OT Help stop Fender from trademarking Strat/Tele bodies!

[Brett Clark]

This is real - I have seen the notices myself.

Fender is attempting to trademark the body shapes of Leo's creations from the 50's. These trademark applications are in the "published for opposition" phase.

The application numbers are:
76516127   (Precision Bass)
76516126   (Strat)
76515928   (Tele)

This fight will have to be lead by someone who has legal standing and money to do so (G&L, possibly.) What we can do will become more clear soon.

ONE THING TO DO NOW:

I Am Not A Lawyer!  But, the USPTO website has LOTS of info on what may be registered as a trademark. The shape of something is a "design feature". These features may NOT be "functional" (serve any useful purpose to the use of the product). One of the examples cited was an attempt by Gibson to trademark the shape of an acoustic! The mark was NOT registered because Gibson's own advertising claimed that the shape made the guitar sound better (and was therefore functional).

SO, look through old guitar magazines, historical books on Fender, etc. for Fender ads that claim the shapes of the Tele, Strat or P-Bass are comfortable, balanced, give good access to the frets, etc. These claims can now be used against them. Give this info to whichever companies are fighting this.

I certainly don't begrudge Fender their established trademarks (including the names of all these designs), but these body shapes have had 50 years to become a part of standard design practice, in my opinion.

On another forum, John Suhr seems to be emerging as a leader on this issue. He has contacted a lawyer and is taking appropriate action. He deserves our support. Stay tuned.

[Chris R]

I don't think i agree..  in my mind these are already fender trademarks..

don't you think that if fender trademarks these designs.. we'll have to see some new / more interesting body styles ?

is fender trademarking the "shape" ? or technical dimensions of the shape ?

C

[Mark Hammer]

Wouldn't bug me a bit if Fender won such a battle.  There's enough of them out there, and Fender makes it easy to buy one from them cheap these days if you're desparate for that shape.  It'd be nice to see something different and the variations in non-copyrighted body designs out there make traditional Fender-style bodies non-essential.  I can hardly blame Fender management for suddenly sitting bolt upright and wondering "How come when someone says 'Strat' or 'Tele', no one is really sure whether it's one of ours until the person specifies 'a Fender'?"

On the other hand, Fender has played right into this blurring of lines between their product and other companies. Pick up a copy of "Frontline", the Fender advertainment/catalog, and you'll see page after page after page of Strats and Teles with this tweak and that one pitched as different "models".  Turn out a guitar like the Tom Delonge model with a single bizarre HB in the bridge and a non-Fender whammy and the brand identity between a "Strat" and some product made by another company evaporates.  Personally, I think they want to be able to say "It doesn't matter what the hell we do with it, how we mutate it, or how many 'models' we invent, if it has two cutaways, that headstock, and a sloped body, it's OURS!"

Of course, if they tried to claim legal protection for a 3-single-coil assembly with a 5-way switch..........!!!   :evil:

[Brett Clark]

I certainly respect your right to disagree, but this issue is already hot on some other forums, and you are firmly in the minority.

The trademark claimed is for a very general outline of the shapes - I see no reason that the Strat claim might not affect Jacksons, for example.

No one disputes that the Strat shape was created by Leo Fender (the Tele design HAS been disputed by some...). But that is not the same as them being trademarks. A trademark must indicate the source of the goods. Almost every guitar manufacturer in the world has used the Strat shape, so just the body shape certainly doesn't indicate "made by Fender" to me.

[Nasse]

:shock: perhaps they are 50 years late. But don´t overlook the huge amount of money, strat shape is still after all these years the most sold guitar in the world...

But can´t imagine where is the line "this is too much like strat" and "this is not". If you compare certain Fender and Burns guitar body front-look shapes there is much what is common. And hundreds of other guitars more or less original.

