(they may go after you for that)
2...don't put string posts in the exact same location...(they may go after you for that)
3...don't arrange the tuners exactly the same ...(they may go after you for that)...
therefore if your headstock is different, the tuners are in different positions, and the string posts (string trees?) are in different positions...I can't see how you would be in conflict to their registration...
it's pretty easy to move the one by it's lonesome to a different location to be significantly different than this.
for instance:
0
.
0
. 0
0
can be re-arranged to
0
. 0
0
.
0
or even
0
.
0 0
.
0
well then based on this statement...
The mark comprises the arrangement of the instrument string posts and tuning keys, the head of the instrument being shown in phantom to identify the location of the string posts and tuning keys.
you CAN put 3 on one side and 1 on the other...
it appears that "the mark" is the COMPILATION of all of these things...
things to avoid, however, just to be safe...
1...don't use the same shaped headstock...(they may go after you for that)
2...don't put string posts in the exact same location...(they may go after you for that)
3...don't arrange the tuners exactly the same ...(they may go after you for that)...
therefore if your headstock is different, the tuners are in different positions, and the string posts (string trees?) are in different positions...I can't see how you would be in conflict to their registration...
it's pretty easy to move the one by it's lonesome to a different location to be significantly different than this.
for instance:
0
.
0
. 0
0
can be re-arranged to
0
. 0
0
.
0
or even
0
.
0 0
.
0
I quite enjoy the 3+1 arrangement on my bass. I plan on doing it with future basses as well, so...
Wils, if you search you may find the last time this came up. There might possibly be something more there. I think mheintz might have commented, and he either does patents and trademrks for a living or is at least very familiar tangentially with them from his job.
- Dec 20, 2004
- 4,267
- 2,481
- Disclosures
- Player-Builder-Founder: Honey Badger Pickups & Regenerate Guitar Works
Here's some results from a little diggin' this afternoon:
Link Removed produced these two jewels:
and
In my ignorance, I would think this means that the term 3+1 is a registered Trademark, and would therefore have restricted usage. I would also think that you could have a tuner key configuration with three on one side and one on the other without infringing on the EBMM Trademark so long as you did not have the exact same placement location and did not reference your tuning configuration as 3+1.
It would be nice if others find useful info on this topic and add to the discussion/links here
all the best,
R
Link Removed produced these two jewels:
and
In my ignorance, I would think this means that the term 3+1 is a registered Trademark, and would therefore have restricted usage. I would also think that you could have a tuner key configuration with three on one side and one on the other without infringing on the EBMM Trademark so long as you did not have the exact same placement location and did not reference your tuning configuration as 3+1.
It would be nice if others find useful info on this topic and add to the discussion/links here
all the best,
R
I agree the term "3+1" seems to be a registered trademark...
and from what the registration refers to as "the mark" would be the placement of these...3 on one side and 1 on the other is not specifically restricted from anything that I can see...
so just be careful NOT to refer to your design as a "3+1" headstock...
It never hurts to consult with an Intellectual Property law firm on this matter.
The fact is there are only so many combinations of how tuners are laid out, and it's widely accepted that tuners can be on either, or both, sides of the headstock.
While EB may have a patent on this, that doesn't mean that it's enforceable. In fact, there are many patents out there that are unenforceable for one reason or another.
The fact is there are only so many combinations of how tuners are laid out, and it's widely accepted that tuners can be on either, or both, sides of the headstock.
While EB may have a patent on this, that doesn't mean that it's enforceable. In fact, there are many patents out there that are unenforceable for one reason or another.
