Oh, Wonderdog!

[bkrumme]

ywho's to say that fender couldn't have trademarked the six in a row.

They could have, but didn't. Hence they don't have protection against others using the 6 in line style. Had they trademarked it, they would be the only ones who could use it or they could license it to others.

i think many people in the guitar community and guitar builders alike would side with me.

I'm not so sure they would. What would happen if a new luthier came up with a specific design for a body shape, then trademarked it? They would have exclusive rights to that trademark and could enforce it. Wouldn't they want to be the only ones who could make it? I would think so.

What you're saying is they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Thanks for stirring the pot with your opinion, but your point is moot. Can we move on now?

 

[ShaneV]

Just don't feed the troll and he'll wander off for greener pastures.

 

[GHWelles]

GONE: I filed a trademark infringment complaint with E-bay, and the listing has been removed. Another one bites the dust.

And the 4+2 Trademark can't be challenged in court, it has become legally incontestable after long use.

 

[peterd79]

nothing like a noob trying to start a keyboard fight...

Razor- we are all here because we stand behind a product that we love and use on a daily basis and enjoy the friendships we have established over the years. This is a great place to hang out and wouldn't suggest making your first few post argumentative. Sure you are entitled to your opinion, but WONDERDOG is correct and there are laws in place to help companies protect their designs.

 

[Jack FFR1846]

although, i don't expect most of you people on this board to understand what i'm talking about, just because a lot of you are blind fanbois to this argument anyways.

I don't understand your issue. A trademark is a government agency grant allowing exclusive use of said trademark. Go browse USPTO.gov. Here's one music man "guys" trademark that is used today:
Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

It's not made up. If indeed Fender trademarked the 6 in a row tuners, and defended their trademark over the years (a requirement), nobody else would be able to use it.

A trademark is similar to a patent in some ways. None of us on the forum made this stuff up. You don't automatically "get" a trademark without doing the search of prior art and filing and prosicuting the trademark. It's a similar procedure to filing for a patent.

 

[scottfletcher]

GONE: I filed a trademark infringment complaint with E-bay, and the listing has been removed. Another one bites the dust.

And the 4+2 Trademark can't be challenged in court, it has become legally incontestable after long use.

Hmmm, .....................interesting. This is interesting considering the fact that music man guitars were NOT the first guitar with a 4 + 2. I could name 3 guitar companies using it dating as far back as the 1960's with a 4 + 2 tuner configuration just off the top of my head. And their have been many more since then. I would bet most people don't know that. Especially the younger generation. The USPTO make mistakes all the time giving out marks that should of never been awarded due to lack of proper deep research !!

 

[balance]

Hmmm, .....................interesting. This is interesting considering the fact that music man guitars were NOT the first guitar with a 4 + 2. I could name 3 guitar companies using it dating as far back as the 1960's with a 4 + 2 tuner configuration just off the top of my head. And their have been many more since then. I would bet most people don't know that. Especially the younger generation. The USPTO make mistakes all the time giving out marks that should of never been awarded due to lack of proper deep research !!

You can debate endlessly about whether or not it should have been awarded (which you probably won't find many to agree with you on that), but it was awarded and that needs to be respected. Period.

 

[koogie2k]

Hmmm, .....................interesting. This is interesting considering the fact that music man guitars were NOT the first guitar with a 4 + 2. I could name 3 guitar companies using it dating as far back as the 1960's with a 4 + 2 tuner configuration just off the top of my head. And their have been many more since then. I would bet most people don't know that. Especially the younger generation. The USPTO make mistakes all the time giving out marks that should of never been awarded due to lack of proper deep research !!

I agree to a point, but, if those companies never filed...they missed out. Who's fault would that be...not EBMM's and they have the TM and enforce it. To me it is a cut and dry thing. But again, I am no lawyer and just soldier on.

 

[batyak]

Hey guys! I've just seen this thread and have been having a debate with my lady and was wondering, purely out of curiousity as I have no intention of EVER doing this, but does the 4+2 trademark also cover home made guitars? By home made I mean from carving out your own body shape to shaping the neck, it would be great to know the answer so I know weather either me or the lady is right on this matter! Many thanks!

 

[Big Poppa]

YOu know a tiny bit of knowledge in trademark law makes you really sound foolish to someone who knows alot about it. And with that this is closed.