Who knows about liscencing (jcyphe, I'm looking at you :) )

mezzio13 · Post by **mezzio13** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:20 pm

What do companies like Eastwood do when they make those old National replicas? (or other similar instances)

mezzio13 · Post by **mezzio13** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:21 pm

oops, wrong forum, moved

Fran · Post by **Fran** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:56 pm

n00b.

jcyphe · Post by **jcyphe** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:08 pm

I have no idea what Eastwood did. I do know that if nobody actually owns the company anymore you can just start using the name and trademark it for yourself(legal but DURTY?). Again I am not saying that's what Eastwood did but I have seen others in the guitar world simply trademark a product name as their own because there was nobody around to stop them.

The guy who made the re-issue Harmonic Percolator pedal did this. He claims to have done this to "protect the legacy" of the original product.

That National Company is still around in name making resophonics and pre-dates these Eastwood Airlines so i don't know if Eastwood has ever used the name National in their descriptions and product names or just Airline. The National Company itself re-appeared in the 1980's so I have no idea if there is any linear history to the old company.

Eastwood did come out with an Airline amp also so it seems like they're secure in using that name but I have no idea what the deal is behind it, if there is any.

Airline was a Montgomery Ward's label much like Silvertone was to Sears and different companies made guitars for them to sell. Those Supro and Airline guitars were made by a company called Valco.

Will · Post by **Will** » Mon Jul 27, 2009 9:49 pm

I know Eastwood just bought the rights to the "Valco" name for a new pickup reissue. I can't imagine it costs much to buy the name, given the company hasn't really made anything since the 70s.

mezzio13 · Post by **mezzio13** » Wed Jul 29, 2009 6:12 pm

I figured it was something of that nature. Eastwood did mostly drop those H44's when National unveiled the same model at NAMM, although they still offer that model in a reduced capacity. Thanks.

Fuck you Fran

astro · Post by **astro** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:10 am

I had no idea that something could be re-trademarked after it fell into the public domain. I thought once a trademark expired it was public domain for good... or does that just apply to copyrights? Can anyone re-trademark anything that's expired, or only under certain conditions? (e.g., if the original trademark owner is dead and has no heirs)

mezzio13 · Post by **mezzio13** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:32 am

Technically, I don't think you can trade mark a shape, although there things like trade dress to help in that market. I mean how many Strat/Tele?SG/LP copies are there that don't get pulled from the market. Even that Gibson vs. PRS lawsuit said that there are bound to be similarities, and the main reason Gibson even went after PRS was that PRS offered a similar product of the same expected quality level in the same price range. Granted, that's over simplifying things, but... you know...

Mo Law-ka · Post by **Mo Law-ka** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:43 am

recently, there was that big lawsuit, where fender tried to copyright the strat and tele body shapes.
they failed, because the shapes were "too generic"

jcyphe · Post by **jcyphe** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:45 am

astro wrote:I had no idea that something could be re-trademarked after it fell into the public domain. I thought once a trademark expired it was public domain for good... or does that just apply to copyrights? Can anyone re-trademark anything that's expired, or only under certain conditions? (e.g., if the original trademark owner is dead and has no heirs)

It's not automatically public domain you're thinking of patents which expire, sometimes copyrights in some media also expire but that takes ages.

You can certainly trademark a shape and logo. For instance the golden arches. A fast food company couldn't have Golden Arches and say we're Archies not McDonalds. That would be trademark infringement. The thing with the Fender case was that other people were arguing Fender had never kept it as a trademark and it became public domain by virtue of the shapes being ubiquitous for years and years and Fender doing nothing about it. Fender actually kept the names Stratocaster and Telecaster registered or trademarked but not the actual shapes. Thatâ€™s why you always see people give legal notice that those names belong to the Fender Company so they donâ€™t get sued.

In the 80s or early 90's Gibson was very smart and trademarked the Les Paul shape and being pre-internet days nobody opposed. So you can't copy the actual dimension of a Les Paul. The PRS single cut didn't have the dimensions of the Les Paul, what Gibson was arguing there was that it was causing confusion in the marketplace due to its similar appearance. It was a ridiculous lawsuit that Gibson initially won on what essentially was their home court Tennessee and then got tossed later on appeal.

astro · Post by **astro** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:54 am

jcyphe wrote:
astro wrote:I had no idea that something could be re-trademarked after it fell into the public domain. I thought once a trademark expired it was public domain for good... or does that just apply to copyrights? Can anyone re-trademark anything that's expired, or only under certain conditions? (e.g., if the original trademark owner is dead and has no heirs)
It's not automatically public domain you're thinking of patents which expire, sometimes copyrights in some media also expire but that takes ages.

You can certainly trademark a shape and logo. For instance the golden arches. A fast food company couldn't have Golden Arches and say we're Archies not McDonalds. That would be trademark infringement. The thing with the Fender case was that other people were arguing Fender had never kept it as a trademark and it became public domain by virtue of the shapes being ubiquitous for years and years and Fender doing nothing about it. Fender actually kept the names Stratocaster and Telecaster registered or trademarked but not the actual shapes. Thatâ€™s why you always see people give legal notice that does names belong to the Fender Company so they donâ€™t get sued.

