• 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.

You still going to love Fender?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#21
Kmonk said:
If the builder is infringing on Fender's patents, trademarks and/or copyrights, Fender has every right to and should go after the guy. Without enforcement, nobody's ideas are protected.
Click to expand...

Any patents or copyrights have long since expired. About the only thing I can think of that they might try make a "materially similar" argument for is a trademark assuming they've trademarked the headstock shape. Trademarks don't expire like copyrights and patents do.

FWIW, Fender will never take this guy to court. Because it's doubtful they could win on so weak a claim. However, that doesn't keep them from breaking him by repeated filings and demands for irrelevant documents, requests for delays to prolong the legal process, and similar tricks to skyrocket his legal fees and force him to settle. That's done all the time and has become a familiar tactic employed by IP attorneys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dralionux, Wisebass, Rabidhamster and 2 others
#24
40Hz said:
Any patents or copyrights have long since expired. About the only thing I can think of that they might try make a "materially similar" argument for is a trademark assuming they've trademarked the headstock shape. Trademarks don't expire like copyrights and patents do.

FWIW, Fender will never take this guy to court. Because it's doubtful they could win on so weak a claim. However, that doesn't keep them from breaking him by repeated filings and demands for irrelevant documents, requests for delays to prolong the legal process, and similar tricks to skyrocket his legal fees and force him to settle. That's done all the time and has become a familiar tactic employed by IP attorneys.
Click to expand...

Fender has trademarks on the Telecaster name and on the headstock shape. They've successfully defended the trademarked headstock shape for 30 years and the name for much longer. They send a cease-and-desist letter when they believe some builder gets too close. I know two builders who have changed their headstock shapes to satisfy Fender's legal department. If they refused and got sued, they knew they would lose and probably go broke.

This guy is fighting a losing fight. He needs to stop bellyaching and make changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StrangerBasses, Flooflox, Tcb37 and 5 others
#26
Whippet said:
why didnt they patent the shape? No one thought of it back then? Would have saved everyone money and problems.
Click to expand...
bucephylus said:
,,,I am less familiar with copyright law; but, I believe a copyrights on the designs may have been a better long range strategy. I suspect at the time, Leo wasn't thinking that far ahead. Anyhow, the horse has been out of the barn for a couple of generations now.
Click to expand...

Trade-dress protections (what covers things that may be described as the look of something) were not available back then. That didn't come about until sometime in the '90s I believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whippet
#28
My thought on this is, just how many shapes are there? Why tempt fate by borrowing somebody else's, or being close enough to the original? Is it a lack of creativity driving it, or is it trading on another's identity in hopes of selling more product?

Patents may expire, which is a legal issue to be settled in the courts, but there is also an ethical point to this. As a consumer, you have to decide why this firm decided to use a specific design. 99% of the time, it's to either fool the buying public ( user and audience alike), or make them think they are getting a bargain.

Back in the late 60s there was a major "Cola" war. The name Coke for the most part interchangeable with Cola. Instead of going after every bottling plant under the sun, they came up with a brilliant ad campaign instead, "It's the Real Thing". That was not to say that Pepsi, or RC. Cola, and other brands were not good (ok, Tab was gross), but the implication was, if you want the real thing, buy the real thing.

So what did Coke do for an encore??? "New Coke", which flopped famously.....

But in all seriousness, before you "buy" that bargain please give thought to the ethical implications, and just why the firm in question is doing what they are doing. I'm not here to judge those that will continue on, but just give it pause before buying and think, if it was your creation being copied, would you be OK with it?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StrangerBasses, Flooflox, FRoss6788 and 1 other person
#30
dbsfgyd1 said:
My thought on this is, just how many shapes are there? Why tempt fate by borrowing somebody else's, or being close enough to the original? Is it a lack of creativity driving it, or is it trading on another's identity in hopes of selling more product?

Patents may expire, which is a legal issue to be settled in the courts, but there is also an ethical point to this. As a consumer, you have to decide use why this firm decided to use a specific design. 99% of the time, it's to either fool the buying public ( user and audience alike), or make them think they are getting a bargain.

Back in the late 60s there was a major "Cola" war. The name Coke for the most part interchangeable with Cola. Instead of going after every bottling plant under the sun, they came up with a brilliant ad campaign instead, "It's the Real Thing". That was not to say that Pepsi, or RC. Cola, and other brands were not good (ok, Tab was gross), but the implication was, if you want the real thing, buy the real thing.

So what did Coke do for an encore??? "New Coke", which flopped famously.....

But in all seriousness, before you "buy" that bargain please give thought to the ethical implications, and just why the firm in question is doing what they are doing. I'm not here to judge those that will continue on, but just give it pause before buying and think, if it was your creation being copied, would you be OK with it?
Click to expand...
To the best of my knowledge, Fender never went after these guys.
I wonder why.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whippet
#34
Smooth_bass88 said:
I agree with Fender on this one. I think this guy's headstock shape is too close to a Tele's, and combined with the body shape (and other things) it looks too close. Time to head back to the drawing board, dude.
Click to expand...
I figure if can tell that it's not a fender (headstock) from 50 feet away, it shouldn't be a problem. In this case... I'd be able to tell.
 
#38
All manufacturers have the right to defend whatever legal trademarks/patents they have. Tried building a clone of a Ric? Smart companies make changes to skirt the trademark. Where would all the hideous headstocks come from if they didn't? Fender lives off their brand name and past designs.

IMHO they are the Ford Motor Company of the guitar world. Early innovators that everyone followed who are now just re-releasing designs that were at one time revolutionary but are now just retreads of past glory. Other companies have moved the bar so much higher by providing, IME, far more instrument for the money or comaparable instruments for far less money. Not to mention many more options as far as 5 and 6 string basses. Not a Fender hater myself, and wish them all the success in the world. I love their guitars over all others. They just don't make a bass that works for me and I realize that I probably am in the minority there. But I fully support their right to aggressively defend themselves. As long as there are people who insist on a certain headstock decal over all other considerations, they'll continue to sell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Whippet
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back