• Ernie Ball
  • MusicMan
  • Sterling by MusicMan
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ludus

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
2
I am a musician for more than twenty years, due to the availability of information via the Internet, I decided to start making solid body electric guitar. Due to possible problems with the rights of original producers in connection with the shape of the guitar and headstock, I decided to make some of my own forms. But now I have a new problem: some of the headstock details that I wanted to produce apparently already owned by some firms. So, for example, reportedly Music Man company has rights to the distribution of tuners in a 4+2 orientation (setup)!? I understand that such form as the headstocks of Stratocaster, Les Paul, MM are by law protected, but that tuners position is protected, that's really new and really do not understand how someone thought that such a thing is allowed and by Law regulated. That is why I turn myself to users of this forum which I consider valuable source of right information, the question of whether this is true? Where luthiers would otherwise find the information whether and which form is protected to avoid problems with the law and lawsuits? Thank you for your answers. :confused:
 

paranoid70

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
2,647
Location
Long Beach, CA
reportedly Music Man company has rights to the distribution of tuners in a 4+2 orientation (setup)!?

That's my understanding, but I am certainly no expert. I remember being surprised by this as well - I didn't think that was something that could be trademarked or copyrighted.
 

mbgreene

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2004
Messages
2,556
Location
Rockland County, NY
Yes, the 4+2 headstock design (as well as the 3+1) is a federally registered trademark in the US and several other countries. It does not expire as long as it is not abandoned and appropriately defended as necessary when infringements are found, which EBMM has pursued vigilantly.

If you do a search referencing the trademark there are several threads where it is discussed by both Big Poppa and Wonderdog (EBMM's attorney)
 

straycat113

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
2,506
Location
Born and bred in Brooklyn NY
There was just a thread on this not to long ago as someone posted a picture of a guitar with a 4-2 headstock and I believe it was that it was from a country over seas or something to that nature. I am not positive but check the back post as I believe it was less than 2 months ago.

You are correct about Fender only protecting there headstocks and the judgement went against them just recently in court on the body shapes which were ruled as in the public domain so anyone can make a copy of there bodies. Then again the company was founded 70 years ago and I have no idea what they were thinking. Maybe there were only going to be a few companies making guitars, but geez you would think they would of had it the other way around. I am not so sure of Gibsons situation and what they have patented as they lost to PRS in court but I believe they did the same thing. Then again I never owned a Gibson in my life which is weird, so I do not know as much history on the company except that in my personal opinion I think they have serious problems these days, very serious!
 

Dante

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
922
Location
in Hell... with cows...
@ Ludus: you should contact the EBMM legal department and ask whether they are negotiating license deals for the 4+2 thing since there is at least one more relevant brand i can think of which is using it.

further, on this forum, there are only 4 ppl who know what they're talking about when it comes to legal stuff, and they haven't repplied here yet.
 

Colin

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
10,649
Location
Brisbane Queensland
let me get this straight, your consulting the internet for legal information? :p welcome btw this is a great forum, you should get a definitive answer here shortly :)
 

Ludus

New member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
2
Don't say!

@ Ludus: you should contact the EBMM legal department and ask whether they are negotiating license deals for the 4+2 thing since there is at least one more relevant brand i can think of which is using it.

further, on this forum, there are only 4 ppl who know what they're talking about when it comes to legal stuff, and they haven't repplied here yet.

Thank you dude, I think I'll do it as you proposed. I just designed really great headstock for guitars that match very well with 4+2 tuners setup, but it's just one of my creations that can wait for right decision from EBMM. In meantime I'll build classic 6-in-line before someone else buy rights for it too. Holding right for tuners setup is dumb idea IMO, to me it looks like Marshall hold rights on amps that have 2 or more speakers! By copyright to protect headstock or guitar body is OK, but this one with tuners setup is wicked. I simply can't believe that's true what you say but when few people say it - then probably there is a smoke (and maybe is fire around there).
 

ErlendDL

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
168
Location
Bergen, Norway
to me it looks like Marshall hold rights on amps that have 2 or more speakers!

Not to digress, bit doesn't seem that way to me... :p

ashABM410Cab.jpg

MarkBass_104HR-tn.jpg

MB-0.P410D.jpg


If they do, they have very lazy lawyers...:D
 

Big Poppa

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
18,598
Location
Coachella & SLO, California
He also thinks trademarks are dumb Ive answered his question. He wants to make a guitar with a 4+2 and I have told him that we have it as a registered trademark. Case closed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom