Fender vs. Gibson - First Thunderbird

[Chris P.]

I always wondered this:

I always heard Fender filed a lawsuit against Gibson in the '60s because the Firebird/Thunderbird was too much 'Fender'. Gibson stopped building it and made the non-reversed Bird... ... which looks more like a Jaguar/Jazzmaster than the first version.

In a Dutch guitar magazine, there's a translated story of Tony Bacon about Birds. He states that Fender was busy around that time to get patents on the Jazzmaster/Jaguar and that they didn't filed a lawsuit at all. But they did print ads about the Jag/Jazzmaster with 'the most copied design around' or something with a similar meaning. He also states Gibson made the nonrev because it just was cheaper to make. A bit less radical and no neck through.

Any opinions here?

[Dave W]

What Tony Bacon says makes sense to me.

Trademarks for "trade dress" didn't exist back then, so there was no such thing as suing someone for making something you consider confusingly similar. To prevent a competitor from copying, you would have to have a patent on a whole design or some unique feature. Gibson didn't clone the JM or Jag design (if it were patented in whole) and if any specific feature were patented (e.g., the floating vibrato or the separate tone circuit) Gibson didn't produce that either. And AFAIK there's no evidence of any suit being filed.

Besides, the non-reverse FB/TB design looks more like the JM/Jag design than original reverse design! Plus, construction of either type was different from Fender.

[eb2]

Gibson pushed the Firebirds and Thunderbirds to a decent degree, but that did not result in big sales.  They were pegged as a Gibson take on Fender stuff from the get go.  I have never seen any evidence of a lawsuit over them though.  They weren't bolt on necks - which was the big difference between the companies - but they were Fender ish.  The non reverse birds were more Fender looking but also far less involved to make, and embraced an off-the-shelf vibe as far as pups and tuners.  So in that sense they were more Fenderish than the earlier ones.  They were eventually popular, but neither version set the world on fire, no pun intended.

[uwe]

There was no lawsuit, but the Fender legal department wrote, but not so much for the body shape but for the 4-in-row headstock and the long scale. Compared to say, an EB-0 or -3 of the same era, those were indeed Fenderish. Of course the Non-Rev kept exactly those "Fenderisms" and made the  body shape even "Jagisher". But by that time the T-Birds had already failed commercially and Fender did not feel threatened anymore. I don't think the introduction of the Non-Rev had anything to do with Fender, it was the last-ditch effort to resurrect the concept of a dedicated long scale bass with Gibson after the Revs had failed commercially. And they were indeed cheaper to make.

[Dave W]

It must have been a feeble attempt by Fender's legal department. You can't patent or trademark a scale length. As for the inline headstock, there were no trade dress trademarks back then, and while Fender did get patents on some of their whole instruments, the physical layout of one feature by itself wouldn't qualify (not to mention the prior art by Paul Bigsby).

[uwe]

I can understand that Fender's attention jumped when their main competitor with 10 years of avowed only-short-scale tradition suddenly comes up with a Fender scale bass and markets it as the up-scale model to discerning jazz musicians. Not that the T- and Firebirds really conquered the Jazz musician market. I doubt that Fender set an armada of lawyers on Gibson, from what I've heard the letter was more "you are a bunch of shameless copy cats and shouldn't we keep our respective products apart as they have always been?".

[Dave W]

If they really did send such a letter, then shame on them. I hate it when a company adopts stifling competition as a business model. It's a lot worse today.

[Chris P.]

In those old days it was a different world. Smaller companies, .. Didn't Fred Gretsch said to Gibson something about not stepping in to the solidbody market? They made instruments and not something simple as Fender did.

[dadagoboi]

I seriously doubt Fender said anything to Gibson about the Thunderbird.  Prove me wrong, please.

[Dave W]

I seriously doubt Fender said anything to Gibson about the Thunderbird.  Prove me wrong, please.

You'll get no argument from me. I think it's a myth.

[Denis]

I bet if anything was ever said between the two it was regarding the 4x1 tuner setup. And, if something WAS said, then Fender would have been obliged to tell Danelectro what they thought of THEIR 4x1 tuners.

[dadagoboi]

Fender's headstock is almost an exact copy of Paul Bigsby's.  I doubt they would have said anything about it.

[uwe]

I've heard "And Fender wrote a letter to Gibson because of the TBird" from many different sources, but urban myths can take a life of their own. Conceptually though, a TBird IV was much closer to a Jazz Bass than anything Gibson had done before and it was aimed at the same market Fender covered with their Jazz Bass - seasoned players that preferred a refined instrument and couls spend some money for it.

[Denis]

Fender's headstock is almost an exact copy of Paul Bigsby's.  I doubt they would have said anything about it.

And yet they said something to G&L about their first headstocks...

[dadagoboi]

And yet they said something to G&L about their first headstocks...

Fender was owned by CBS when that happened.