Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - BTL

Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 72
991
Gibson Basses / Re: Eastwood RD Bass
« on: September 27, 2015, 09:42:33 PM »
From the records I have reviewed it appears as though KS was pretty brazen in his infringements.

Interestingly, some of the terms from the FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION ON CONSENT are as follows:

Quote from: No. 3:13-cv-01075 Judge Sharp/Brown FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION ON CONSENT
[...] Defendants and any affiliated or related entities, agents, officers, employees, representatives,
successors, assigns, attorneys, and all other persons acting for, with, by, through, or under
authority from Defendants, or in concert or participation with Defendants and each of them:

a. shall dispose of the inventory identified in Exhibit D of the Parties’
Confidential Settlement Agreement pursuant to the terms of that
agreement;


b. shall completely cease all use whatsoever, directly or indirectly, of the
FENDER Marks, or any confusingly similar imitations thereof, in
connection with Defendants’ guitars or business, or other goods or
services, including without limitation in connection with the sale,
advertising or promotion of Defendants’ goods or services;

c. shall completely cease using, directly or indirectly, any trademark, service
mark, name, logo, design, source designation, or identifying characteristic
of any kind that is a copy, reproduction, colorable imitation, or simulation
of or confusingly similar to, or in any way similar to or likely to dilute the
distinctiveness of, the trademarks, service marks, or logos, designs, source
designations, or identifying characteristics of Fender, or is likely to cause
confusion, dilution, mistake, deception, or public misunderstanding that
Defendants’ guitars or business, or other goods or services are the guitars,
business, goods or services of Fender, or are sponsored, licensed,
endorsed, approved by, affiliated with, or in any way related to Fender or
its guitars;

d. except as provided for in paragraph 3 of this Consent Judgment, shell
remove all references to or depictions of the FENDER Marks, or any
confusingly similar imitations thereof, from any advertising or
promotional materials used in connection with their business, including
without limitation any website, social media or other online, electronic,
print or brick-and-mortar presence, published or unpublished, whether
existing in text, source code, photographic, videographic, audiographic,
hyperlink or other form; By way of example and not limitation, such
removal of references to the FENDER Marks may be accomplished by
means of the following: (a) elimination of text or titles referencing the
FENDER Marks (e.g., “Stratocaster,” “Telecaster,” “Strat,” “Tele,”
“Relic,” “T-Caster,” “S-Caster” (although references by Defendants to
“AVR-T” and “AVR-S” guitars are acceptable); (b) elimination or
modification of photographs depicting the FENDER Marks (e.g., cropping
photographs of Defendants’ guitars to remove imagery of head stock
designs owned by Fender); and (c) elimination or modification of audio or
video depicting or referencing the FENDER Marks (e.g., modifying audio
which utilizes references to the FENDER Marks in describing Kelton
Swade guitars or (as an alternative to the disclaimer provided in Paragraph
3 blurring or otherwise obscuring the imagery of head stocks of Kelton
Swade guitars to modify depictions of head stock designs owned by
Fender);

e. shall re-design the head stocks of his guitars using paddle necks or other
raw material, such that any new guitars, i.e., those not in the inventory
identified in Exhibit D of the Parties’ Confidential Settlement Agreement,
that are thereafter sold or offered for sale by Defendants after the entry of
this Consent Judgment have a unique head stock design that is neither
identical to nor will create a likelihood of confusion with any head stock
design owned by Fender; and


f. shall submit to this Court an affidavit or declaration certifying Defendants’
compliance with this paragraph within one week of the expiration of the
period.
The ninety-day phase-out period contemplated by this paragraph does not authorize Defendants
to undertake any new uses of the FENDER Marks during that period.

3. This Consent Judgment shall not prevent the Defendants from maintaining
previously-created videos in connection with the promotion or advertising of their business that
feature depictions of guitars crafted by Defendants before the entry of the Consent Judgment and
wherein such guitars bear infringing uses of head stock designs owned by Fender - - provided,
however, that in all such cases, Defendants shall include a specific disclaimer (provided below)
in the text immediately below the title or identifying language of each such video and on any
physical object, website page, social media or other online, electronic, print or brick-and-mortar
presence upon which the video is visible. The disclaimer shall read as follows: “Disclaimer:
The Kelton Swade guitar presented in this video features a head stock design owned by Fender
Musical Instruments Corporation (‘Fender®’). Such use was without the consent of Fender®,
and Kelton Swade no longer manufactures, distributes, advertises or sells guitars bearing that
head stock design. Kelton Swade is not now, nor has he ever been, a licensed supplier or seller
of Fender® guitars or other Fender® products or services. Neither Kelton Swade nor his
products or services are sponsored, licensed, endorsed, approved by, affiliated with, or in any
way related to Fender®.”
[...]

