SX Stingray

[Billy Low]

As a great stingray fan, I can't see the problem. SX will not hurt EB/MM sales one bit. OLP is another story, but the bottom line is that these SXs may be the "gateway drug" to a life of Stingray worship! I see nothing wrong with that.

As for copying the Stingray. I can see the point, but in this world, popular designs get copied. I think it's a good thing, many kids and not so kids maintain their interst in music at least partially because they play an instrument that at least looks like something real pros use. That is an important consolation early on when you can't play worth a darn!

Once again the good doctor from East Boogie says it best!

 

[pilotjones]

i don't know if this helps, but i also got this in the hishtory page

"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 ®"

so i don't know if that helps either side, but i looks like the 3+1 tuning peg configuration is a registered trademark of EB/MM

this from the musicman history page Link Removed -

The StingRay was the first production bass to feature active electronics and the trademarked 3+1 tuning key headstock configuration.

so having the headstock with the tuning keys on it as a copyright must mean the 3+1 is copyrighted as well.

Good link to that page. I wasn't aware of it.

However, it's still not a completely clear case in my mind, because: you can have a trademark rights on the "word" "3+1®", which is clearly indicated, and still not have a copyright on the design of the three and one tuner arrangement, which to me is not clearly indicated. It does seem to me to be implied, but not clearly stated (because of their use of the word "trademarked" and not "copyrighted")--in the sense that perhaps only EB can have a 3+1® headstock, but I can still have a threeplusone headstock, or whatever other name I choose to give it other than 3+1®.

 

[IotaNet]

Once again the good doctor from East Boogie says it best!

Now see, what you know about "The Boogie???"

 

[mheintz]

Good link to that page. I wasn't aware of it.

However, it's still not a completely clear case in my mind, because: you can have a trademark rights on the "word" "3+1®", which is clearly indicated, and still not have a copyright on the design of the three and one tuner arrangement, which to me is not clearly indicated. It does seem to me to be implied, but not clearly stated (because of their use of the word "trademarked" and not "copyrighted")--in the sense that perhaps only EB can have a 3+1® headstock, but I can still have a threeplusone headstock, or whatever other name I choose to give it other than 3+1®.

The 3+1 presumably just refers to the design mark, #1495728, not just the words. It looks to me that the SX has a bit more of a hook in the headstock, but the designs look awfully close. I find it interesting that EB has trademarked other headstocks, e.g. #1632297, but such mark, specifically disclaims the headstock shape. Incidentally, copyright protection and trademark protection overlap here, so EB might bring both claims.

 

[pilotjones]

The 3+1 presumably just refers to the design mark, #1495728, not just the words. It looks to me that the SX has a bit more of a hook in the headstock, but the designs look awfully close. I find it interesting that EB has trademarked other headstocks, e.g. #1632297, but in such mark, specifically disclaims the headstock shape. Incidentally, copyright protection and trademark protection overlap here, so EB might bring both claims.

Thanks for pitching in. I knew that you know quite a bit in this area, so I was hoping you'd post.

So, are you of the opinion that the design mark #1495728 protects the design of the tuners in those places on that shape headstock, or also some subset of those elements, or maybe some other concept/combination?

Also "3+1" is not mentioned on that document. Would this wording be protected under something else-- a "wordmark" document, I think?

Thanks.

 

[FaithNoMan]

All this hoopla makes me want to go out and get one! - and the fact that many people seem to be very happy with their SX basses....

I own a 4003 Ric that I paid almost 1K for, and it is my #1 - if I had another 1000 to spend, I would just get another Ric in a different color.

I always wanted to have a Stingray in the stable just for another flavor, but not enough to shell out for one(see above), so I'm thinking the SX might be a good way to go, as it's an active bass, and I love to change pups, preamps, etc....it would be close enough to getting an active humbucker sound for me.

Is it right to make a copy of the design of the Stingray? Probably(definately) not, but I think it's more in the hands of SX, and not the consumer - it's legally for sale...........would I own a lawsuit Ric(like Ibanez)? Yes I would; it would make a good 2nd bass that I wouldn't have to worry about on outdoor gigs, and shady bars

I never heard the Fender folk complain so much about all the copies out there - I imagine the ones may have just given up eons ago....