In the 80s or early 90's Gibson was very smart and trademarked the Les Paul shape and being pre-internet days nobody opposed. So you can't copy the actual dimension of a Les Paul. The PRS single cut didn't have the dimensions of the Les Paul, what Gibson was arguing there was that it was causing confusion in the marketplace due to its similar appearance. It was a ridiculous lawsuit that Gibson initially won on what essentially was their home court Tennessee and then got tossed later on appeal.

That's quite interesting. I wonder why Fender never bothered to trademark the body shapes during the "lawsuit era" of 70's Japanese clones? My understanding of the "lawsuit" era was that the Gibson and Fender headstocks were trademarked (or copyrighted? I'm not clear when someone would use one instead of another) and that's why the Japanese had to change the pegheads on their export guitars. Interesting also that Gibson managed to trademark the LP... when you think about it, the LP shape is a pretty standard guitar shape, historically speaking (except the not-hollow part) whereas the Fender shapes were much more radical in their day.

Your McDonalds example reminds me of a restaurant in the town I grew up in. They were a McDonalds ripoff, they had the arches logo (the same, except red) and they called themselves "Munchies". Their menu was full of McDee's knock-offs: the "Big Munch", the "Egg-Munch-Muffin",etc. Needless to say, they didn't exist for very long since they were sued out of existence by McDonalds within months of opening. You'd think they would have seen that coming...

laterallateral · Post by **laterallateral** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:38 am

I actually came across a couple of Eastwood "Airline" models at the guitar shop today.
I can't be 100% sure because I only saw it breifly but one of the models seemed to have the National sheild logo printed on the pickguard.

Could it be possible that National is in some capacity, working in partnership with Eastwood on these therefore, allowing both brand names to appear on the guitar?

laterallateral · Post by **laterallateral** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:41 am

Ooops, nevermind...
It was one of these guys and that's not the National sheild

astro · Post by **astro** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:45 am

laterallateral wrote:I actually came across a couple of Eastwood "Airline" models at the guitar shop today.
I can't be 100% sure because I only saw it breifly but one of the models seemed to have the National sheild logo printed on the pickguard.

Could it be possible that National is in some capacity, working in partnership with Eastwood on these therefore, allowing both brand names to appear on the guitar?

I'm guessing they licensed the logo to Eastwood? Could be like how Fender USA licenses their designs (and name) to Fender Japan, which IIRC is an independant company. Also, I think Dean did this for a while with Washburn, who made their own official version of the Dimebag Daryl signature pointy guitar. The headstock even had "Washburn" written in the way that Dean usually do their logo, complete with the wings.

laterallateral · Post by **laterallateral** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:55 am

Yeah, that's kind of in line with what I was thinking... Since National is only producing resonators now and that they might not have the facilities, equipment or personnel required to build electrics anymore, having their designs live on under another manufacturer might be beneficial in the promoting and in keeping their own brand name in the collective consciousness.

jcyphe · Post by **jcyphe** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:15 am

astro wrote:
That's quite interesting. I wonder why Fender never bothered to trademark the body shapes during the "lawsuit era" of 70's Japanese clones? My understanding of the "lawsuit" era was that the Gibson and Fender headstocks were trademarked (or copyrighted? I'm not clear when someone would use one instead of another) and that's why the Japanese had to change the pegheads on their export guitars. Interesting also that Gibson managed to trademark the LP... when you think about it, the LP shape is a pretty standard guitar shape, historically speaking (except the not-hollow part) whereas the Fender shapes were much more radical in their day.

As far as shape the Strat shape is by far the most produced electric guitar shape of all-time there is not even a close second, the tele and Les Paul probably don't even come close combined.

The "Lawsuit Era" is a total misnomer mostly said by a lot of Japanese guitar collectors and enthusiast to hype them up. There was actually very little legal action with the Japanese makers. Fender enforced the trademark on their headstock once they became aware of the Japanese clones and later cut a deal with some of those same factories in a smart move to have the Fender Japan brand. Also any legal action there was from what I remember actually had to do with logo and the placement of logos.

In Japan they still copy these instruments however they want. None of their trademarks apply over there. That's why Fender was brilliant for starting Fender Japan. Gibson did an Orville brand with less success and had Epiphone Japan as well. When it comes to purchasing a Gibson style instrument the Japanese customer prefers a USA made Gibson even for new instruments. That is somewhat true for Fender but not as much.

A logo is not patent or copyright. A logo is a trademark and Fender has always maintained their trademark on headstock and logos when they become aware of them being copied.

I think Fender actually did patent one body shape being the Jazzmaster but that was because Leo claimed the actual shape was a design function, that's why it was eligible for a patent.

mezzio13 · Post by **mezzio13** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:24 pm

jcyphe wrote:You can certainly trademark a shape and logo.

oops, you can't copyright a shape. That is what a trademark is in the first place. Thanks for spotting that.

mezzio13 · Post by **mezzio13** » Thu Jul 30, 2009 3:29 pm

jcyphe wrote:the Japanese customer prefers a USA made Gibson even for new instruments

Or cardboard Epiphone copies, a la Gretchgirl...