It takes a special kind of stupid...

[BTL]

There are some interesting posts on the topic here:

http://ebassist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3532&page=5

This one in particular:

If Fender wanted to eliminate strat body shape copies tomorrow, they could.

Kindness is the principal in a firm that specializes in Intellectual Property law.

My perspective on all of this has definitely shifted.

[westen44]

they've been talking up the blended body design as the future of airliners since I was a kid in the 80s yet Boeing and Airbus still keep churning out traditional bodied new products. if it was as efficient and airworthy as they say, someone would have brought something to market by now

When asked when this would come out, the KLM CEO said 2050.  But they are serious enough about it to give some money to Delft University of Technology to explore the concept. 

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/company-news/video/klm-ceo-on-industry-risks-brand-fleet-flying-v-concept~1697684

[Pilgrim]

They've had functional aircraft in that basic shape for years, but it seems to me that the tubular body design of conventional aircraft provides a lot more room for passengers and cargo, making better financial sense.

[wellREDman]

They've had functional aircraft in that basic shape for years, but it seems to me that the tubular body design of conventional aircraft provides a lot more room for passengers and cargo, making better financial sense.

no thats the USP of the blended wing design, by making the whole body be the wing (lifting surface) you can fit payload in the whole aircraft, doubling or tripling capacity.
I think that 1/2 of the passengers not being able to see a window might be a factor, the last piece I read on it was talking about using screens and cameras to give passengers in the middle a virtual window. that shouldnt be an impediment to cargo tho

[westen44]

Getting back to Gibson, I don't much keep up with guitar stuff.  So I don't even know who this guy is.  But he makes a few observations about the Gibson PR fiasco.  He refers to it as a "chuff up."  A term I've never heard before, but now I've learned some British slang. 

[Dave W]

Dave,

I'm going to back away from my previous comments...I'm not as confident as I once was in what I believed I knew.

No problem, it's just a friendly discussion.

I do want to quote from USPTO's Basic Facts About Trademarks (pdf)

"...owning a federal trademark registration on the Principal Register provides a number of significant advantages over common law rights alone,
including:
• A legal presumption of your ownership of the mark and your exclusive right to use the mark
nationwide on or in connection with the goods/services listed in the registration..."

There are some interesting posts on the topic here:

http://ebassist.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3532&page=5

This one in particular:

Quote from: Kindness
If Fender wanted to eliminate strat body shape copies tomorrow, they could.

Kindness is the principal in a firm that specializes in Intellectual Property law.

My perspective on all of this has definitely shifted.

I can't see the posts without signing up for membership, but Kindness is dead wrong. As I mentioned I post #38, Fender's three body shape trademarks were all cancelled by TTAB in 2009 in a precedent-setting decision. Fender can't do jack shit about Strat copies as long as the headstock is different and doesn't say Fender. Send him this

[Dave W]

Another slam at Gibson.

[BTL]

[...] Kindness is dead wrong. [...]

[Fender has] found what they believe to be the most market friendly level of copying. But if they really wanted to start reclaiming exclusivity, they have a path to do so (at great expense).

I suspect he has knowledge of the "path to do so", either directly or in having pursued a similar strategy for a client.

Regardless, I have known him for more than a decade, and he doesn't make statements like these lightly. 

[westen44]

Finally, a solution.

[BTL]

Here's a little more from Kindness on the Fender body shapes:

If Fender wanted to reassert itself, it could. It would start by attacking the small makers, piling up settlement agreements demonstrating its enforcement. It could successively outspend more competitors, clear the tables, and reclaim the marks. It would take a lot of time and money, but it is possible.

As we have seen in Gibson's case, there would be potential blowback if Fender followed this path, but this road is open to them at any time.

[Basvarken]

I wonder if Gibson realises that Slash used a copy Les Paul back in the heyday of GnR?
It was that very copy that helped pull the Gibson Les Paul out of the swamps...

[Dave W]

Here's a little more from Kindness on the Fender body shapes:

Quote from: Kindness
If Fender wanted to reassert itself, it could. It would start by attacking the small makers, piling up settlement agreements demonstrating its enforcement. It could successively outspend more competitors, clear the tables, and reclaim the marks. It would take a lot of time and money, but it is possible.

As we have seen in Gibson's case, there would be potential blowback if Fender followed this path, but this road is open to them at any time.

No, they can't reclaim the marks, because they never had the marks to begin with. They applied in 2003, and in 2004 the USPTO published for opposition, which means that the trademarks will be approved if there are no objections within the 30 day opposition period. But there was opposition, from the consortium of builders, and after 5 years, the TTAB denied registration to Fender. It's all there in the top section of the file I linked to earlier.

There's nothing for Fender to reclaim. TTAB's decisions can be appealed in federal court, but the deadline for that was 10 years ago, and since then, the Supreme Court has ruled that TTAB's decisions in likelihood of confusion cases can't be overturned.

He's wrong.

[BTL]

[...] He's wrong.

That's certainly possible, and I admit I was caught off guard by his perspective on the issue.

[Chris P.]

So Gibson openend a website now, so people can report fakes?

[Dave W]

So Gibson openend a website now, so people can report fakes?

No, it's a page on their website that's been there for several years now. Nothing new about that.

The problem (IMHO) is that Gibson is now claiming that any Gibson shape made by anyone else is a counterfeit. That's just not true. If it doesn't claim to be a Gibson, it's not counterfeit,