Rickenbacker sues Jason Lollar for trademark infringement

[Dave W]

It would be different if it Was his brand! He inherited rick thru his Dad who isn't his real dad at all. He was adopted! Your right though. He is a major bully.Hall is the worst kind of business owner! GREEDY!!

Please, no personal attacks. Of course it's his brand, he owns the company. Whether he bought or inherited it or whether or not he's adopted is completely beside the point.

The way the company chooses to do business is open to discussion.

[ilan]

He inherited rick thru his Dad

From what I know he bought it from his father.

[Denis]

How the company does it's business may be crappy, it may be par for the course for American business, but I have to say that when I visited the Ric Exchange here, the quality of the instruments was head and shoulders above Fender and Gibson. They are beautifully made.

And, if the company chooses as it's path to sue everyone for trademark infringement, they do it because the law says they can.

[Dave W]

...

And, if the company chooses as it's path to sue everyone for trademark infringement, they do it because the law says they can.

The law, as written, prohibits almost all trademarks on items that were previously patented. The law, as written, prohibits trade dress trademarks on items that have no "dress" apart from their function (The functionality doctrine). The Supreme Court has ruled that the existence of a prior patent is strong evidence of functionality.

One of Lollar's fellow pickup makers has accused RIC of fraud in their trademark application by omitting facts about the pickup's functionality and expired patent. I haven't seen the application so I can't say whether or not that's accurate. I do know that the trademark has passed the time period for contestability, but a trademark can still be cancelled if it can be shown that it was obtained under false pretenses. Whether or not Lollar has the will or the financial means to do this, I have no idea.

IMHO there's no way this is a legitimate trademark. To make matters worse, they don't even produce a real horseshoe pickup.

[Highlander]

... the quality of the instruments was head and shoulders above Fender and Gibson. They are beautifully made.

Not being a collector, per se, nor being a music shop hound, and only ever having held a Ric once (same day I bought my 12 string, which was paid for as a gift from M&D for my 21st, so a while back now), since being a post-pest here, that there can be "issues" with some of their instruments: 8 string springs to mind; glue-burst; neck-bow and truss rods; as quality goes I've never liked the look of their method of running the cable from the pup via a number of holes rather than a milled channel can only be said to be "cheap", not "quality" - what the eye does not see does not excuse this imho...

The only thing that surprised me with T'birds (and remember that I've never owned an "original" and only handled one once and that was the same day I picked up the Demetriou - an original T2) was the channel under the guard - PC's answer was to run a small channel along the edge of the lower "wing" - much neater.

I'd be much more concerned buying an old Ric than a Gibson or a Fender, regardless of the quality of the original build, and I seldom hear issues of neck-bow, or glue-migration - Fender's are "slabs" of wood; as Dave has said before, "If you can't do it with a P", etc. I'm aware of quality issues with Gibson (oops, there goes the head - the PC's head has gone through a 12" speaker and all I damaged was a machine, which proceeded to bend back by hitting it against the corner of the wall in the studio I was in ), and litigation from both, but...

[Psycho Bass Guy]

The only smart decision I've ever heard of Hall making was pulling Ric's from Guitar Center while I worked there for them selling the supposed-to-be-included, not "extra," cases separately from the instruments. Rickenbacker stopped selling through GC entirely and then refused to honor warrantees on any of them sold there. Even though previously stocked instruments were brand new, GC was required to sell them as used after that. This was just before GC began credit-leveraging (IOW blackmailing) their suppliers which ended up killing Mackie, SWR, and quite a few others. He saw the writing on the wall with that one.

[gearHed289]

I don't want this to come off as fan-boyish, because that's not my intention. Just offering mt perspective. I know they're kind of a wacky organization, but... I've owned, played, and held many Ric basses since 1978. With the exception of 2 bubbles that developed in the finish of one of mine, I never had a problem with any of them. And the bubble got me a complete refinish on a 2 year old instrument, completely free of charge. I have, however, heard a number of legitimate stories of issues ranging from bowed necks to exploding tailpieces. The vast majority of truss rod nightmares you hear about are do to "luthiers" who don't know how to adjust the old style rods. And I do know that customer service can be very hit or miss. JH seems like a somewhat eccentric character, but I like the fact that they've been a family owned company since the early 50s. I also admire the fact that they produce in low quantities rather than just cranking stuff out non-stop and relying on marketing to sell it. And I like that you always know what you're getting with a Ric - Made in USA! There's no "is it a Mexican/Korean/Chinese, etc, etc" model. There's no "faded finish" or "this one gets better QC than that one" nonsense.