One think is sure lawyers win huge amount of money with this. Maybe it is time to buy a new guitar before prices go up. I might need a new strat body, lightweight wood one... and for sure I will not buy Fender

[Mark Hammer]

"...the body shape certainly doesn't indicate "made by Fender" to me"

At one time (and that time has long since gone, as your comments indicate) Fender *could* have claimed some trademark.  Of course, the horse has not only left the barn now, but set up its own breeding colonies.  Indeed, I would suggest that the erosion of the "purity" of the Strat/Tele identity via the flood of Strat/Tele permutations and combinations Fender markets as "models" and "lines" emerged out of a need for them to recapture a niche that other companies created in the first place (e.g., the SC-SC-HB "Superstrat" was someone else's idea, not Fender's; same goes for Floyd Rose equipped or all HB Strats).

Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting it is their *right* to reclaim the body shape as proprietary.  I'm just saying that even were they to win that one it wouldn't bug me.  Some folks, like Steinberger or Parker, or PRS, are thoroughly capable of thriving without having to resort to Fender body shapes (although didn't PRS have one model?), and other companies like Ibanez were able to diversify and have reputable models that stood up on their own rather than as simply "cheaper Fenders".  It'd be nice for companies to get a little kick in the pants to break out of the mould a little more often, although it is much less problematic now than it might have been 10 years ago.

Personally, I think Fender created the problem for themselves by failing to adapt to a changing market.  At one time, we were able to mentally classify guitars as "real Fenders" and "cheap copies" simply by virtue of the price and workmanship.  Even though they seemed cosmetically identical, we *knew* they weren't the same and hoarded our shekels in the hopes we could cross over that line to the other side of the street someday.  That mental boundary has long since dissolved, partly because production quality/price of 'copies' improved to the point where they competed with and sometimes exceeded Fender's specs, and partly because Fender themselves moved in a downward and outward direction to imply "Hey, we can sell you a guitar too.  You don't need to stoop to a non-Fender."  

Whether by planfulness or simply stubbornness that turned into happy accident, Gibson's adherence to higher production-cost models for the most part still leads people to think "I have a LP *copy* but one day I hope I can buy a *real* one".  In the case of Fenders, that doesn't happen.  I wanted a Tele.  I bought a Jay Turser and spruced it up, and as far as I'm concerned I now *have* a Tele.  That's what concerns Fender.  Perhaps that is the appropriate end-point for a legacy that aimed to make cheap production quality instruments that could find their way into everyone's hands, as opposed to a legacy founded on intensive workmanship with wood.  I don't think Leo and Freddy and Doc and the rest planned it that way (just as I think Orville didn't either), but I won't fault them for not being oracles.  

Using the legal system now to compensate for what they should have done 20 years is just stupid.  It isn't often that I side with a let-the-market-decide mentality, but this is one of those times.

[Doug H]

On a related note:

http://www.firebottle.com/fireforum/fireBB.cgi?cfg=ga&forum=ga&thread=272569-000000.msg


Doug

[javacody]

I've read about this on the USA Custom Guitars forum and on the Melancon forum. A bunch of the makers are getting together using the same patent attorney to challenge this.

I think that this is a real cheap shot by Fender. IF you can't make a better guitar cheaper, then start looking for ways to legally screw your competition, right? All's fair in love and war and all that, but this smacks of poor business ethics to me. They aren't even the same people who had any part in designing these guitars. I'm not sure I ever want to purchase another product from a company like this.

[petemoore]

Anything shaped like an Arrow. Yes that includes the Flying V.
 That way I'll be the only one around here who knows which way to go...seems to me it's been that way since Nov. 1959, the year I was born.
 If you buy in enourmous  bulk, I think you could flood theworld with strat shaped bodies for about 5$ or less per body.
 Mr. Treble, from the Treble Clef family, is counter sueing !!!
 And Mr. French [the other Mr. French] of the French Curve Clan, is considering joining Mr. Treble Clef in suit.
 With the exponential increase in human population, there is certain to be a somewhat proportional increase in indpendantly derived duplicity of thought and shapes. [Surry if my "Pete Speak" has become highly convoluted like some things these days].
 May the best inhouse. big money corporate. legal representations win !!!  [Nevermind the claims of the thinker, 'till he bucks up [in front of his cards] at the no ceiling 'legal poker' table]}.
 > To my eye, the early electrics that established what a guitar looks like are exaggerated but similar to the shape of an accoustic, with the horn there for high fret access. Fender left room for the thumb, or decided two horns look more 'natural'.
 When companies start claiming rights to copied outlines of known shapes...lol...I say forget that !!!

