Patent on the headstock shape

[Twang Tone]

Hi Folks!

I've been visiting this site for ages, and decided to join you guys today.

I love reading the posts here, and take my hat off to all of you, especially Ole Fuzzy!

Anyways, my question is this.

The Tele's headstock shape is legendary - so much so that Fender put a patent on the shape.

So why is it that the Crook Custom Teles Brad Paisley plays can have that same shape headstock? Help me out!

[jam]

...either by licensing the shape or by getting sued for not doing so.

JAM
Who uses the phrase "pay for the priviledge" whenever possible as a subtle Elvis Costello nod

[0le FUZZY]

"I don't want to state or imply that we will or won't go after anybody," Van Vleet added, saying that Fender would protect its intellectual property on a case-by-case basis.

In udder werds iffin yew make a bunch of getus on yer sail of Fenner like guitars they may dee-side tew git their share as Gypsin did tew PRS.

Sum companys haff a lye-cents tew make em and I suspect this Crook feller has won.

This used tew knott be a prollem till the lawyers started doin the war dance roun the fire when FMC took over.

This subject alwayz starts a flame war here on TDPRI cause a lotta folks feel very strongly about this subject both wayz sew duck yer head HEE! HEE!

When yew play with fire yew jes never know !
http://www.thomaskinkadechico.com/flame01.gif


WEBMASTER EDIT: PHOTO TOO WIDE -- 500 PIXELS MAX PLEASE[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]
[*]

The famous TELECASTER patent flame model








0.F.

[TDPRI]

The shape is trademarked, not patented. And Crook guitars no longer come with that headstock profile. Brad's guitar "could be" some other neck... either a Fender or some other licensed product. Who's to say?

Remember, anyone can make a copy of a trademarked item and while that is "illegal" it doesn't mean that the trademark owner either is aware of the infringement or wishes to do anything about the infringement -- at this time.

Paul Green

[maestrovert]

Heya Ole Fuzzy, is the flame finished guitar a photo of an actual instrument or a conjured/doctored "virtual" thingie ?

[Silverface]

To back up what Paul said, it's "trademarked". Patents and trademarks are completely different things.

Some companies have been granted a license by Fender to produce trademarked parts (i.e. the peghead shape and some other things as well). Simply, for a fee they can, with permission, use the trademark. Crook doesn't have such an agreement as far as I know. Some of the major replacement parts makers do. Those that don't have to alter the shape of the parts so as not to infringe on the trademark.

[JerryPro]

I don't know what if any difference this makes but Crooks guitars are all USACG necks. If they have a license would that apply?

[Twang Tone]

Thanks for the info, guys.

Being a newbie, I was hoping to get: "Welcome aboard, son", or something!

I didn't mean to tread on toes, I was just curious that's all!

Seeing how the likes of Tokai, Fernandes and even G&L had to switch to something else, I wondered how Crooks could still be made that way.

Now, thanks to webmaster I know they are no longer that shape, and Ole Fuzzy says this topic rubs some folks the wrong way, I'll steer clear!

Thanks anyways.

[0le FUZZY]

maestrovert

It taint reeel !!

Its won of them thar

conjured/doctored "virtual" thingie

HEE! HEE!

I wish it twaz reeeel and waz mine.

Twang Tone Yew said ----

I've been visiting this site for ages

I dent sort out the details---- sorry.[*] Welcome anyway and as yew may haff noticed the same ack-ters joined in.

0.F.

[TDPRI]

Originally Posted by Twang Tone

Thanks for the info, guys.

Being a newbie, I was hoping to get: "Welcome aboard, son", or something!.

Welcome aboard. Sorry, responded to the question not anything else.

Paul Green
PS. Its not that hot a subject. Some folks see Fender's protection of its trademarks as a horrible thing. So, when the subject comes up they scream and holler about it. Even though every company in the world does the exact same thing to defend their trademarks. Try opening a resturant called McDonalds anywhere in the world and see what happens.

[TDPRI]

OOPs... hey guys. Because "Twang Tone" is from England he was correct in saying that the headstock shape is patented. Because that's what a trademark is called in England.

D'oh!

Sorry mate!
Paul Green

[popthree]

ay-up!!!

Welcome!!!

[maestrovert]

bad form on my part to have neglected a welcome...

Thanx Ole Fuzzy, i appreciate the info....i wish 'twere real also, would be a GREAT finish to have on a "Hotrodded" Parstcaster !

