Just when I thought I'd seen them all . . .

rickcrazy · Post by **rickcrazy** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:37 am

Kevin:
I believe so, as long as the pickups are legit Rickenbacker products or even copies thereof and anyone installs them in such a configuration on such an instrument. Anybody correct me if I'm wrong.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:03 am

Case in point is this: How likely is an observer to conclude for himself that this instrument is a Rickenbacker product, at first glance?

Then we get into issues such as guards, pickups, placement, shape of body, etc.

Gibson lost their suit against PRS (based upon a previously unprotected LP body shape) because, as even they conceded in depositions, "Only an idiot" would confuse an LP with a PRS.

On the other hand there is a lot of confusion swirling around the Asian knockoffs and over well-built copies such as this one, and don't forget, RIC has always sought protection of their trade dress, and has been granted this protection.

That having been said, I am speculating, as are we all...speculation is useless; we'll just have to see what happens, if anything, to allow or prevent this bass' sale.

ram · Post by **ram** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:40 am

My take (for what it’s worth):

A company, like Rickenbacker wants to make a more affordable version of its signature guitars and advertises them as such – No problem (although I don’t think that would be necessary for Ric).

Company or luthier XYZ makes a look alike of Rickenbacker’s 4003 and sells it with the XYZ label – Tolerable, but could be starting to tread on some trademark issues.

Company or luthier XYZ makes a look alike of Rickenbacker’s 4003 and sells it with the Rickenbacker’s name on it or as an authorized custom version (without approval) – this is fraud along with possible copyright, trademark and other infringement. This is a very bad road to start down.

So in this case if the bass is being promoted as a one of a kind Ric with the RIC TRC and no papers supporting it, then, I think it would fall under the fraud category.

If it were being pushed as a custom one of a kind hand made blend of some Rickenbacker styles or models then I personally wouldn’t have a problem with it.

teeder · Post by **teeder** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 11:42 am

Just a note for clarification: my interest and questions should in no way be interpreted that I condone this bass, (as cool as I think it looks)!

ram · Post by **ram** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:11 pm

Kevin, that is the way read it...

As a side line the Ric Forum has this:
http://www.rickenbacker.com/forum_view_thread.asp?forum=General_Forum&thread_name=TRADEMARK%20issue?%20Judge%20for%20yourself...&thread_id=3848&Page=2

beefandbones · Post by **beefandbones** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:59 pm

Looks more "Hoffs" than "Lennon" anyway.

johnallg · Post by **johnallg** » Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:33 pm

Paul Boyer - my comments were not directed at you. I wanted to bring up the point to this forum that we were praising a Rickenfaker. Period. My comment about putting it in the book was because of the reception they received here.

I mean jeez, the thing has an official TRC and jack plate!! We'd crucify any other instrument that attempted this - we HAVE!!!! And this one is ok because so many think it looks awesome??

It is an actionable instrument. I hope RIC blocks its sale and moves to have it destroyed.

gareth · Post by **gareth** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:31 am

One more thing about this guitar. It's not a copy. RIC have never made a bass like this. A good copyright attorney could make a case for it under the fair use/parody exceptions to copyright ownership. If the TRC and jackplate are removed, I don't see that there's a lot anyone would be able to do about it if that defense is used.

That being said. If RIC ever did make these, I'd be up front with the cash ASAP. I think it's a very good looking design.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:47 pm

I think they could definitely take action as many of the features are trademarks. Even though the features never all appeared on the same instrument, they still belong to RIC. It would be tough to sell the "parody" argument. Did someone here say that Lemmy owns a faker?

rickon · Post by **rickon** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:11 pm

Justice would be that RIC puts this design into production and the original designer makes not one red cent.

12stringbassist · Post by **12stringbassist** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 4:04 am

My own take on this is that the TRC and jack plate should definitely be replaced with blank no-name versions (which is what I'd have to do if I bought it).

It's a fantastic looking instrument and the idea of having it destroyed is slightly ridiculous. Perhaps Ric may take some inspiration from it. It's a beaut!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:01 am

I don't understand why you would draw the line there, Ian. Those two parts do not a knockoff make--it's all the stuff we discuss and mention above. You can't say, "genuine Rick parts should come off", because that means pickups and other parts, too.

Besides, it's the shape, proportions, details, and parts that make up the sum of this nicely-crafted knockoff "phantom" instrument, built without RIC approval.

lyle_from_minneapolis · Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:33 am

Rather that destroy such a thing, wouldn't it be equitable that any profit from it would be shared with Rickenbacker?

I can record my own versions of Lennon tunes, but if I try to sell, I need to pay Yoko her royalties.

And any labeling as a Rickenbacker would have to go. Change the name to Rickenknocker.

blazer · Post by **blazer** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 7:37 am

Then what would you guys say about MY handy work?

http://alembic.com/club/messages/402/7088.jpg

I built this bass five years ago from the scraps of a smashed Ibanez Rickenfaker. I built it from leftover pieces of flamed maple and lacewood (the contrast stripes) lying around the Knooren workshop and the neck of a Japanese Rick copy. It has Kent Armstrong Blade humbuckers and strangely enough I still can get that Rick growl from it.

It's not a copy, it has the general outline of a 4001 but not exactly, it also has Fender-like body contours. I didn't use a Rick-like logo and the Logo I did use is on a different place than usual. As for hardware, well you can clearly see that I didn't use a Rick-like bridge or pickups.

And since I made only one and have no intention of making another, my "Ricky Re-think" bass poses no thread to Mr. Hall and his team.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:05 am

"Rather that destroy such a thing, wouldn't it be equitable that any profit from it would be shared with Rickenbacker?"

Sure--it's called a "license" or "licensing arrangement", and it's negotiated by BOTH involved parties, BEFORE the intellectual property is shared.

Wouter, being in Europe, there may or may not be some form of EC permission sought and/or granted. If, in fact, your country has granted RIC the same type and degree of protection there as in the USA, then my comments apply to the same degree. But,frankly, I don't know the extent of RIC's intellectual property protection in your country.