Reading some of this stuff about trademarks and patents has me thinking that Hall's insistence that the horseshoes on the current re-issues actually affect the sound has something to do with protecting whatever right they have to the design. If it were me, I'd either make what the people want, or do a licensing deal with Lollar.

[Dave W]

Tom, I have no problem with RIC quality. Sure there are occasional problems, and there were some problems with old ones that have been corrected over the years, but for factory built guitars, their quality control is very good.

...,.

Reading some of this stuff about trademarks and patents has me thinking that Hall's insistence that the horseshoes on the current re-issues actually affect the sound has something to do with protecting whatever right they have to the design. If it were me, I'd either make what the people want, or do a licensing deal with Lollar.

The problem is that a pickup is functional, and they got a patent on it in 1937. Their exclusive right to the design ended when the patent expired half a century ago, and many other companies have made horseshoe pickups over the years since, mostly on lap steels.

As pickup maker Wolfe MacLeod has said elsewhere: It is exactly akin to inventing the wheel and patenting it. Then when the patent expired, trademarking the round shape of the wheel. Since a wheel will not roll smoothly unless it is round, you use Trademark law prevent anyone else from making a round wheel, despite your previous patent being expired.

[the mojo hobo]

The shoes on Ric's current pickup are not functional, so there might be a case for referring to them as trade dress. However Lollar's pickup's shoes are functional and should be covered under the expired patent. I would think anyone with one of each pickups and a bar of steel could readily demonstrate the difference.

[Dave W]

The shoes on Ric's current pickup are not functional, so there might be a case for referring to them as trade dress. However Lollar's pickup's shoes are functional and should be covered under the expired patent. I would think anyone with one of each pickups and a bar of steel could readily demonstrate the difference.

At one time John Hall claimed (at the RRF) that the shoes were functional in that they helped focus the magnetic field. Even if they aren't functional, it's irrelevant. You can't build a non-functional model of a functional item as a means of preventing others from using your expired patent.

[bobyoung]

At one time John Hall claimed (at the RRF) that the shoes were functional in that they helped focus the magnetic field. Even if they aren't functional, it's irrelevant. You can't build a non-functional model of a functional item as a means of preventing others from using your expired patent.

I took the shoes off two different V-63's and the sound did change a little, they were noisier and less full sounding but I couldn't play with the damn things in the way. I also think Rickenbacker has much better quality control than either Gibson and Fender, (that being said I still like em all!)

[Dave W]

There was a discussion of this at the TDPRI which has been revived because Rick Turner joined and made a couple of posts, which I'll quote here:


I was probably the first one to make a functional modern version of the double horseshoe pickup back in the mid 1990s for my Model T guitars. They were never a major thing for me, though I did get an editor's choice award and a great review from Tom Wheeler at Guitar Player (back then). I did get "the letter" from Rickenbacker about two years ago, and I just said "screw it"; I don't have the dough to get into a stupid pissing contest with John Hall. I've talked to Jason about this whole thing, and we both agree that Ric's assertion is utter and complete bull****. The horseshoes are part of the magnetic circuit whether they're horseshoe magnets with cut off nails as polepieces (early Ric) or as I did, they're horseshoe polepieces magnetized by Alico magnets in the bobbin...as I did.

It's basically a fraudulent use of trade mark/trade dress. And it's petty as hell since you just really can't get real horseshoe pickups from Rickenbacker.

John and Henry would make a good couple...

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

I've been in touch with Jason, and I told him that I'd be happy to write a letter, give a deposition, whatever as an "expert witness" in this case.

Rickenbacker is acting much akin to the patent trolls who are losing cases these days. This is a trademark/trade dress troll case.

It also shows, unfortunately, that someone or a lot of someones at Rickenbacker doesn't/don't have a clue as to how the horseshoe pickups actually work. Maybe there aren't any real pickup designers there these days. Winding is one thing; knowing what you're winding is another! It's not about a look, it's about a function...shaping the magnetic field in which the strings vibrate and also in conducting of the flux variations through the horseshoes down to the lower turns of the coil, making the pickup very hot for the magnet strength and number of turns. These types of pickups (which would include the National/Supro style) are very efficient in delivering a lot of flux modulation to each turn of wire in the coil. It's a clever design that really delivered the goods back in 1933 and still sounds great today. It's also a design that can be carefully altered to take advantage of modern materials and still deliver that huge bell-like sound. But you do have to know what you're doing...