Is it wrong to put a Fender logo on a partscaster?

[reddart]

Is it wrong if I put a Squire neck on my partocaster?

[stevieboy]

Originally Posted by Ronkirn

The statement from the Legal Suits, “there is no such thing as a "Tele Style" or “S Type” guitar. Expressions such as a "Strat style" or "T copy" or references to a competing product having the "Fender sound" are also misuses of FMIC's trademarks” is so absurd so as to defy comment, but me being me, I’ll give it a shot.

They can't sue you for making a guitar that has the "Fender sound", but this particular statement as I read it simply says you you can't advertise your product as having the "Fender sound." That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. The same with saying your product is "Tele style." Tele is a trademark.

What you can build is a different story. We know you can't copy the headstocks. Peter refers to the attempt by Fender to trademark the body styles, and assumes that they were successful--I wonder about that part, I haven't read anywhere that they were successful as yet, and it seems to me that they would have provided Ron with the information relative to the bodies that they did relative to the headstock shapes. As he says it does make you say "hmmm." I think they are still pursuing that one, and are posturing that they own the trademark. (Though admittedly I simply haven't heard one way or another if they were successful.)

But I think any company has the right to aggresively protect its trademarks, patents. and copyrights, and in fact would be stupid and irresponsible not to.

[PeterUK]

Originally Posted by Waylonfan

I'm impressed, this thread has gone on for a long time and no one,except for a couple light digs on the length, no one has resorted to insulting anyone for their opinion.

Yes, I'd like to add to that. Lots of healthy debate and discussion.

Well done everyone.

Peter

[jsntg]

[quote=stevieboy;1046770]They can't sue you for making a guitar that has the "Fender sound"...QUOTE]

Wanna bet? The attorneys over at Harley Davidson would beg to differ.

Hugh

[Ronkirn]

They can't sue you for making a guitar that has the "Fender sound"...

Here’s a tid bit…Harley Davidson has a protection on the “Harley sound”.. how the heck do ya make that determination? Is that not totally subjective?

Here’s a commumique’ from Fender this afternoon…

Mr. Kirn, FMIC's body designs are currently pending before the USPTO, not yet registered; however, as I have already advised you, FMIC has claimed common law rights to these shapes for many, many years. Trademarks are not required to be registered to be enforceable, and I will continue to enforce them as I see fit.

I have followed up with:

Thanks Robyn,
Yes, but it does have to be continuous and enforced, does it not? Otherwise it passes into the public domain as unchallenged. Is that not correct?
Thanks, Ron

We shall see.

Ron Kirn

[Fatmanstratman]

Originally Posted by PeterUK

Because Fender don't own the Broadcaster Trademark. Gretsch does.

You're on the right lines there, Peter - but unless I'm mistaken Gretsch actually own the "Broadkaster" Trademark. I believe the story goes that Fender agreed to remove the name Broadcaster because of it's similarity to the name given to a Gretsch drum kit.

How strange after all these years that Fender now distribute Gretsch guitars....

Great thread, BTW. Four pages already. Absolutely nothing new from the last eleventeen times we have discussed it to death here, but a great way to end the year nonetheless.

Clearly, we didn't receive anywhere NEAR enough Tele goodies from Santa to keep us occupied elsewhere....

[stevieboy]

[quote=Fatmanstratman;1046892]You're on the right lines there, Peter - but unless I'm mistaken Gretsch actually own the "Broadkaster" Trademark. I believe the story goes that Fender agreed to remove the name Broadcaster because of it's similarity to the name given to a Gretsch drum kit.

QUOTE]

Leo got "the letter" and went along with it, I wonder what would have been the outcome had he fought it. He was the little guy then! I think he was wise not to fight it, it would have been costly either way, and changing the name wasn't hard at that stage of the Telecaster's development.

And we wouldn't have the Broadcaster, Nocaster, Telecaster history to enjoy as part of the lore! Just the part about Leo clipping "Broadcaster" off the decals and using them up before he had new ones printed in worth the price of admission.


