• 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.

Douglas MM Copy

Status
Not open for further replies.
#141
BassBob185 said:
A trademark does not protect the item's design or engineering, thats what a patent does.
From a legal dictionary:
A TRADEMARK is a word, a name, a symbol, a device, or a combination of them that indicates the source of goods or services. Distinguishes the products or services of one business from those of others in the same field. The owner/assignee/licensee of a trademark/mark has the right to exclude others from using that trademark/mark by being the first to use it in the marketplace. Rights in a trademark/mark are obtained only through commercial use of the mark. The owner of a trademark/mark has the right to exclude others unless the trademark/mark has been abandoned. Secondly, that although any other person may manufacture, produce, and sell any such article, yet he must not, in manner, either by using the same or similar marks, wrappers, labels, or devices, or colorable imitations thereof, or otherwise, hold out to the public that he is manufacturing, producing, or selling the identical article, prepared, manufactured, produced, or sold by the other; that is to say, he may not make use of the name or reputation of the other in order to sell his own preparation.

PATENT - A legal document issued by the United States to the inventor. The inventor, as the owner of the patent, has the right to exclude any other person from making, using, or selling the invention covered by the patent anywhere in the United States for 17 years from the date the patent was issued; A document issued to an inventor by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Contains a detailed description of what the invention is and how to make or use it and provides rights against infringors. (note: due to factors including the Gatt treaty the time period for patents is undergoing changes. 5/95)

All this is to indicated that the current Douglas should not be a problem with Rondo because it has been longer than 17 years since the MM Stingray was introduced and the current seller is not using the MM name.
Click to expand...

Ok so the Douglas bass is legal then, correct?
 
#143
syciprider said:
It's against the law. May not be a big deal to you but...
Click to expand...

That's assuming the design of the bass is still protected by patent. No one here seems to know definitively.

I've been writing software for many years. I've seen similar functionality appear in other software. It's the way the world works, whether you or your laws like it that way.

Build a bass that people like and you won't have to worry about Chinese basses that share the same shape as yours.
 
#146
kevinmoore73 said:
No, it makes less sense.

Can you name anything that isn't at some level a copy of something else?

It isn't like these basses have any reference to EBMM on them. So what if they resemble them? It's not like these are going to fool anyone. I fail to see what the big deal is.

You can come back with whatever pompous BS response you want. "If you owned a business" this, or "if you made something" that. I have, and I currently do, and I still don't see what the big deal is. A $99 Chinese knockoff bass resembles a bass that costs a lot more. Whoopidy doo!
Click to expand...

If you don't show some balls (no pun intended) and defend yourself against the $99 clones, the $900 ones will be next. Sorry to have ruffled your feathers ;)
 
#150
kevinmoore73 said:
...It isn't like these basses have any reference to EBMM on them. So what if they resemble them? It's not like these are going to fool anyone. I fail to see what the big deal is.

... I still don't see what the big deal is. A $99 Chinese knockoff bass resembles a bass that costs a lot more. Whoopidy doo!
Click to expand...
The big deal is that the resemblance to a Music Man Stingray is the only thing that generates any interest in these basses. Look at the thread title, "Douglas MM Copy". If the Stingray wasn't already an icon in the bass guitar world, this Douglas bass would just be another $99 POS and no one would give a rat's behind...
 
#152
There are a lot of TBers defending this crap while it goes on as they claim they can't afford the real deal, so why shouldn't this exist?

When I started playing in my teenage years I also "couldn't afford" to just purchase a MM bass. I learned to save up, and I eventually got my first Stingray, which I adored (till the Sterling came out). I put quotations around "couldn't afford" for a reason. Today, a lot of folks (at least that I know) live check to check. And have little concept of saving for anything. If they can't purchase what they want right away, they play the "cannot afford" card.

Ernie ball is very aggressive at defending their products and trade dress. And why shouldn't they? Just because you "cannot afford" something doesn't mean that you should be able to get a cheap knockoff. Unless of course EB wants to allow it. Rickenbacker is the same way and I applaud the efforts. Fender didn't defend themselves when the clones started showing up and now it is a tough battle for them to start doing if they wish. But you can bet they would if they could.

When I got my first Stingray, the reason I wanted it outside of its absolutely awesome playability was that it was a Stingray. There was nothing on the market that really looked like that. When you saw someone playing one at a glance you knew it was a Stingray. Maybe even though there are much more expensive instruments out there it was still a bit of a status symbol. A point of pride.

If anyone could copy these even if it doesn't take money out of EB's hands it dilutes the brands image. For instance when I see someone playing a J or a P, it can be hard to tell till you read on the bass what it is. If EB wanted this to happen they would allow it. Till that time, keep playing your P's, J's..etc that you "CAN afford".

also, a quote from the EB website:

"These products are Ernie Ball trademarks registered in the USA and many foreign countries: ERNIE BALL® CUSTOM GAUGE® SLINKY® EARTHWOOD® MUSICMAN® STINGRAY® SILHOUETTE® AXIS® STERLING® 4+2® 3+1® Trademark ownership is indicated by the symbol"
 
#158
Maybe Sterling could return the favor and give you guys 1/4 sawn necks for Christmas.
Click to expand...

If he thought it would make the bass better, he would.

And if I thought it made a big hellish difference, I'd ask him.

I understand the 'common wisdom' about 1/4 sawn, but I've been playing Music Man basses since 1977 or so and I've yet to have one just go south because it was flatsawn.

Am I just lucky?
 
#159
I don't know what the fascination is with quartershawn necks, if they were that good everybody else would be using it.
And i also don't see what is the problem with the price of Stingrays, they are very well built in the USA with good components, even for myself living in Mexico $1300-$1500 seems very reasonable for a good quality instrument.
 
#160
It appears, based on the facts as presented here, that EBMM does not have much of a legal basis for a challenge. Competitors have a right to sell similar product, even if it may resemble somewhat the original.

BTW, I've owned a couple Turser basses, and for the price they are pretty good quality. I've not often heard OLP basses described that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back