3+1 tuner layout, protected?

[pilotjones]

My searches resulted in
- EB has no patent on the headstock, tuner arrangement, etc.
- they do have TMs on the headstock, tuner arrangement, etc., as noted previously
- EB has no TM on "3+1" or "4+2". There are some prior, live and dead, TMs on wordmarks containing "3+1" by other non-music companies, and cancelled/dead wordmarks of "3+1" or "4+2" alone by other non-music companies.

 

[ProfGumby]

So, why not just make three on one side and one on the other and not say a word about it, ever, when describing your headstock. Just use a photo,anyone that see's it will figure it out..
(see I didn't infringe on their patent by saying it... )

 

[Munjibunga]

I doubt it.

 

[DougP]

just use "3.1". or does Dolby have a trademark on that?

 

[wilser]

I have no interest in the 'paper' or 'name' trademark. I was just asking about the layout.

thanks.

 

[stedtale]

Yeah, you could call it "3/1" or "3=--==1" or "2+1/2-1" all you want, but if the layout is patented.....well

my guess is that the headstock shape is, but not the 3/1 layout in general, the exact location could be, probably not the general idea of 3/1. Kinda like how the formula for "vanilla fields" perfume is patented, bu not the idea of a perfume smelling like vanilla.

But, I'm just some guys, no law man be me.

Sidenote: Wil, It was great to finally talk to you in person!

 

[wms]

call it something like a "3L1R" (ie 3 tuners on the left, 1 on the right)

 

[PilbaraBass]

sqrt(9)+1

 

[PilbaraBass]

I have no interest in the 'paper' or 'name' trademark. I was just asking about the layout.

thanks.

yeah....we're having some fun, wilser...

as I said before...

1) don't use the same shaped headstock
2) don't put the tuners in exactly the same position
3) don't worry about it...

the only reason MM did this was to deter people from attempting to make direct copies...they can use it to "threaten" legal action...

IMO, the way it's registered there's PLENTY of room for leeway.