I hadn't heard of the "Harley sound" thing, I'd like to know more about that, like how they've been able to define it legally, and whether they've actually been able to take someone to court over it. With Fender it's a more general idea, as it they have so many models with so may different sounds that it would be pretty hard to claim ownership. Plus if they could establish rights to a loosely defined sound, they would be vulnerable to other companies, Gibson for example, using the same tactic on them.

[0le FUZZY]

Originally Posted by Ronkirn

Here’s a tid bit…Harley Davidson has a protection on the “Harley sound”.. how the heck do ya make that determination? Is that not totally subjective?

Here’s a commumique’ from Fender this afternoon…


I have followed up with:


We shall see.

Ron Kirn

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

...Man I hate ta cee the sleepin giant turn their guns on yew.

...From the audience point of view they kant even cee the decal much less iffin its a real won or unner the finish or above.

...This iss all so really silly. I haff a drawer full of Fenner decals of all kinds and iffin I wanna put won onna guitar I will. If I'm gonna cell it I'll tell the person it ain't real and let them decide. I noe Fenner won't care cause I noe they don't care about us liddo guys.

...I double dwag dare Fenner tew smack me down (or anyone else) fer puttin iss Box guitar decal onna rosewood neck both provided tew me by won of their X-employes (Wayne Charvel). They haff better thangs tew dew like makin John 5s.










I'm still urglee but still luv the TELECASTER (MySpace)


Please visit my page

[Ronkirn]

They haff better thangs tew dew

Fer sure.... they get all pissy 'cause I got pictures of their necks on some of my guitars on eBay. Not for sell mind ya, just in the background of some of the other stuff. So I move in a nuther direction.. And all's cool until they get something stuck in their craw again.

I'm about dun with eBay anyway.. It’s mostly crooks now and I don't wanna be associated with the lot... People know where they can find me.... and every time somebody gets ticked at me, I hear how they’re a former Special Op’s guy and they and their buddies are gonna come kick my butt. I tell ‘em come prepared, ‘cause it’ll be an all day job. When they show, it’s usually a 17 year old kid in an ’79 Honda Civic. I say, ‘Sup son? They say, “Uhhhh. . . Like, Man. . . I think I got the wrong place. Oh, Hey Man, Like nice Bimmer Man... ”

FMIC’s latest reply:

FMIC's body designs have been used continuously, and enforced. But I do not know the answer to your second question.

The first part, "continuously" is true, if you don't factor in all the times they changed something. Is a new model/shape of the old style maintaining continuity? If you go back to the old shape, visa-vie the Reissue after 15 years, does that constitute continuous? C’mon ain’t there any Lawyers out there? When I ask FMIC those questions, they get real snooty and refuse to answer, again. . . Hummmm??? The second part "enforced" is bull... like where was the enforcement from the mid 80's until around '01 when Julie Lim their previous Lawyer left and Mr. VanVleet arrived and every guitar manufacturer in this Hemisphere was crankin’ out Strats and Teles?

The last part is sad, ‘cause the person answering the questions is FMIC's Intellectual Property Paralegal. You’d think knowing that would be important. Or the answer would be embarrassing.

Ron Kirn

[Capel]

Originally Posted by CIM

I wonder how many beginners have spend good $$/££/€€ on a Fender (or whatever) as their first electric guitar and ended up with a replica?

Part of that though is the whole e-bay mentality - "must get it cheaper" .... but I do think caveat emptor (sp?) applies - if you want a genuine Fender, buy it from a Fender dealer.

Disclaimer* I work for a Fender dealer, but see quite a few examples of people who come in & look at the price of Fenders on the wall (which are OTT IMHO), then come up to me & say "I can get that for $X off e-bay" - I also do quite a bit of setup & repair work for owners of genuine & fake Fenders - owners who aren't happy that I won't honour their "warranty" they got from their e-bay seller that "should be good at any Fender dealer"

If Fender want to eliminate the clone market they should up the quality & lower the price (bet it'd be cheaper than retaining the leeches... sorry, lawyers)

Anyway's my 2c worth - if a Partscaster is yours, stick whatever decal you like on it - if you're selling it, scrape it off.

