• 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.

"Lawsuit " basses....... cite your references

wmhill

wmhill

Inactive
Aug 20, 2012
4,054
17,210
upstate NY
epresskitz.com
Disclosures
MTD basses endorsed artist Bartolini pickups emerging artist TECAMP bass players gear endorsed
#1
The term lawsuit bass/guitar get's thrown around a ton, but how true is it? It's pretty easy to find articles concerning Gibson VS Elger (Ibanez) lawsuit- not over an exact quality reproduction, but over the headstock design. But then did Fender really sue Epiphone over a P-bass copy? Did Ric sue Univox over the 4001 copy? Did everybody really sue Hondo? We have all heard the stories, and seen the basses-but I'd love to see some actually referenced articles (not the "it said so in the E-Bay add" things). I wonder how much can be substantiated and how much is just urban myth? Thanks for your indulgence!
*please - haters/trollers just keep cruising......*

WHAT IS UP WITH THAT LAWSUIT?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike_1978, uusak, Michedelic and 3 others
#2
Interesting thread about which I am clueless but curious. I never knew what parts of a Ric bass, for instance, are covered by copyright, trademark, or "trade dress", headstock and body shape? Hardware? Given their relative success in quashing the public sale of clones, I assume they have some specific legal basis that companies like Gibson and Fender don't (except for headstock profile). I was under the apparently mistaken idea that copyright was time limited, but Ric seems to have protected designs first produced in the early 60's, so that clock has been ticking for a very long time. Why do some things become "public domain" after a while, and others not? Enforcement also seems to vary wildly from country to country. Pit bull Guitars of Australia sells kit clones of a number of American guitars, including Ric basses, apparently with impunity. I've read that's because Ric let copyright expire in Australia, but that's just hearsay. No desire to flog the dead horse of counterfeits again, let's keep discussion to what's legal and why. Any lawyer/ bass players out there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PsyDocHill and wmhill
#4
Sorry, its a reference from eBay, but still interesting:
Date Fernandes Guitars by Headstock Shape & Logo Design | eBay

This is the extract for those who don't want to click:
First, a quick note about the term "lawsuit guitar": You may often see this term used in relation to Fernandes guitars, but the truth is that Fernandes was never sued by Fender over the shape or quality of its guitars. It's a story that's been around a long time, since it was told to me by the store owner who sold my my first Fernandes strat clone back in 1985 (pictured below). The truth of the matter, however, is that Fender never sued anybody. Gibson did sue Hoshino Gakki, the company that marketed guitars under the Ibanez brand name, but in the end, Hoshino did not lose the suit, even though they (and other Japanese guitar companies) did end up changing the designs of their guitars slightly to avoid further litigation. Fernandes only began changing its headstock shapes in 1985, as you will see below...
 
As an eBay Associate, TalkBass may earn a commission from qualifying purchases.
  • Like
Reactions: Mike_1978, One Drop, Pet Sounds and 1 other person
#5
Gilmourisgod said:
Interesting thread about which I am clueless but curious. I never knew what parts of a Ric bass, for instance, are covered by copyright, trademark, or "trade dress", headstock and body shape? Hardware? Given their relative success in quashing the public sale of clones, I assume they have some specific legal basis that companies like Gibson and Fender don't (except for headstock profile). I was under the apparently mistaken idea that copyright was time limited, but Ric seems to have protected designs first produced in the early 60's, so that clock has been ticking for a very long time. Why do some things become "public domain" after a while, and others not? Enforcement also seems to vary wildly from country to country. Pit bull Guitars of Australia sells kit clones of a number of American guitars, including Ric basses, apparently with impunity. I've read that's because Ric let copyright expire in Australia, but that's just hearsay. No desire to flog the dead horse of counterfeits again, let's keep discussion to what's legal and why. Any lawyer/ bass players out there?
Click to expand...
Disney gets the copyright period extended whoever Micky is about to go into the public domain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lermgalieu
#8
PortlandBass77 said:
Well this thread might very well explain why it's so easy to import counterfeits from China....
Click to expand...
REALLY don't want to go there, nothing has been more thoroughly trolled than that subject. I've said all I ever care to say about that, and so has EVERYONE else on TB, repeatedly and with gusto. Let's keep discussion to what is and isn't covered under copyright law. This interests me in particular as a hack amateur luthier wannabe trying to build a one-off clone of my old Ric 4001 for my own personal use. As I understand it, copyright doesn't apply specifically in this situation unless I was to try to sell it, any more than an art student copying one of Van Gogh's paintings to practice technique. A prime example being a rather well done copy of "Starry Night" hanging in my son's high school cafeteria. It's technically a "forgery", but nobody would pursue it as such unless the high school tried to sell it as an original Van Gogh. That makes sense intuitively, but a lot of copyright law is entirely counter-intuitive, at least to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: danosix, wmhill and PortlandBass77
#9
The relevant concept here is trademark, not copyright. Trademark, Patent, or Copyright? | USPTO Copyright is for authored works, like a song or book. Trademark is for words, symbols, and designs. You couldn't copyright a word (even a made up word like "Stratocaster") but you can trademark it.

