But this is not patent, and it is not copyright. It is trademark. I am not a lawyer (not even on TV!), but the criteria on trademark violations is different and I am not sure that there is any sunset on them. RIC holds trademarks on many of its shapes, features, names, and styles. I don't know for sure, but they probably have the shape of the 4005 protected as well. Just because they haven't made it 30 years (actually, they have on occasion for special customers, IIRC), doesn't mean that they have abandoned protection. What if JH got a wild hair and decided to produce a one-time run? (Yeah, right!)
One thing about trademark that I think is similar to copyright: If you (the producer/author) become aware of someone copying your product without permission (read licensing/leasing/franchising), you must make every effort to notify the copier that he is violating copyright/trademark and needs to cease and desist. If you (the producer) allow some to copy without an agreement/license, and you force others to stop, you lose copyright/trademark protection because you are not claiming the protection equally.
Obviously, this is harder to "enforce" globally as each country has its own laws and enforcement levels that are not nearly the same as those in the U.S. So that is why many of the counterfeits are turned back/confiscated at import - we can enforce these "laws" much easier here. Woe to the U.S. guitar shop that successfully receives these knockoffs (with fake Rickenbacker truss-rod covers or not) and gets a visit from customs agents. The real problem now is that you don't need to have a middleman to get one of these. You order direct from some overseas outfit and it may be unlikely that the non-descript box it comes in gets more than a passing sniff from a talented canine.
One of my beefs is that some of you clowns out there who think it is OK to purchase an "illegal" knockoff like this are the same guys who are fist-pumping "U S A" at sporting events and political rallies. Yea, right.