PS - anyone interested in a 1953 Stratocaster that a guy tried to get me to buy the other day - he got it from his "uncle" who bought it new in 1953 - complete with "1953" stamped into the back of the headstock (CBS logo too!) - coulda been mine for a measly $1000 AUD

[1buba]

Originally Posted by Ronkirn

I'm about dun with eBay anyway.. It’s mostly crooks now and I don't wanna be associated with the lot... People know where they can find me.... and every time somebody gets ticked at me, I hear how they’re a former Special Op’s guy and they and their buddies are gonna come kick my butt. I tell ‘em come prepared, ‘cause it’ll be an all day job. When they show, it’s usually a 17 year old kid in an ’79 Honda Civic. I say, ‘Sup son? They say, “Uhhhh. . . Like, Man. . . I think I got the wrong place. Oh, Hey Man, Like nice Bimmer Man... ”

That's hilarious. I had a guy "sell" me a POD on ebay a month ago. He didn't ship for over a week, but had his money within 10 minutes of the close of the auction. Wouldn't respond until almost 2 weeks after when I told him I would file a claim w/ paypal and ebay. He immediately refunded my money, then proceeded to tell me he bought a ticket, knew where I lived and was coming out to Sacramento from NEW YORK CITY to kick my blankety blank butt. I said, come on, pack a lunch. Then he was going to kill me.... He even gave me the date and time. 11/30 came and went. I was sad. LOL (btw, i have the emails if anyone would like to read them. Ebay wasn't interested, i forwarded the emails to them with the death threats. He's STILL posting on ebay).

[JayBee]

One of my current projects is a 50's Classic Tele, rebuilt into a Guitar Mill swamp ash bodied blackguard (sort of '53ish looking) replica.
The headstock logo will stay!!!!

If I can't make it a more deserving guitar of that logo, I'll give up

Yes, the guitar as bought used, has issues that it left the factory with!!!!

A lot of folks here (enlightened amateurs) can put together better guitars, and better value, than the current Fender offerings.
But, selling them as genuine Fenders a serious no,no!

My other partscasters have/will have appropriate (non Fender) logos to their build/sound/appearance.

The guitars, heavily influenced by a long standing design, will be, in essence Telecasters, but never sold as Fenders (if at all).

Again, the unanswerable. How many well played, parts built Teles and Strats have sufficiently impressed listeners to go out and buy the Fender equivalent

And, FMIC, how many of your ex-employees are carving out profitable guitar world niches, doing what they believed you should be doing?????

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Just my take on this discussion.

JayBee

[giantslayer]

It is worth noting that the case of Gibson vs PRS was over tradmark infringement on body design.


One thing that I don't think anybody's brought up is that, for a lot of people, Telecaster is more than a specific model name of a guitar made by a specific manufacturer. It's become a type of guitar (in people's minds, not legally). It's like Kleenex®. If it's not an actual Kleenex® brand tissue, it's legally just a tissue, but people think of and refer to their generic tissues as "Kleenex."

I know Kleenex isn't the best example out there, but my point is to try to explain a possible reason why people would want their partscaster to say "tele" or "fender" on it.

[unzari]

Originally Posted by Ronkirn

Fer sure.... they get all pissy 'cause I got pictures of their necks on some of my guitars on eBay. Not for sell mind ya, just in the background of some of the other stuff. So I move in a nuther direction.. And all's cool until they get something stuck in their craw again.

