'Horseshoe' question

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:03 am

Amen the third.

...or was he an Egyptian Pharaoh?

Tut, Tut, my friend.

philipharris · Post by **philipharris** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:20 pm

USPTO TM application no 78526361 - very interesting. Good luck with it - "shape" marks can be hard work, as I'm sure you know.

chefothefuture · Post by **chefothefuture** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:39 pm

Guys-
You gotta try the '50s horsy bass PUs-
Much different tone. The re-issues from Rick
were close; they don't break apart tonally like the orig ones.
As for the copyright issue with Rick-
I sorta think that they're unreasonable to make a part unavailable,
and then sue some one who does-
No offense JH but some of us want horseys but don't want c64s.

soundmasterg · Post by **soundmasterg** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:42 am

I could understand if RIC was making the part continuously the same as it was in '68 until now, but they changed it and made it so the shoes weren't functional in the same way from what I understand. So then it gets into is it really a horseshoe pickup or not, since in a real horseshoe the shoes are a large part of the magnetic field. Then its similar to a functional part of a pickup, like a baseplate, or alnico slugs, and thats much harder to trademark I would think. Especially if it wasn't in constant trademark since '68.

wolfgang · Post by **wolfgang** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 2:45 am

to me the horseshoe pick up is a Rickenbacker's "Trade Mark" (as well as the Toasters and the nameplates and the Capri and Cresting-Wave shapes
and the slash sound holes are), regardless how these pickups were technically designed over the decades. Actually it is Rickenbackers oldest trade mark.
Horse Shoe pickup = Rickenbacker
This is just a matter of product design.
They are good looking guitars, these Rickenbackers...

philipharris · Post by **philipharris** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 3:38 am

Well, Mr Hall, if the application needs supporting evidence that consumers identify the horseshoe shape as a RIC trademark, this forum is clearly the place to come for a market survey!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 4:45 am

Relief can be sought under a number of different provisions. I believe that "history of use" or "prior usage" is a valid criterium. Rickenbacker has been using the horseshoe in one form or another since the Dark Ages of 1931.

A goodly portion of the "clout" or "teeth" which a mark carries in disputes is this history, which would tend to discourage a recent copier from allotting resources to pursuing this in court. I would think that a "cease and desist" letter would be all that is required.

It's a gamble for a new user to go up against the originator of a design when it's been in use almost continually for 75 years.

philipharris · Post by **philipharris** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:33 am

I can see there might be public policy issues where TM rights might impinge on a purchaser's right to repair and to obtain spares.

soundmasterg · Post by **soundmasterg** » Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:04 am

Paul, if a pickup only looks like a horseshoe pickup but doesn't have functional shoes, then is it really a horseshoe pickup?

My understanding is that RIC stopped making one with functional shoes in or around '68. So that would appear to leave a market opening in my eyes, and if they aren't producing one, then how can they keep the trademark active? If someone in the biz who is good with all sorts of off the wall designs like Lollar is gets customers asking him over a period of several years to make one, and no one else is doing it the same way, and the former manufacturer isn't responsive to their concerns either, then where is the problem? I admit I don't know trademark law at all, but it seems to me that if the design is changed to where it is no longer a functioning horseshoe, and they no longer make a functioning horseshoe pickup, I don't see how they can still trademark it after the initial trademark period has run out. To me its kind of like trying to trademark a pickup with alnico magnets or something like that. The shoes are a function of the pickup design, and it is a method for making a pickup just like an alnico magnet would be. I can understand a trademark or patent when the thing is first made, but after 70 years or whatever? And if it hasn't been made in 30 years with a functional horseshoe, then how can they keep the trademark active?

And you could say that Lollar could just do something with a different appearance and still have it be real horseshoes and get around the trademark if its active, except that the horseshoe design dicates the appearance of the pickup to a certain extent. I'm sure its all over my head, and JH probably can't discuss it legally, or doesn't want to on a public forum like this, but still...I wonder. I guess we'll find out sooner or later how it works out.

chefothefuture · Post by **chefothefuture** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:08 pm

Actually-
Was not the HS designed by the same guy who STOLE
National and it's patents from John Dopyera?
Suggested reading-
Bob Brozman's history of National....

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:18 pm

Greg ... I thought the same thing ... but all they have to do is produce on steel guitar every few years with a horseshoe ... or a mandolin ... or a v63 or a c64 ... but then again I am not an expert in trademark law ... I don't understand why it wouldn't be advantageous to have others making aftermarket parts for Rickenbackers ... but then again I am not in the musical instrument business ...

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 3:44 pm

I think that you guys have pretty well outlined the problems inherent in discussing this or even in making some sense of it:

1. Rickenbacker is enforcing their trademark on this signature component.

2. We are not patent lawyers

3. There is a possibility of compromising this case if JH discusses it beyond a certain point in any public forum.

So, let's wait for the outcome.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:03 pm

Ludicrous. The horseshoe was patented by Rickenbacker in the 1930's and there was never any claim whatsoever by Dopyera. If he thought he designed it, I wonder why he didn't try to defend that claim during all of the opportunities he had to do so?

As far as trademarks are concerned, there is no requirement for functionality (unlike a patent). The fact that it does function or has changed in its method of operation has nothing to do with a trademark on the appearance of the product.

The horseshoe as far as trademarks are concerned has been in continuous production since 1931.

soundmasterg · Post by **soundmasterg** » Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:31 pm

Ok that sheds some light on it for me. I guess I was getting confused between patents and trademarks, which probably happens often for lots of people.

I still think that there should be some way to come to an accord so that Rickebacker can still protect their trademark, yet Lollar could still make his pickups since they offer the old style sound that many RIC customers want but aren't getting out of the newer pickups, and they also appear to be an excellant product. Maybe RIC could offer them as an option once this gets settled whichever way it goes? It would be the best approach for all concerned I think.

ken_j · Post by **ken_j** » Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:26 am

I would think that Lollar (or any one else) would have to build them under license from RIC. It doesn't appear that this is going to happen.