Question 4+2 Headstock copyright ???

[fbecir]

Hello

I believe that MusicMan owns a copyright for the 4+2 headstock. Thus, is this guitar legal ????

Wonderdog ? (this guitar can be found there :
:::: Nik Huber Guitars ::::)

 

[Hendog]

Did they really allow MM to copyright tuning machine placement???

 

[Sub1 Zero]

That looks like a pretty obvious ripoff to me. I don't believe it is the 4+2 principle that is copyrighted, but the over all headstock design is.

 

[lenny]

That looks like a pretty obvious ripoff to me. I don't believe it is the 4+2 principle that is copyrighted, but the over all headstock design is.

nope the 4+2 and the 3+1 ARE in fact copyrighted and patented.

 

[balance]

Wouldn't it be a trademark vs a copyright?

 

[Marcus2]

That looks like a guitar by the German luthier, Nik Huber.

He's got his own thing going on, and is highly respected. I don't think he's knocking off a MM guitar.

Marc

 

[glockaxis]

I didn't think it was universal, just a US Patent, but I could be wrong.

 

[lenny]

Im not a Lawyer ..just sorta put both out there ...all i do know is that whenever we see a 4+2 on Ebay ...Wonderdog gets it shut down ....and somehow they do own the 4+2 and 3+1 configuration and no one else can design a guitar with it...

 

[John C]

A new Nik Huber guitar with 4-2 headstock can't be legally imported to the USA; all Hubers legally imported into the USA have a standard 3-3 headstock design. I believe EBMM sent a cease and desist letter to Huber 4-6 years ago about the 4-2 headstock design due to their trademark. I'm sure either Wonderdog or BP will correct me, but I believe the patent on the headstock designs (both 4-2 for guitars and 3-1 for basses) would have expired since they run 17 years.

Another Nik Huber "fun fact" - one of his European "trademarks" (as in a key styling point that he uses, not a legal right to use) is Dolphin inlays. Because Robin Guitars owns the legal trademark on Dolphin inlays in the USA Huber can't put dolphin inlays on the fingerboard of their Dolphin guitars shipped to the USA. I've played a couple of Hubers; they are phenomenal guitars (and cost a phenomenal amount in US dollars) but he is a two-time loser in dealing with USA trademarks.

EDIT: I just went through the Huber website; only that photo of the "Bolt" model still has the old Huber 4-2 headstock; all other photos have the 3-3 headstock so maybe Huber made a global change. There are a few of the early 4-2 headstocks still out there.

 

[jamminjim]

What is copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.

How is a copyright different from a patent or a trademark?
Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.

ref:US Copyright office

does this help you guys figure it out?

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright in General (FAQ)

 

[John C]

What is copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection grounded in the U.S. Constitution and granted by law for original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. Copyright covers both published and unpublished works.

How is a copyright different from a patent or a trademark?
Copyright protects original works of authorship, while a patent protects inventions or discoveries. Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law, although the way in which they are expressed may be. A trademark protects words, phrases, symbols, or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others.

ref:US Copyright office

does this help you guys figure it out?

U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright in General (FAQ)

One thing that jamminjim left out about Trademarks vs. Patents - Patents only grant an exlusive right to use for a finite time; Trademarks (and Trade Dress - yes I read a lot of info on the PRS vs. Gibson lawsuits ), once granted, do not expire.

 

[Big Poppa]

it is a registered trademark in the us and other countries and has not expired.

 

[John C]

it is a registered trademark in the us and other countries and has not expired.

Aha - I knew you had a USA Trademark and wasn't sure if you had international ones (but I should have known; you're definitely on top of these issues).

You might have Wonderdog get Nik update his webpage and put up a Bolt model with his current headstock shape - that's the only remaining image of a guitar with a 4-2 headstock on his site.

 

[metalmarty]

EDIT: thanks heka313, forgot about that post, mail redirected to EBMM.

 

[heka313]

Quote from LawDaddy (posted in similar thread before):

***

Hey guys, I am an intellectual property lawyer, a registered patent attorney to be exact. I am not associated with EBMM in any way so I will not opine on the issues raised here.

However, I have seen comments from threads like this used in legal proceedings before. I have had to deal with comment threads in patent cases, so I feel compelled to make one small point.

The comments here by EBMM's customers here could be found relevant in a trade mark/trade dress proceeding, and a seemingly harmless bit of speculation by a forum member regarding what a particular poster deemed protectable/not protectable/silly etc. could come back to haunt EBMM at some point, and cost BP lots of $$$ to have his attorneys explain it in court someday.

Accordingly, I would encourage forum members to refrain from random lay speculation on legal matters, and leave the enforcement efforts to EBMM's esteemed counsel.

Hope this helps,

-Tim

***

I think it's a good thing to inform EBMM about these, but this public forum isn't the correct place.

 

[cjl5150]

Quote from LawDaddy (posted in similar thread before):

***

Hey guys, I am an intellectual property lawyer, a registered patent attorney to be exact. I am not associated with EBMM in any way so I will not opine on the issues raised here.

However, I have seen comments from threads like this used in legal proceedings before. I have had to deal with comment threads in patent cases, so I feel compelled to make one small point.

The comments here by EBMM's customers here could be found relevant in a trade mark/trade dress proceeding, and a seemingly harmless bit of speculation by a forum member regarding what a particular poster deemed protectable/not protectable/silly etc. could come back to haunt EBMM at some point, and cost BP lots of $$$ to have his attorneys explain it in court someday.

Accordingly, I would encourage forum members to refrain from random lay speculation on legal matters, and leave the enforcement efforts to EBMM's esteemed counsel.

Hope this helps,

-Tim

***

I think it's a good thing to inform EBMM about these, but this public forum isn't the correct place.

I disagree completely. This is absolutely the appropriate place for this information. The issue is with the comments contained in the postings on this message board...or am I confused? So, why wouldn't this forum, where the members post these messages, not be the correct place?

 

[Dante]

I disagree completely. This is absolutely the appropriate place for this information. The issue is with the comments contained in the postings on this message board...or am I confused? So, why wouldn't this forum, where the members post these messages, not be the correct place?

for clarity:
it's ok to discuss the discussion itself, but NOT to issue self entitled comments.

if someone here were to say anything to which COULD be used to dispute EBMM's right to the trademark, it must be met with hard measures so that it isn't considered a form of "waiver". and thus, so that they (the mods) don't have to lock or delete endless threads, we are politely asked to stfu about things we have no professional understanding of.

 

[jamminjim]

One thing that jamminjim left out about Trademarks vs. Patents - Patents only grant an exlusive right to use for a finite time; Trademarks (and Trade Dress - yes I read a lot of info on the PRS vs. Gibson lawsuits ), once granted, do not expire.

John C. that statement about trademarks (trademark registration) may not be reliable, with respect to the USPTO.

From the USPTO (US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE)
Questions and Answers - USPTO- USPTO

open link above, clik on the "salmon colored "trademark" box near the top, find

"How long does a trademark registration last?" in the righthand column

What I get by reading the info is Trademark registrations have to be renewed.

 

[DrKev]

we are politely asked to stfu about things we have no professional understanding of

Good advice in any situation!


K

 

[jamminjim]

Dr Kev, I'm merely pointing out that there is excellent reference material at the pertinent government website for anyone in the world who is inclined to increase their knowledge of this particular subject. Further, I totally agree with Tim and his comments. Speaking out not-so-well-thought-out opinions on this subject, sometimes emotionally, and not based in fact what-so-ever is certainly controversial. I don' t feel my entries in this thread are what he was addressing. I did find the two trademark serial and registration numbers at the USPTO, one for the 3 + 1 and one for the 4 + 2 tuner placement designs for my own personal information and education. It was interesting to also see all of the Ernie Ball, Inc. trademarks, dead and alive. For some people such as myself this is an interesting subject. While I am not an attorney, I have completed business law classes for my degree in accounting.
Anyone that is inclined to obtain a trademark for his/her business should spend some time at USPTO website.
(or have lots of dough for their patent attorneys)