Major Gouge
Moderator: Wiz Feinberg
-
erik
- Posts: 2018
- Joined: 7 Mar 2000 1:01 am
Major Gouge
I received an official looking form in the mail the other day. It had my two pending service marks typed on it with a bill for like $720. At first i thought it was from the USPTO. Then after reading it i find it is some rip-off company telling me they will monitor my marks electronically for $360 each a year. This is laughable because anyone can do this for free at the USPTO website. What a bunch of scammers.
-
Rich Paton
- Posts: 708
- Joined: 3 Dec 1999 1:01 am
- Location: Santa Maria, CA.,
-
erik
- Posts: 2018
- Joined: 7 Mar 2000 1:01 am
Hi Rich,
They say they will electronically monitor trademarks (or service marks) for potential infringement. But, anyone can do this. All you have to do is type in derivatives of your mark in the uspto search engine and you see all applications pending. It takes so long to even get published for challenge that you would only have to check every three months. Protecting against an actual "mark" would be difficult. I don't know how that service could monitor those.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by erik on 17 February 2001 at 04:55 PM.]</p></FONT>
They say they will electronically monitor trademarks (or service marks) for potential infringement. But, anyone can do this. All you have to do is type in derivatives of your mark in the uspto search engine and you see all applications pending. It takes so long to even get published for challenge that you would only have to check every three months. Protecting against an actual "mark" would be difficult. I don't know how that service could monitor those.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by erik on 17 February 2001 at 04:55 PM.]</p></FONT>
-
Rich Paton
- Posts: 708
- Joined: 3 Dec 1999 1:01 am
- Location: Santa Maria, CA.,
I think it realistically takes a lot of ears, eyes, noses, and throats to be apprised of those "real world" violations"
Several years ago, I met an excellent luthier at a vintage guitar show. Among other models and custom instruments, he was making Telecaster type guitars, and they were some of the finest examples of the type I've seen. He had even developed the designs, methods, & tooling to produce set-neck versions of guitars that were, outside of similar craftsmen, only produced with bolted necks.
It is my understanding that he main trademarked characteristic of the Fenders is the headstock shape, which they enforce quite vigorously. There is a margin of variation from the original shapes which is not to be exceeded, and this determines whether a copy is deemed legal or not legal to sell.
While we were indulging in guitarspeak at the show, he pointed out to me the presense of a Fender legal team, which was in the process of documenting, photographing and videotaping many "copies" of their guitars which were for sale there.
This savvy builder had already "been around that block", and had ethically and legally complied with these issues when designing his products. Kept him out of hot water too, BTW!
In a gesture which through a strange twist of fate later backfired, I suggested that he advertise in the excellent "Vintage Guitar Magazine". When this later done, the ad (which referred to "Tel*" and "Str*t" types) put him in jeapordy, because somehow the layout service he used had omitted the disclaimer "Tel*" is a registered trademark of the F.M.I. Corp. etc. etc.
Long story short, this oversight came to cause him a great deal of grief and also involved significant financial ramifications.
I think you can easily figure out why.
Moral of the story: 99 44/100% of the world's best luthiers are not attorneys, and not fully versed in all the aspects of that side of the 'biz.
C.Y.A., dot all "i"s, cross all "t"s, and spend a few hundred for an attorney, to check it all out. Grief is not a fun item! Gainful employment is!
Several years ago, I met an excellent luthier at a vintage guitar show. Among other models and custom instruments, he was making Telecaster type guitars, and they were some of the finest examples of the type I've seen. He had even developed the designs, methods, & tooling to produce set-neck versions of guitars that were, outside of similar craftsmen, only produced with bolted necks.
It is my understanding that he main trademarked characteristic of the Fenders is the headstock shape, which they enforce quite vigorously. There is a margin of variation from the original shapes which is not to be exceeded, and this determines whether a copy is deemed legal or not legal to sell.
While we were indulging in guitarspeak at the show, he pointed out to me the presense of a Fender legal team, which was in the process of documenting, photographing and videotaping many "copies" of their guitars which were for sale there.
This savvy builder had already "been around that block", and had ethically and legally complied with these issues when designing his products. Kept him out of hot water too, BTW!
In a gesture which through a strange twist of fate later backfired, I suggested that he advertise in the excellent "Vintage Guitar Magazine". When this later done, the ad (which referred to "Tel*" and "Str*t" types) put him in jeapordy, because somehow the layout service he used had omitted the disclaimer "Tel*" is a registered trademark of the F.M.I. Corp. etc. etc.
Long story short, this oversight came to cause him a great deal of grief and also involved significant financial ramifications.
I think you can easily figure out why.
Moral of the story: 99 44/100% of the world's best luthiers are not attorneys, and not fully versed in all the aspects of that side of the 'biz.
C.Y.A., dot all "i"s, cross all "t"s, and spend a few hundred for an attorney, to check it all out. Grief is not a fun item! Gainful employment is!