👕 Get New Ernie Ball Merch Now!
  • Ernie Ball
  • Music Man
  • Sterling by Music Man
Majesty Premium Select

4+2 Patent violation???

beej said:
Possibly- looks like they're in Germany so outside of the US trademark. I'll pass it on. Thanks!
Click to expand...
I'm unfamiliar with patent laws. Even if they're outside of US trademark, I assume EBMM can block import of those guitars if they're found to be in violation?
 
You can't enforce a trademark outside of the region where it's registered. (No idea if EBMM has international trademarks.)

You could probably block imports from an infringing party, but this looks like a small manufacturer so you'd never even know when one crossed the border.

Anyhow, I'll pass it on to those in the know.
 
To me it looks like there is enough of an effort made with that little hexagonal shape to the end of the headstock to distinguish it from EBMM's headstock.

As far as anything consisting of "4 over 2" as a trademark/patent/whatever-- I think that's getting into areas where functionality of basic design can be restricted from future builders in a manner that is unfair. Can anybody patent an inline 6 or a 3+3? No. There are only so many combinations in which 6 tuners can be arranged on a headstock-- and maintaining straight string pull limits a builder's options even more. Trademark elements are one thing-- a patent concerning function would be another-- Not a lawyer though.

I also am a happy owner/player of several instruments built by another family owned California based company. One of my gripes about their recent range of instruments is their headstock choice designs seem so generic as to avoid lawsuits that I find most of their current headstock designs lame and unappealing. Fortunately, this gave me the opportunity to buy a few of their headless guitars and I love them. I never thought I'd go back to playing traditional/headstock guitars-- but for several reasons, I have returned to instruments with headstocks, hence my new love of EBMM instruments.

But one of this other company's headstocks is a 2+4 design. Fair enough right? And they are very adamant that they will not allow a reverse of this design-- for obvious lawsuit reasons. So I was surprised when I would see the Goldie and some of the Steve Morse guitars with a 2 over 4 headstock. I'll keep my opinion of that to myself (though they do look cool and I'd love to own a Goldie someday.) I am a fan of both companies and I'm just pointing it out.

I have always dug the EBMM headstock in terms of style and function. In addition to making great looking instruments, EBMM to me has the best aesthetics in terms of logo and font design, website photos/videos and even website design and layout itself. Great sense of style. This is something that other companies could benefit a lot from emulating.

Also those STS guitars are pretty cool looking.
 
Last edited:
For anyone that's curious, trademarks and patents are two different IP assets. Trademarks are what most guitar companies are looking to protect - more specifically, trade dress. Rights in a design like a headstock, like any trademark, is gained through use so that people associate a particular design with a single source (EBMM, in this case). Rights in a trademark generally persist as long as you keep using them. International enforcement isn't out of the question; when dealing with trademarks, a body of treaties informally called the Madrid protocol allows for relatively easy claiming and enforcement of trademarks in participating foreign jurisdictions. Note that enforcement usually (but not always) requires some form of litigation. If the alleged offender is only selling in a foreign country, that means finding local counsel in that country to file suit. If, however, the offender tries to import the offending products into the US, you can usually take action to stop it here. The (US) standard for whether an accused usage is infringing is likelihood of confusion - so if you put the two headstocks side by side, would a typical consumer be confused as to the source? Or to put another way, would a typical consumer think the offending design was made by EBMM?

Patents, on the other hand, are granted for only a limited term and come in two flavors: utility and design. Design patents protect the aesthetic appearance of something, and are valid for 14 years. EBMM could have filed for a design patent on the headstock, but I don't think they did - if they did, it would have expired years ago, and they couldn't file at this point.

Important to trademarks and design patents is you can't protect functional aspects using either of those IP types. To the extent a 4+2/2+4 headstock design offers performance advantages, you couldn't enforce a trademark against it. For this reason, generally trademark protection for guitar headstocks is limited to the shape. You can protect functional aspects using utility patents, but that's a whole different discussion.
 
Again either way those things are hideous and when I see IP I automatically think Internet Protocol since thats part of my everyday job :)
 
Sweat said:
Again either way those things are hideous and when I see IP I automatically think Internet Protocol since thats part of my everyday job :)
Click to expand...
I used to think that too, coming out of my undergrad. Now, I think intellectual property, thanks to my day job.
 
Glenn, thanks for posting that link to the patent/trademark info. I had a little look into the few times when EBMM filed suits against other companies for infringing on their designs-- and I looked up those instruments to see what they looked like. Very interesting stuff for anyone curious about knock-offs. The knock off Valentine was pretty blatant.

reverb.com

Custom Build (Thin The Herd Guitars) FatBoy ShortHorn FatBoy ShortHorn Charcoal Black | Reverb

Custom Build FatBoy Shorthorn. (Made in Austin, TX) Ash body, hardtail beast. Beautiful ash grain just shows through Midnight stainmodern C Neck profile. Bone nut. Beautiful Flaming on Neck Custom Build Guitarz - Valentine Model. Similar to a Music Man - Valentine Model. UP...
reverb.com reverb.com
 
I'm not really sure how close it has to be for it to count. The trademark clearly mentions the arrangement of the "instrument string posts and tuning keys".

I do however remember the Gibson / PRS lawsuit, and in that case it came down to whether the two could be confused at the point of sale, to which Gibson's lawyer had to admit was highly unlikely. Most of the other headstock trademark stuff I have seen related to the shape, not the tuning key arrangement.

The cases I have seen where EBMM took legal action seem to have been when the headstock was a completely copy, like the Warmoth necks.
 
tbonesullivan said:
I'm not really sure how close it has to be for it to count. The trademark clearly mentions the arrangement of the "instrument string posts and tuning keys".

I do however remember the Gibson / PRS lawsuit, and in that case it came down to whether the two could be confused at the point of sale, to which Gibson's lawyer had to admit was highly unlikely. Most of the other headstock trademark stuff I have seen related to the shape, not the tuning key arrangement.

The cases I have seen where EBMM took legal action seem to have been when the headstock was a completely copy, like the Warmoth necks.
Click to expand...
The legal standard is likelihood of confusion, which is very fact-driven. Courts have established a list of factors to be considered and weighed when determining infringement, but no one factor is controlling, and there's no set rule that says if x number of factors are met, then there's infringement. That means there isn't a bright line for whether something infringes. Evidence in such cases typically comes in the form of surveys, which themselves raise a host of questions.

As for tuner arrangement, that's harder to get considered, as tuner arrangement at least implicates functional aspects (as I mentioned above, functional aspects cannot be trademarked). To put it another way, you'd have to show that a particular tuner arrangement is purely aesthetic, AND that it is identified only with a particular manufacturer. Trademarks only are protectable insofar as they associate a single source or origin with a particular design. With reference to the Gibson/PRS suit, a 3+3 arrangement by itself isn't going to be protectable under trademark law, simply because such an arrangement has been done by countless numbers of luthiers over the centuries (for that matter, every string instrument ever...), but the shape of the headstock can be. Consider Fender's past lawsuits - the inline 6 arrangement of tuners isn't protectable (again, many companies have such an arrangement), but Fender's specific headstock shapes for the Strat and Tele are, particularly since such shapes are purely aesthetic.

With respect to EBMM, the 4+2/2+4 may stand a shot at being part of the trademark, provided that there isn't a unique functional advantage offered by the arrangement, and people only associate the 4+2 pattern with EBMM. However, there's also the problem that the tuner arrangement is registered in the context of a particular headstock shape, so someone could come up with a 4+2 design with a clearly different shaped headstock and arguably not infringe. Trademark law doesn't generally let trademark owners divorce one part of a design from its overall context and claim infringement.
 
JoeTam said:
Carvin/Kiesel actually had to change their 4+2 headstock to be 2+4. They will no longer do the 4+2 at all.
Click to expand...
Yes I've seen the 2+4 configuration. I had never seen them have a 4+2 personally.

Glenn |B)
 
Around 17:22, the builder is talking about that he is using 2+4 because Music Man will not allow him 4+2
Unfortunately (for you) it´s in german. So I guess he is aware of the legal situation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Baritone Ukulele Strings
Back
Top