I'm about dun with eBay anyway.. It’s mostly crooks now and I don't wanna be associated with the lot... People know where they can find me.... and every time somebody gets ticked at me, I hear how they’re a former Special Op’s guy and they and their buddies are gonna come kick my butt. I tell ‘em come prepared, ‘cause it’ll be an all day job. When they show, it’s usually a 17 year old kid in an ’79 Honda Civic. I say, ‘Sup son? They say, “Uhhhh. . . Like, Man. . . I think I got the wrong place. Oh, Hey Man, Like nice Bimmer Man... ”

FMIC’s latest reply:



The first part, "continuously" is true, if you don't factor in all the times they changed something. Is a new model/shape of the old style maintaining continuity? If you go back to the old shape, visa-vie the Reissue after 15 years, does that constitute continuous? C’mon ain’t there any Lawyers out there? When I ask FMIC those questions, they get real snooty and refuse to answer, again. . . Hummmm??? The second part "enforced" is bull... like where was the enforcement from the mid 80's until around '01 when Julie Lim their previous Lawyer left and Mr. VanVleet arrived and every guitar manufacturer in this Hemisphere was crankin’ out Strats and Teles?

The last part is sad, ‘cause the person answering the questions is FMIC's Intellectual Property Paralegal. You’d think knowing that would be important. Or the answer would be embarrassing.

Ron Kirn

Ron, I think I mentioned in my last post that you won't get a precis of the current state of trademark law from Fender because they have a vested interest in the matter. Now both you and I know that what they tell you is not going to be an objective statement of the law on the matter.

[aman]

Originally Posted by giantslayer

It is worth noting that the case of Gibson vs PRS was over tradmark infringement on body design.


One thing that I don't think anybody's brought up is that, for a lot of people, Telecaster is more than a specific model name of a guitar made by a specific manufacturer. It's become a type of guitar (in people's minds, not legally). It's like Kleenex®. If it's not an actual Kleenex® brand tissue, it's legally just a tissue, but people think of and refer to their generic tissues as "Kleenex."

I know Kleenex isn't the best example out there, but my point is to try to explain a possible reason why people would want their partscaster to say "tele" or "fender" on it.

Kinda the same like Tupperware I guess. But if specific guitar manufacturers clamp down on their own body designs, the world will be a lonelier place because there'll be less Teles to go around :(

[Ronkirn]

what they tell you is not going to be an objective statement of the law

that's a fact... where I was raised, if ya said something, that was kinda the truth, but you said it in such a manner that those hearing it drew a different conclusion, completely different from the facts, you was lyin' and you got your butt whupped good with a Ligustrum switch. Today, they just call it spin...

Oh. . and regarding Gretsch and the Broadkaster. . . FMIC owns Gretsch....

Ron Kirn

[TDPRI]

A good way to look at this kind of debate is to discuss it as it applies to some other product, say... Coke-a-Cola or a McDonald's BigMac. That removes your built in bias for or against Fender and the various companies that make their living off of copying Fender's products.

Coke owns trademarks on the name, the logo, the logo font-style, the bottle shape and the shortened named (Coke). Along with other tag lines etc. I assume you don't have an opinion on this, it just IS. Ok, fine.

Coke's lawyers are under requirement to vigorously defend Coke's trademarks so that Coke doesn't loose their trademarks. Those trademarks are worth billions of dollars to lose them would be folly.

If you make your own home brewed version of cola and use the name and bottle nobody is going to say a word until you go to sell it or advertise it.

Now, say some local guy starts making cola and calls it Coke-a-Coola and uses the same font and even the same bottle shape on his cola. Maybe it tastes better than the cola made by Coke. Business picks up and he gets a website and starts selling it by the small numbers. Coke's lawyers would shut him down ASAP. Right? Do you have a problem with that idea? I'll guess you wouldn't.

So, why should Fender allow some "custom builder" make exact copies of Telecasters, using Fender's existing trademarks, fonts, name and etc?

Yet, folks in this thread have bemoaned the fact that Fender is "run by lawyers" and they've shut down small builders and they want to protect their trademarks like some kind of evil empire.

How can that be OK? If you think that folks shouldn't be able to pirate cola's or Rolex watches, or Apple iPods or Metallica CDS, or Disney DVDs then you should apply the same opinion to toward pirating Fender Telecasters.