992
Gibson Basses / Re: Eastwood RD Bass
« on: September 27, 2015, 08:56:54 PM »
So, I pulled the docs from the Kelton Swade lawsuit, and it was settled out of court.

It is very apparent from what is available on PACER that KS had been using Fender's legitimate/valid/active/defensible Trademarks in addition to the generic headstock shapes, and he has agreed to stop doing that.

That said, this is currently listed as new on Reverb:


993
Rickenbacker Basses / Re: 4003s it's here!
« on: September 27, 2015, 08:26:59 PM »
Wow, that's the first Mapleglo 4003S I've seen...really NICE!!!

As for the Lollar horseshoe, it's been back on the market for a while.

http://www.lollarguitars.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=HorseshoeBass

A little more expensive than it was previously, but back nonetheless.

Bullies don't ALWAYS win...

994
Gibson Basses / Re: Eastwood RD Bass
« on: September 27, 2015, 08:20:30 PM »
 :mrgreen:

995
Gibson Basses / Re: Eastwood RD Bass
« on: September 27, 2015, 07:06:58 PM »
So, on the topic of inflammatory, I should probably "walk back" my own comment first.

I should have said,"I BELIEVE Fender has lost the Trademark on its headstock shapes because of their licensing agreements that ultimately rendered the shapes as generic as a beer/soda can with no label."

Recognizing that subtle distinction, I will say that the comments "better get a new one" and "few are stupid enough to ignore a threat" are what I found inflammatory. 

Trademark rights are accrued and lost in the market, and I BELIEVE that is where Fender has lost the Trademark on its headstock shapes.

Whether my beliefs are ever adjudicated by the courts or if the registrations are invalidated will depend on how vigorously Fender chooses to defend what it has already lost/sold off/given away.

996
Gibson Basses / Re: Eastwood RD Bass
« on: September 27, 2015, 01:59:20 PM »
I did a lot of research on this topic when I started back in 2009, and have become pretty proficient in tracking down the relevant public records and case history as a result.

I also know a few folks in the industry who have been impacted by these issues, both directly and indirectly.

What always surprises me are the specific "facts" that end being asserted in these discussions as being beyond dispute.

997
Gibson Basses / Re: Eastwood RD Bass
« on: September 27, 2015, 01:20:46 PM »
It's been a while since I went wandering around on the USPTO and PACER sites, but the Swade case has activity in 2015 under Fender Musical Instruments Corporation v. Swade, Tennessee Middle District Court, Case No. 3:13-cv-01075.

When I have some time, I'll see what I can find on the legal arguments, status, etc.

998
Gibson Basses / Re: Eastwood RD Bass
« on: September 27, 2015, 11:40:52 AM »
[...] Nash has its own licensing agreement with Fender. They're authorized to use Fender's headstock shape. [...] Why do you think Nash entered into license agreement with Fender? [...] The reason you don't hear about more lawsuits is that it rarely gets to the point of lawsuit. [...]
Dave,

You've made a couple of pretty inflammatory remarks, and I'm sure you are confident in your belief.

That said, I'm not an attorney, and I don't want to overstate what I know with certainty vs. what I believe based on the facts in the public domain.

In general, people imagine that the guitar business is somehow special and unique and has IP rights that are different than those that are applied to other industries.

In most of these discussions, people confuse Trademark, Copyright, and Patent and use the terms interchangeably.

Also, just because an attorney is paid $500 - $1000/hour doesn't mean he/she can automatically win a case that has no merit.

Is it possible to bully an uninformed defendant with a few letters from a high-powered attorney?

Absolutely.

On the specifics, I'm not of aware of whether Nash has entered into a licensing agreement with Fender or not.

However, if he has, I imagine that could undermine Fender's agreements with its current licensed vendors in that all are explicitly prohibited from building and selling new, branded instruments.

By the way, have you noticed that Warmoth no longer has their license agreement posted online?

Regardless, it's just the latest instance in the long history of authorized and unauthorized builders using these shapes on their instruments, resulting in the inevitability that the Trademarks are invalidated as generic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark

Again, with Trademarks, you can't have it both ways.

They either identify the brand, or they don't.

In general, IP lawsuits are litigated "behind the scenes", so what agreements are made tend to stay in the private domain.

As for the decisions other builders have made, with regards to whether or not to use/violate other builder's Trademarks in their builds, I'll leave it to them to tell their own story:

https://konschaklaw.wordpress.com/2013/03/15/fender-musical-instruments-accuses-luthier-of-counterfeiting-guitars-2/

999
Gibson Basses / Re: Eastwood RD Bass
« on: September 27, 2015, 10:43:00 AM »
[...] The Fender licensees are authorized to make replacement necks for Fender products, not parts for new product. [...]

I thought I would address this comment specifically.

The licensee agreements are governed by contract law, not (directly) by Trademark law, and these documents define the relationship between Fender and its subcontractors.

The contracts that state the shapes are "licensed by Fender under a quality control trademark license" do not govern what the purchaser of the neck does with it after it has been bought from the licensee.

Fender can certainly enforce the terms of these agreements with their vendors for as long as they remain valid, and none of the vendors build complete instruments.

However, the licensing agreements do not govern what the buyer does with the neck after it's been bought from the licensee.

From the CME site:


1000
Gibson Basses / Re: Eastwood RD Bass
« on: September 27, 2015, 10:01:46 AM »
Fender has definitely not lost the trademark on its headstock shape. Far from it. If you come to their attention, you'll get a C&D. It seldom comes to the point of a lawsuit, but if you defy the C&D, you'll be sued. A controversial "relic" builder who goes by the name Kelton Swade was sued into submission by Fender in 2013 for refusing to stop using Fender's headstock shape even though his more recent guitars had his own logo on them. [...]

The only lawsuits I'm aware of, including Swade's, involve builders applying a Fender logo to a generic neck and calling it a "replica".

The Fender name and logo are absolutely protected as Trademarks.

If you want evidence that the headstock shapes are NOT defensible trademarks, check the Chicago Music Exchange website.

They have DOZENS of Nash guitars with Nash logos being sold side-by-side with new Fenders.

The horse is out of the barn...

Unfortunately for Fender, the licensing agreements they have with Warmoth, Allparts, Musikraft, Mighty Mite, etc. have led to the result that the headstock shape without a Fender logo is clear indication that it is NOT a Fender.

You can't have it both ways.

And yes, I have consulted a Trademark attorney on this issue.

:)


1001
Gibson Basses / Re: Eastwood RD Bass
« on: September 27, 2015, 09:50:01 AM »
Yes, but in addition to the shape and (until recently) Gibson logo, they are using the model name.  That changes things.
I'm not sure it does..."RD" and "Artist" are pretty generic by themselves, not "fanciful" in any way, so the combination is not very distinctive, either.

Regardless it's not worth pursuing beyond a C&D letter.

Again, Trademark law sets the bar for what is defensible for ALL industry, not just guitar builders.

Beyond what the "purists" feel is distinctive from a historical perspective, the only way most consumers differentiate brands in the store or online is by checking the headstock and hangtag.

1002
Gibson Basses / Re: Eastwood RD Bass
« on: September 26, 2015, 08:26:13 PM »
Defending a guitar body shape as a Trademark is getting more challenging every year, and I can't see Gibson doing much more than sending a C&D letter to Eastwood asking them to remove the Gibson logo on the photo (already done).

These days, the only defensible Trademark for MOST guitar manufacturers is the headstock shape (except for Fender) and the logo.

Fender has lost the Trademark on its headstock shapes because of their licensing agreements that ultimately rendered the shapes as generic as a beer/soda can with no label.

The RD body shape is such a low-seller for Gibson, it's not worth pursuing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_trademark_law#Trademark_compared_to_other_intellectual_property_laws

1003
Gibson Basses / Re: Bassbuckers. Again
« on: September 26, 2015, 08:13:11 PM »
No problem!

Yes, definitely an edgy design.

8)

Here's how it went out the door:


1004
Bill's Shop: Projects, Mods & Repairs / Re: DocBass ready to roll
« on: September 22, 2015, 07:38:26 PM »
Very nice, I like it!

1005
Gibson Basses / Re: Bassbuckers. Again
« on: September 22, 2015, 07:34:04 PM »
Just as an FYI, Lindy Fralin still custom-builds a number of bass-centric pickups under nickel covers with no holes...just give him a call:


Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 72