Real, or fake?

[v12al]

It is a fake but Lamborghini have taken the opinion that it is a car that they no longer make so they don't bother about it (these replica's even now get invited to lamborghini owner club meets in england now).
The other thing is they don't have the problem of people trying to sell them as the real thing which is where it is different with rickenbacker.
I agree that this sort of activity should definately be challenged.
By the way countach replica is made by a company called Lamberti here in England and can be built for around £35.000 UK and yes they can be shipped to Austrailia. (there are a few over there already and I know someone in new zealand has a replica one)
Try this web site for more info if you fancy one http://www.lamboreplica.co.uk/

[bassassin]

It's been discussed a million times before, but passing off fakes as either copies or genuine Rickenbackers is not the issue.

All Rickenbacker guitar shapes and designs are owned by RIC, and cannot be legally copied regardless of whether they are labelled as genuine or as copies.

Fraud is not the main concern here, but theft of intellectual property - and it doesn't matter whether a few individuals don't see an issue with stealing, because it is still against the law in every country in the world.

Don't steal from people you know, don't steal from people you don't, and don't steal from RIC.

Most of the copies that appear on Ebay are not recent Chinese or Indonesian knock-offs, but Japanese instruments from the early to mid 70s. At the time, these designs were not registerd trademarks of RIC - indeed at that point, Rickenbacker International Corp as we know it did not exist.

Like it or not, the issue of vintage copies is very much a grey area, it's very interesting that (as has been mentioned before when this topic comes up) English luthier John Birch has included a Rickenbacker-shaped bass (it's even called a Model 4001)in their catalogue since the early 70s, and still build & sell it today - I played one at a music show a month ago. It's also interesting that this is a high-end, handmade bass, which is considerably more expensive than a real Rick, even at inflated Ripoff-Britain prices.

And for the record - I do own a Rickenbacker copy, it's from about 1973, made by a long-defunct Japanese factory called Kasuga, it looks absolutely gorgeous & plays beautifully. I wouldn't part with it, even to finance the purchase of the 4001 reissue, with full width inlays, checkerboard, toaster, skunk stripe, wavy Grovers, which Mr Hall will, one day, in his wisdom, decide to authorise. When that day comes, it's the dog & granny that will have to go, I'm afraid.

Jon.

[johnhall]

I hare refrained from posting on this site for quite awhile for a variety of reasons I won't discuss now, but this post absolutely requires me to correct some serious misstatements.

Our trademarks have ALWAYS been our trademarks, from the day the design was created. There is no requirement that they be registered to be valid; registration only provides additional protections, the main one being the right to bring suit in federal court.

Registration of shapes is a fairly new concept to trademark law. It simply was not possible to register them in the past which is . . . exactly why they weren't. As the laws changed in the various jurisdictions, we took advantage (while some other companies did not) and made official registrations. More are currently pending in a variety of world locations.

The U.S. has an added burden placed upon trademark holders when registration is made, specifically that you must enforce or police the use of the mark, otherwise risk loosing it. We don't have that burden under E.C. law which is why there's less priority to bring enforcement actions upon those firms. However, John Birch's, Indie's, and Johnson's time is coming as they float to the top of our legal priority list.

Even vintage copy instruments are infringing and were from their creation but it's only now that the full range of tools is available to us and the requirement for enforcement is pressing more strongly than ever.

With regard to Rickenbacker International Corporation, if one chose to contact the California Secretary of State, you would find that the date of incorporation is August, 1931. Certainly the name has changed through the years but the company today is the exact same company that existed in the beginning.

[cheyenne]

So it is written,
So shall it be done.

Good to here from you John!

[rikk]

I hare refrained from posting on this site for quite awhile for a variety of reasons I won't discuss now, but this post absolutely requires me to correct some serious misstatements.

John, welcome back. I've missed not seeing your posts.

[shamustwin]

I've missed seeing your posts.

[bassassin]

Thank you for the reply Mr Hall. The continued existence of the John Birch bass has always interested me, and I've always found it strange that a manufacturer like JB would have a range of what are essentially copies (and not just Rickenbacker lookalikes) which are more expensive than the genuine articles.

I don't know about the Johnson brand - I've not seen a Rickenbacker copy with that name in the UK - but I don't think Indie's current range includes any Rick-derived designs. I did speak to Indie's CEO at a trade show a couple of years ago, about the two designs they were selling at the time & Rickenbacker's protection of their trademarks - he genuinely seemed to think that the fact that the instruments he was selling incorporated a different headstock shape, was adequate protection.

Anyway Mr Hall - can I ask when we can expect news of the aforementioned 60s/early 70s 4001 reissue? And can I request that BlueBurst be one of the colour options?

Jon.