John Birch Guitars and RIC TM infringement.

inhuien · Post by **inhuien** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:13 am

Hi all,

I've been playing bass for 20 years and only recently stumbled across your forum.

Just been reading the very revealing "Walnut Bass" thread. It's got me a thinking. if a 'lill old home made bass can cause such a storm, even involving the CEO of RIC, What's their position regarding John Birch Guitars. Who, unless I'm way off the mark here are a profit making company with a range of basses that have an uncanny similarity to Ric's 4001/4003.

Thx for your thoughts and Hi again, Mark

eatswodo · Post by **eatswodo** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:25 am

They even name it like one - "RB - 4001 type body design"

http://www.johnbirchguitars.com/index2.html

edski · Post by **edski** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:40 am

Must be an issue with them being from the UK? I'm sure JH is not too happy about them...

rikk · Post by **rikk** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:57 am

I think this link shows a current production model.
http://www.johnbirchguitars.com/2003_images/4001_bass.jpg
Ibenez got sued, they were from Japan. I don't think Ric's trademark is for the USA only, it's worldwide. If Mr. Hall can comment on this I hope he does.

inhuien · Post by **inhuien** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:04 am

And so is Rickenbacky, according to his profile info...

Most of the John Birch range of guitars seems to be heavily "inspired" by one manufacturer or another.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:24 am

this makes me think of the computer world ... macs and pcs ... the mac did not allow anyone to copy their hardware ... but IBM allowed the pc to be copied ... Apple computer almost went out of business and has only captured a niche market ... the pc dominates even though it was not the best product ...

In a similar fasion Microsoft and Autodesk started out with 3rd rate products but they allowed bootlegs and copies and they got everybody with upgrades and they are now both financial giants ...

A Similar case could be made for tarriff laws ...

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:48 am

JH is required by the terms of the trademark standard to pursue all cases of infringement that come to his attention. Like he said, if he does not know about it, he does not have to do anything. (hint, hint) Posting pics of copies here or in other public places forces his hand. He tried to give the poster a break with a subtle warning but it was either misunderstood (I'd like to think) or simply ignored. Gibson recently lost their appeal on the suit against PRS. The main reason is because there have been more or less unrestricted Les Paul copies made for the last 30+ years. Gibson' design is more or less public domain at this point because of spotty or absent enforcement. JH does not want the same thing to happen to RIC's designs.

moonliner · Post by **moonliner** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:24 am

I may be wrong here, but it's not that PC's were allowed to be copied, it's that the license was sold to anybody who wanted to make them. Apple on the other hand wants to be the only one that makes their particular product. That is one of the reasons for the price difference between the two formats. One is made by a kazillion companies, the other by just one company.

12stringbassist · Post by **12stringbassist** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:36 am

My John Birch SCDR bass was made in 1976 and is the basic '4001' design. Jim Lea of Slade used one on Top of the Pops in 1973, so they have been around a LONG time.

JB don't pass the guitars off in any way as Rickenbackers and never have done so, though the JB style is VERY highly derivative.

I saw a new 330 6 string fireglo copy in Tower music in Blackpool today that had lettering in the Ric style on the headstock TR fin-shaped cover. I can't recall the make though, as I didn't pay lots of attention to it.

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:45 am

The point still remains that RIC has no choice but to act to preserve their legal rights to these trademark designs.
A failure to act once RIC has been made aware of the existence of the offending article effectively surrenders the trademark rights.

ben_hall · Post by **ben_hall** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:21 am

Trademark = Shapes and designs...

Doesn't matter if you're trying to pass it off as the genuine article or not.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:35 am

With regard to the Apple and IBM analogy: only one of those companies today still makes personal computers.

throw_this_away · Post by **throw_this_away** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:55 am

Well... even apple contracts out manufacturing for most of their stuff (they just to it with respectable companies). And even if they assemble and test their hardware, they do not build the individual components.

Point is that the apple vs: ibm comparison is a flawed one.

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:31 am

how about beta vs VHS?

I want RICs to stay valuable for my girl.

philipharris · Post by **philipharris** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 10:55 am

The whole subject of guitar shapes as tms is quite interesting (honestly!). Think I feel a research project coming on...