FEATURE
were not trying to do something to the disad-
vantage of the industry.”
Nevertheless, Fender fought for six years
before the United States Patent and
Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal
Board (TTAB) rendered its final decision in
March 2009. The trademarks were denied.
Quite simply, the TTAB said, the claim came
too late in the history of guitar building:
Fender, they concluded, “never policed the
body shape, only the word marks and head-
stock profiles. In addition, they never claimed
trademark rights in the body outlines publicly
through, for example, the catalogues, until
2004. In the meantime, many other guitar
manufacturers sold guitars with the identi-
cal body shapes for at least 30 years, either
as complete guitars or in the form of kits. In
view of the above, we find that opposers have
proven their claim that the applied-for con-
figurations are generic.”
Fender’s Van Vleet says the company “respect-
fully disagrees” with the ruling. “In our opin-
ion, the issue before the court was whether
or not consumers or prospective consumers
associate Fender being the source of those
two-dimensional shapes. And we had boxes
and boxes and roomfuls of evidence indicating
that, when consumers saw those designs, they
associated Fender as being the source.” Van
Vleet won’t specify any actions the company is
currently involved in against guitar makers for
other trademarks they do own, only that, in
general, “We will go after companies who we
believe are infringing—somebody who’s trying
to confuse the consumer out there between
what they’re doing and what we’re doing.”
The Right Stuff
Victorious attorney Bienstock spins last year’s
decision on the Fender case as an important
ruling on behalf of creative lutherie. “I fully
believed in the righteousness of the cause,”
he says. “We needed to have this result. This
was the right thing.”
But it still doesn’t seem that clear-cut. When
it comes to building upon other companies’
or individuals’ designs, luthiers are still bound
to ask “What’s safe, legally?” Writer types are
raised to believe plagiarism is pretty close to
the worst nonviolent offense on the books.
But guitar building is an art as much as it is a
business. And art allows for—indeed depends
on—creative borrowing and license. So the
question then becomes whether one can bring
an artist’s eye to a copy. Is making your own
“Strat” like covering a great song—that is, is
it more of an homage—or is it a selfish move
more akin to ripping an album you didn’t buy
and serving it on Bit Torrent?
Gruhn Guitars’ Walter Carter, who sees
luthier-made tributes to Strats and Teles come
through the famous Nashville shop all the
time, says honorable builders “try to make
some kind of improvement, cosmetic or functional—whether it’s a beautiful top or a different kind of contour . . . almost always a different headstock . . . different pickups. That’s the
line between integrity and copy.”
Guitar historian and journalist Tom Wheeler
agrees. “There are plenty of guitars out there
made by reputable [builders] that one could look
at and say, ‘This is an interpretation of the Strat
Asterope ChallengeTake the
We’re so confident in your ability
to hear the clear and dynamic
impact that Asterope cables will
have on your sound that we offer
a full money back guarantee.
If you don’t like what you hear,
simply contact us within ten days
and we’ll gladly refund your money.
PG Readers enjoy 20% off.
Coupon: PGARTIST2010