Shouldn't you?

[TDPRI]

Originally Posted by Ronkirn

Oh. . and regarding Gretsch and the Broadkaster. . . FMIC owns Gretsch....Ron Kirn

Fender does not "own" Gretsch. They have an agreement with the trademark owners of Gretsch to build and market Gretsch guitars. Gretsch retains all their trademarks, and has absolute control over the use of their trademarks. This is well known.

And, about Fender claiming the legal right to protect the body shapes -- you can call it lying or spinning but what it really is is Fender claiming a legal point of view that they have not been able to support in a court of law. They are claiming this legal right verbally and have not attempted to test their point of view in court -- as of yet.

You have the point of view that what you do is perfectly legal... but that doesn't mean that it is. Nor, does it mean that you are lying or spinning the truth for you to say that you believe it is perfectly legal. It's just your legal opinion and it has not been tested in a court of law -- also as of yet.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time Ron, really I'm not. But your posts on this topic just seem to stack the deck against Fender... in an ironic twist of fate kind of way. When they do it it's bad. When you do it's just fine.

Again, I'm not targeting you, just responding to your point of view and the irony that is surrounding the issue.

[JohnnyCrash]

Originally Posted by Durtdog

...and the argument continues...

Wow.

HAHAHA

Good old Durtdog!!



I agree with the guy who said to call Fender.

Ask them if it would be OK "theoretically" speaking. If they say no, gently sand off the logo.

I don't put headstock decals on my 100% Partscasters, but on my MIM with a licensed replacement neck, I put a Fender logo on it... I was young and never even considered the legality.

Moral is different than Legal. If this endless argue is to continue, perhaps there should be a differentiation between the two.

Trademarking is different than Copyrighting - this must be differentiated for those that wish to continue this argument.

WHO CARES ALREADY?
1. If it is LEGAL to own for personal use then who cares what others' moral views are on it?

2. If it is NOT legal to sell or build with logos, but OK to buy, then who cares?

Do what you feel is right - as long as it is legal... it would suck to lose a TDPRI member due to limited interweb access in the old slammer.

[fullerplast]

Originally Posted by TDPRI

A good way to look at this kind of debate is to discuss it as it applies to some other product, say... Coke-a-Cola or a McDonald's BigMac. That removes your built in bias for or against Fender and the various companies that make their living off of copying Fender's products.

Coke owns trademarks on the name, the logo, the logo font-style, the bottle shape and the shortened named (Coke). Along with other tag lines etc. I assume you don't have an opinion on this, it just IS. Ok, fine.

Coke's lawyers are under requirement to vigorously defend Coke's trademarks so that Coke doesn't loose their trademarks. Those trademarks are worth billions of dollars to lose them would be folly.

If you make your own home brewed version of cola and use the name and bottle nobody is going to say a word until you go to sell it or advertise it.

Now, say some local guy starts making cola and calls it Coke-a-Coola and uses the same font and even the same bottle shape on his cola. Maybe it tastes better than the cola made by Coke. Business picks up and he gets a website and starts selling it by the small numbers. Coke's lawyers would shut him down ASAP. Right? Do you have a problem with that idea? I'll guess you wouldn't.

So, why should Fender allow some "custom builder" make exact copies of Telecasters, using Fender's existing trademarks, fonts, name and etc?

Yet, folks in this thread have bemoaned the fact that Fender is "run by lawyers" and they've shut down small builders and they want to protect their trademarks like some kind of evil empire.

How can that be OK? If you think that folks shouldn't be able to pirate cola's or Rolex watches, or Apple iPods or Metallica CDS, or Disney DVDs then you should apply the same opinion to toward pirating Fender Telecasters.

Shouldn't you?

Best post of this thread IMHO.

Yes, FMIC has common law trademark rights through first use and continuous commerce.

Yes, they have applied for formal registration of the shape trademarks and that application is currently being reviewed in the USPTO. The registration was actually approved until someone realized there was still an opposition pending. The registration application is real and there ar