If you search trademarks by owner you can get a sense of what, for example, Rickenbacker has trademarked. Try here [Invalid or Expired Link Removed] put "Rickenbacker" in the Search Term box and choose Owner from the Field drop down menu. There's a lot of chaff in the results, but there are trademarks on the truss rod cover shape and headstock shape, among others. Trademarks have to be registered and can expire from disuse, but trademarks don't have a limited lifetime, unlike patents.

I agree the "lawsuit" term has become ridiculously overused. It's probable that, for example, Fender sent C&D letters to companies to get them to stop using headstocks too close to the Fender shape, without actually needing to file lawsuits. "Lawsuit" seems to have become a general short hand for the literal-copy era.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike_1978, Keyser Soze, JACink and 3 others
#10
reddesert said:
I agree the "lawsuit" term has become ridiculously overused. It's probable that, for example, Fender sent C&D letters to companies to get them to stop using headstocks too close to the Fender shape, without actually needing to file lawsuits. "Lawsuit" seems to have become a general short hand for the literal-copy era.
Click to expand...

I'm guilty of this. Sorry. I frequently refer to my 80s MIJ P copy as Lawsuit era, even though I have no idea who made it or anything like that. It's a cool bass at least
 
  • Like
Reactions: wmhill
#12
Gilmourisgod said:
That search yields some reference to "EL-1000 High Density Storage", must be doing something wrong. Don't see a pull-down menu with Owner as an option. Yay user-friendly government website!
Click to expand...

It may be browser history dependent. Go to the base site Search Trademark Database | USPTO click Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS), then "Word and/or Design Mark (Structured)", then you should get a form that has a Search Term box and a Field pull-down menu allowing the Owner choice. I suggested doing it this way because otherwise you get a lot more chaff that has any random occurrence of Rickenbacker anywhere in the trademark application. It may not be as simple as Google, but the government did make this entire database available freely.

For example I was eventually able to get to this: Invalid Link Removed which, if it works, appears to be the Rick headstock (and if it doesn't, just try to find trademark number 75721968).
 
#16
birminghambass said:
I started this EXACT thread a few years ago. You'll be hearing from my lawyers...
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahahaahah! good one!

Sprinkles are for winners.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Garret Graves
#19
As I understand it, Gibson objected to the "open book" headstock shape being copied by MIJ instruments, claiming prior ownership. Other "trade dress" was mentioned (body shapes, details like pickguards, PU rings, bindings, electronic lsyouts, etc.), and the Japanese makers altered usage of same.
Didn't really affect the quality of the MIJ product, if anything it seems to have spurred the MIJ makers to further heights, which further embarassed American builders. Sort of a guitar design cold war.

The "Lawsuit" era was a definite thing that was (maybe) a decade or so at best, but has since become a handy marketing term indicating a "copy" of a known product, made to similar (or similar enough) recognition levels, and potentially indicating a similar level of quality.

As always, said "quality" is in the eye of the beholder. YMMV and all that.

Google "lawsuit guitars"

WHAT IS UP WITH THAT LAWSUIT? < this answers the OP's questions to a t.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back