[JerryPro]

If Crooks are not still using the Tele neck profile or something very close that is news to me. I talked to Bill just the other day about building one and there was nothing said to the contrary. :?

I ask again? Could it be because USACG has a license agreement?

[TDPRI]

Originally Posted by JerryPro

If Crooks are not still using the Tele neck profile or something very close that is news to me. I talked to Bill just the other day about building one and there was nothing said to the contrary. :?

I ask again? Could it be because USACG has a license agreement?

No USACG doens't have a license. They build their necks with a slightly different shape. USACG thinks that's good enough. Fender may not. It may need to go to court to settle that issue.

However, regardless of that. A guitar builder cannot purchase licensed parts to create a whole guitar and not run afoul of violation of trademark. You may say, "What?" But those licensed parts are for individual users to use on their guitars. Not to be assembled and sold commercially as a whole product. You may doubt this but it is absolutely true.

Paul Green

[PeterUK]

Originally Posted by Twang Tone

Being a newbie, I was hoping to get: "Welcome aboard, son", or something!

Hey fellow Brit

Welcome aboard, but it's more of a "grab a beer and find an amp to plug into" sort of place.

Good to see you. Are you going to the London Guitar Show? How about you other Brits or TDPRI-ers based in the UK?

:D Peter

[timgreene]

Welcome aboard.

And i get to say, NIPPLE.

Thats what the USACG, necks have. most sand it off to get the fender shape.

[sparky]

it's good here, innit?

Maybe if copying the headstock shape is illegal, there's a certain irony in the only people doing it being called Crooks?


OK, I know they're not crooks by nature, just Crooks by name. No offence, etc, just slightly amusing.

[chickenpicker]

Another Brit saying hello!

I thought that the issue of headstock shapes etc only really applied in the US. In British muic shops, there have always been copies with identical shapes, and I don't know of any British court cases.

[simon]

You cannot make a USACG-Tele headstock shape into a Fender shape. I tried it. There is wood missing in some parts to do so. The result will be smaller than a Fender. But you can get a paddle shape neck from USACG. Their necks are great quality.

S

[Fatmanstratman]

Hey Peter,

Yep - I surely will be at the London Guitar Show. It would be rude not to go!

A mate of mine who always goes with me to Music Live and the other shows can't go to the London Guitar Show this year, so it looks like a trip on my lonesome. I'm thinking of going on the Sunday - if you're going to be there maybe we could meet up and say "Hi" - as long as you don't start convincing me that it would be nice to have "just one more" guitar.....

Oh Lordy..... I feel a GAS attack coming on.....

[firewire]

Hey Twang Tone - welcome - this site is the coolest!!

Paul, as I understand the shape of an article can NOT be a trademark - trademarks are typically for words, phrases, graphic-type designs. The name Fender is trademarked.

There are two types of patents - design and utility. The head stock shape is a design patent. A utility patent is for functional "things" - a pickup.

It's also my guess that the "exclusive right" to the design patent has expired since the patent is older than 14 years (I haven't seen this patent, so I'm not positive). In which case, anyone can make (i.e. shape) a headstock like a tele without having to pay any money to anyone.

Hope this helps.

[Twang Tone]

Thank you all for the welcome, folks!

NOW I feel like I belong! :D

[Dave W]

Originally Posted by firewire

Hey Twang Tone - welcome - this site is the coolest!!

Paul, as I understand the shape of an article can NOT be a trademark - trademarks are typically for words, phrases, graphic-type designs. The name Fender is trademarked.

There are two types of patents - design and utility. The head stock shape is a design patent. A utility patent is for functional "things" - a pickup.

It's also my guess that the "exclusive right" to the design patent has expired since the patent is older than 14 years (I haven't seen this patent, so I'm not positive). In which case, anyone can make (i.e. shape) a headstock like a tele without having to pay any money to anyone.

Hope this helps.

That's incorrect. The "trade dress" of a qualifying item can be trademarked. It doesn't cover function. It covers recognizable dress associated with the company.

Fender's headstock shape is definitely trademarked. Rickenbacker's body and headstock shapes are all trademarked, so are the body and headstock shapes for many Gibsons.

[Silverface]

What Dave W. said.

This has been discussed to death before. the designs are definitely trademarked, and the legal actions that Gibson, Fender and others have brought against "clone" makers refer to trademarks, not patents.