Fender vs. Gibson - First Thunderbird

[Rob]

Fender was owned by CBS when that happened.

And there was still some hard feelings between CBS and Leo at the time.

[Dave W]

Two different era, two different issues. In the early 60s, there was no such thing as a trademark on a shape, and even if there had been, Gibson's design would never have been confused with the Fender shape. By the 80s, Fender was claiming a trademark on its headstock shape and may have accused G&L of infringing by being too close.

That's why I don't think there was ever an issue between Gibson and Fender in the early 60s.

[godofthunder]

Since the mid 70's I have heard the story that Fender complained to Gibson about the Firebird/Thunderbird series and that forced the change. My theory is that the complaint did occur but also Gibson had a flop on their hands.  At the time manufacturers were waiting for the electric guitar craze to peter out they were just trowing product to the wall to see what would stick. Fender clearly had market share by '65 especially in the bass market. What more logical choice than to build something more "Fender like" but with Gibson details like set necks and rear routed controls? Ultimately I think what killed off the Thunderbirds was the high price and how fragile they can be. Fenders are so much more rugged......................... what good is a bass when you get to the gig and the headstock snapped off in transit?

[Dave W]

I've heard it for a long time too, and I still don't buy it. There was absolutely no legal basis for Fender to complain, why would they even waste the time and effort? And if anything, the NR was even more Fender-like.

It's like all those lawsuit guitars that were never the subject of a lawsuit or legal threat.

[Chris P.]

Like I said earlier. I can imagine those companies were much smaller in those days if we're talking managament. I can imagine Fred Gretsch speaking to Ted McCarty on the NAMM and saying: 'Let not make the same cheap solid, bolt-on shit like Fender. We make instruments!' I can also imagine someone from Fender calling or writing Gibson and saying: 'Did you have to make those Birds? We don't like it.'

Nowadays lawsuits will be filed, but I guess it was a bit easier back then?

In Holland we have to small, high end bass amp manufacturers who both do quite well. I know they just talk about those things.

[dadagoboi]

Like I said earlier. I can imagine those companies were much smaller in those days if we're talking managament. I can imagine Fred Gretsch speaking to Ted McCarty on the NAMM and saying: 'Let not make the same cheap solid, bolt-on shit like Fender. We make instruments!' I can also imagine someone from Fender calling or writing Gibson and saying: 'Did you have to make those Birds? We don't like it.'

Nowadays lawsuits will be filed, but I guess it was a bit easier back then?

In Holland we have to small, high end bass amp manufacturers who both do quite well. I know they just talk about those things.

More like, "Fender's eating our lunch with their reasonably priced high quality product compared to ours.  How can we convince players that things like intonatable bridges, functioning tremeloes, basses that do more than assault your internal organs and necks that don't break are bad ideas?  I know, 'heritage! and old world crapsman , I mean craftsmanship'!  Technology and innovation, who needs it!"  Chris, it's pretty obvious to me you have little experience in the world of cutthroat corporate competition in the USA.  It's  steal and/or deny.  Jess Oliver said Ampeg would not allow a Fender bass into the factory well into the mid 60s.

Fender probably took a look at the TBird and laughed.  For starters, at the ready to break neck with unreachable frets and barely adjustable bridge (probably didn't know it wouldn't intonate, period).  They designed basses that first of all were ergonomically adequate at the least, their pro customers expected it.  Not for nothing their second bass was named "Jazz" after "Precision".

[TBird1958]

 
Well,
 In a complete coincidence ( I was looking at Inverness Green paint chips on teh Interwebz) I happened across this bit from A.R. Duchossoir's book GIBSON ELECTRICS The Classic Years detailing the circumstances of the Firebird/Thunderbird. It seems Fender was serious about it even if it never went to trial. In retrospect one has to wonder - maybe this where Gibson learned how to rattle the saber.
 
 
This is all quoted from the book..........

 
"The fate of the orignal Firebird was sealed when Fender stepped up the pressure to argue with Gibson about it's body style, claiming it was infringing on it's own patented designs. And more specifically on the patent for the "off-set waist" design applied to the Jazzmaster and Jaguar (#29609600 filed 13th January 1958 and granted 22nd November 1960) Ted McCarty recounts: "We had a number of meetings with the (Fender) people in Chicago. Don Randall was present for Fender at the time, and Don and I sat down with our attorneys and battled over this for several days. This was a pre-trial arguement, we never went to court over it. But they had their attorneys and we showed why we were not infringing, and they thought we were because of the shape." Coincidentally, Fender Sales put out an advert  headlined " The most imitated guitar in the world' during this period!
CMI had difficulty getting the Firebird series accepted by dealers and customers alike. As outlined by Ted McCarty: "We were always alert to what the customers wanted and what the industry wanted". When we had something  that they didn't like too well we altered it and changed it." The juxtapostion of Fender claims and disappointing sales led Gibson to modify the original Firebird series in Spring of 1965.
Again, Ted McCarty recalls: "We talked it over with Mr Berlin (CMI' president) and he said: 'What's the point? That does not mean a thing' and then he said: change the design a little, it's not that important. They (Fender) knew they wouldn't get anywhere with that suit, you know. But more or less in a friendly gesture, as far as we were concerned, we said: "if it bothers you, we'll change it." We had been in business since 1894. We were established and recognized and they were coming up and claiming their way! But they did a great job...no question about it...that solid body guitar changed the whole industry.

[Bionic-Joe]

Still makes absolutely no sense that the original reverse  Firebird and Thunderbird looked in any form like a Fender. As someone had mentioned before, it appears that the NON Reverse models looked more Fender-ISH.
 Fenders are Great, Tough, versatile, durable instruments.....But Thunderbirds seem to have a resonance all in there own....