4005 copy on the 'Bay

[doctorwho]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Handmade-Rickenback ... ?pt=Guitar

Nice effort, though illegal.

[sloop_john_b]

Nice work!!

[wim]

amazing work!

[billydlight]

why is that illegal?

[bails]

why is that illegal?

I believe it's illegal because it infringes on Rickenbacker's trademark of the design. It doesn't matter that the seller is honest about the fact that it's a copy - forgery is not the issue here, it's theft of intellectual property that is the problem.

This comes up on the forum quite often, and every time it does, people start posting about the ills of passing off fakes and forgeries as real, but then attempt to justify innocent tribute designs (as long they are honest about the origins, etc.), but these posts nearly always miss the point that the issue is intellectual property theft.

Being honest about a theft does not make the theft itself less illegal, and in this case, the existence of the guitar alone is the evidence of the design theft....

[billydlight]

What about trademark limits?

Non-commercial Use
If no income is solicited or earned by using someone else's mark, this use is not normally infringement. Trademark rights protect consumers from purchasing inferior goods because of false labeling. If no goods or services are being offered, or the goods would not be confused with those of the mark owner, or if the term is being used in a literary sense, but not to label or otherwise identify the origin of other goods or services, then the term is not being used commercially.

Non-competing or Non-confusing Use
Trademark rights only protect the particular type of goods and services that the mark owner is selling under the trademark. Some rights to expansion into related product lines have been recognized, but generally, if you are selling goods or services that do not remotely compete with those of the mark owner, this is generally strong evidence that consumers would not be confused and that no infringement exists. This defense may not exist if the mark is a famous one, however. In dilution cases, confusion is not the standard, so use on any type of good or service might cause infringement by dilution of a famous mark.

I'm just playing Devils Advocate here because I always wonder about these things..

[johnhall]

You answered your own question:

"This defense may not exist if the mark is a famous one, however. In dilution cases, confusion is not the standard, so use on any type of good or service might cause infringement by dilution of a famous mark."

Bear in mind also that we have registered trademarks for the shape of the head, body, pickguard, nameplate, pickups, as well as the name.

[doctorwho]

Thanks for responding, John.

[billydlight]

wow....

[doctorwho]

The shape being protected makes this one, a '480-inspired' guitar, also wrong:

http://www.zacharyguitars.com/150109pics.htm

(I think that I and my fellow 480 owners would also counter that guy's ill opinion of the 480!)

[egosheep]

The shape being protected makes this one, a '480-inspired' guitar, also wrong:

http://www.zacharyguitars.com/150109pics.htm

(I think that I and my fellow 480 owners would also counter that guy's ill opinion of the 480!)

What about the Fano Combos? I remember someone saying a while ago that the Combo shape is not protected, so maybe they are safe as far as that goes.

[ajish4]

UGH.

I'm going to lock this one guys.

We all pretty much know the drill.

I'll leave what's here just for the sole benefit of any NOOBS who may not know...but honestly, these darn "copy" threads (while interesting) cause nothing but dissension.