I think if EB has such a big problem with someone copying them (and I'm not saying they shouldn't - they make excellent basses ), they should take a lesson from the "Rickenbacker police" - ever see how long used Ric copies last on EBAY before the auction gets shut down??

Not very long.

 

[pilotjones]

Funny thing. On a suggestion from another TBer, I just did a search on the trademark database for "3+1". It turned up three records (including one for "Three + one", which implies to me that their search function is fairly "skilled").

None of them were from EB, or MM, or were relating to guitars. They were for batteries, fruit juice concentrate, and crushed tomatoes.

The furthest back in time of these was filed in 1973 and granted in 1975- so the online database seems to go back at least that far. However, the Stingray came out in 1976 according to the EB history page. So I'm wondering--is there a trademark issued and registered to EB for "3+1"? Because if there isn't, I don't believe they can legally put the "®" after the "3+1" on the website or anywhere else. But I could be wrong about that, maybe I've got some concepts incorrect.

Again, I'm hoping mheintz can shed some more light. If not on this particular instance, then on the concepts in general.

 

[mheintz]

So, are you of the opinion that the design mark #1495728 protects the design of the tuners in those places on that shape headstock, or also some subset of those elements, or maybe some other concept/combination?

I think that it's really the whole package. But the more that I think about, the more complicated this seems to me.

Infringement would result if there is "confusing similarity," i.e. whether the ordinary buyer would believe both products came from the same source. Another related concept that courts throw around is "likelihood of confusion," i.e., whether two marks are sufficiently alike to cause consumer confusion as to their source or origin. There are a whole bunch of factors that go into likelihood of confusion.

Similarity of the marks is one factor. Here, the hook looks a bit different to me and there is a big fat SX. But as you suggested, perhaps it's the gestalt that matters.

Another factor to consider is the strength of the mark. Not all marks are created equal. Some headstock designs are generic such that there is limited protection. Some jazz style headstocks seem generic to me.

No comment on the particulars, but there is definitely some similarity.

Also "3+1" is not mentioned on that document. Would this wording be protected under something else-- a "wordmark" document, I think?

I did a search under the registered owner, Ernie Ball, and didn't find any 3+1 trademarks. Design marks often don't have names associated with them, so they go by their description. So I'm not surprised to see them call it the 3+1 mark. It's just a way of identifying it.

 

[truckin88]

is there any actual review of this bass and no pointless bitchin


sorry but not matter what you say won't change it, and I just want to know how it sounds and plays

 

[Mach1FT]

i can see both sides of the argument, but that is something to think about...if someone blatently copied your design of anything...be it software, a car, a guitar or painting, and made money off it, wouldn't you be concerned?

Lets think about this now... at $160 a pop whos getting rich here??
I'm sure rondo isn't selling them for free.. then you have the shipping from china, fuel costs on the ships cant be cheap?? nevermind the cost of building the bass lol! if they can do all this for 160$ seems to me the only real thiefs would be EB selling them for over 2 grand..

 

[truckin88]

Lets think about this now... at $160 a pop whos getting rich here??
I'm sure rondo isn't selling them for free.. then you have the shipping from china, fuel costs on the ships cant be cheap?? nevermind the cost of building the bass lol! if they can do all this for 160$ seems to me the only real thiefs would be EB selling them for over 2 grand..

I know I am contradicting myself from above, but I can't let this one go.

How are EB the thiefs, there is huge difference in attention to detail, huge, and I am an SX fan. Also maybe it is because they are not whipping their workers, using child labor etc.

It is a free country and a free market, I think everyone has the right to make money unless unlawful, let EB fight this if they want to, but there are a lot of MM copies out there, and they won't stop. I think EB knows that. Someone that is going to buy a $1200 EBMM, is not going to not buy it cause of any bass under 200, EB knows that. They look at that being competition in a whole nother realm. And anyone who is only going to spend 200, is not even considering 1000+ bass.


Now back to it, whats the damn thing sound like.

 

[heath_the_great]

if thier other basses play as bad as they do compared to their origionals...i cant begin to imagine how bad this is gonna be

 

[pilotjones]

The 3+1 presumably just refers to the design mark, #1495728, not just the words.