[javacody]

I've been thinking about trademarking anything with wheels. Just imagine the liscensing fees I'll be able to collect just from the big three automakers!   :lol:

[GuitarLord5000]

What we commonly call a strat-style body was originally designed for the Pecision Bass.  The  horns ARE functional.  They are there for balance.  (See Guitar Player Magazine, January 2004 issue for excerpts from The Stratocaster Chronicles.)  Fender had some problems in the '60 and '70 (when the stratocaster really was a revolution in design) with overseas companies replicating their designs to exactings visual specifications.  Ibanez and Decca come to mind first and foremost.  I own a Decca Fender Jazzmaster clone and let me tell you, it looks EXACTLY like the Fender model.  Headstock and all!  Fender filed suit on these companies.  The guitars could still be produced, but without the "trademark" headstock.  I dont even worry that Fender might win this lawsuit.  It'd be impossible to put this horse back in the barn.  50 years ago, Fender had a design that was truly a monumental leap in guitar manufacturing.  However, that was 50 years ago.  Fender no longer makes quality guitars in my opinion.  They make overpriced guitars that haven't evolved much over that past couple decades.  I like the older vintage models because you can tell there was alot of care that went into these axes.  Even thought they were mass produced.  However, I wouldnt buy a Fender Stratocaster today if it were the last electric guitar company on earth.  Heck, I'd probably just make my own clone of it!  :wink: Gotta love that DIY!

[javacody]

Yeah, if I want a strat, I'm going to Tommy at USA Custom Guitars. He'll pick out a piece of wood to your specs for no extra dough, and you get a one piece or two piece body. You can't compete with Fender as an individual builder on the low end, but you sure can on the high end. You get exactly what you want (down to a tenth of an inch on the neck profile width), a tight fit between neck and body (I can't even fit a piece of paper in between my USA Custom Guitars body and neck), and you save money over a "Master-built" Custom Shop guitar. Not to mention the fun of picking out all your own parts and putting everything together. Tommy's stuff is so good, you can order a body from him, have him drill the bolt holes, and order a neck a year later, also with the bolt holes, and they will line up perfectly every time! But I digress.

[Nasse]

:roll: I remeber having read a Fender senior employee named Fred Tavares designed Sratocaster, shape and three pickup confiq. How much did he get? I maybe wrong and off topic but you can call that man one of the all-time most succesful designers, and that should interest readers of this forum :wink:

[GuitarLord5000]

From the Guitar Player article on The Stratocaster:

"When a publication carried an article that credited Freddie (Tavares) as the Strat's co-designer, Leo Fender told the author:"Freddie Tavares, when this article came out, came over and apologized and said he didn't have anuthing to do with it being written."  Richard Smith, author of the landmark book, Fender: The sound Heard 'Round the World, added: "Freddie never felt he was the Strat's co-designer."  Remember, Leo Fender's first twin horned solidbody was not the Strat.  That honor belongs to the Precision Bass........"

It's a good read.  I recommend anybody interested to pick up this issue.

[Bluesgeetar]

Shit!  Time to give Warmoth or USA guitars a call!  Guess I need to get that solid one piece tele and strat body while I still can.  This is the one that really pisses me off.  I understand them wanting to do this if they offered bodies at the same price and also offered a solid once piece body at a decent price.  But after market guys are the only ones making a one piece body aren't they?  Maybe you can order a one piece from Fenders custom shop and pay $1000 for the body!