I did a search under the registered owner, Ernie Ball, and didn't find any 3+1 trademarks. Design marks often don't have names associated with them, so they go by their description. So I'm not surprised to see them call it the 3+1 mark. It's just a way of identifying it.

Question: On the design mark, there is no mention of "3+1". So, in the absence of any wordmark, would they have rights to those words, or just the design (or whatever parts of the design that are covered)? So, hypothetically if a person designed a headstock in a 3 plus 1 configuration, which did not infringe on the design mark, would they be in any prevented from referring to it as a "3+1"?

 

[mheintz]

Question: On the design mark, there is no mention of "3+1". So, in the absence of any wordmark, would they have rights to those words, or just the design (or whatever parts of the design that are covered)?

No rights to the words resulting from the design mark. In other circumstances, they could have common law rights. Say, for instance, EB popularized the word "Cool Balance" to refer to this configuration, but hadn't registered it. They could sue someone for "passing off" another bass as having a "Cool Balance" headstock.

So, hypothetically if a person designed a headstock in a 3 plus 1 configuration, which did not infringe on the design mark, would they be in any prevented from referring to it as a "3+1"?

3+1 as a descriptive word is probably fair game. It's hard to register descriptive marks and if they are registered, they don't get as much protection. e.g. You can call an operating system Red Hat and get protection, but you couldn't make a line of red baseball caps and call them Red Hats and expect to get much protection.

 

[pilotjones]

No rights to the words resulting from the design mark. In other circumstances, they could have common law rights. Say, for instance, EB popularized the word "Cool Balance" to refer to this configuration, but hadn't registered it. They could sue someone for "passing off" another bass as having a "Cool Balance" headstock.

So you can potentially have rights to something you didn't register a claim for. If you are clearly responsible for it. Interesting.

3+1 as a descriptive word is probably fair game. It's hard to register descriptive marks and if they are registered, they don't get as much protection. e.g. You can call an operating system Red Hat and get protection, but you couldn't make a line of red baseball caps and call them Red Hats and expect to get much protection.

Again, good to know. Sort of like a creative, non-obvious wordmark is easily register-able, but something that is little more than basically descriptive would be hard to register, or at least defend.

In a similar vein, it makes me wonder how the trademark "Fanned-Fret(R)" would stand up to challenge, since it is basically just descriptive.

 

[5Thumbs]

Harumph and all that....does it even sound anything like a Stingray? If it doesn't, then EB has nothing to worry about, eh? Do the SX Fender knockoffs sound like fenders? And last but not least......When are they making a Bongo knockoff, eh? *waits hopefully*

 

[pilotjones]

Bongo knockoffs might be beyond the normal range of most "knockoff companies", since they would require extensive 3D CNC programming, beyond the usual slab-body-plus-roundovers bass.

Also, people usually only knock off high sellers. Washburn is an exception to that, though.

 

[patrickj]

Should have mine tomorrow - hooray for Saturday Fed Ex delivery!

My guitarist (EB endorsed) said that the patent for the unique MM bridge has expired so it's fair game.

Quite honestly, regardless of the QC of an OLP bass, it's not anything I'd use as a stepping off point for a project bass. Eucalyptis, while a tonewood, is the lowest acceptable you'd probably want to use. The SX is Ash and maple.

I'll post a review tomorrow!

 

[patrickj]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

so sexy

 

[pilotjones]

My guitarist (EB endorsed) said that the patent for the unique MM bridge has expired so it's fair game.

Looking up patents by Leo Fender (and assuming that design patents, like utility patents, have a period of twenty years from the date of filing), I found:

[ edit ] per post #205, I've changed some of the dates below. [ /edit ]

The guitar version of the G&L bridge, design patent #D269,440, would have expired in 1995. This one may possibly also apply to the basses.
What I think is the G&L bass saddle, design patent #D268,272, would have expired in 1994.
The utility patent #4,281,576 for the G&L bridges would be expired in 1999.
The utility patent #4,031,799 for the MM guitar bridge, and the bass also probably, would be expired in 1996.