Lollar lawsuit

[aceonbass]

So that's $100.00+ for components, and $350.00- for labor to assemble? If it took him all day to make one, he'd be making a pretty good living off of HS pickups alone, but something tells me they don't take all day to make.

[WolfeMacleod]

So that's $100.00+ for components, and $350.00- for labor to assemble? If it took him all day to make one, he'd be making a pretty good living off of HS pickups alone, but something tells me they don't take all day to make.

$100 at a very minimum. You didn't see where I said "Well over $100" did you? I want to say the magnets alone were well above that, from memory.
And it's quite possible, too. I used to use Alnico 8 rods in some of my strat pickups. Those magnets were $6 each. = $36 in magnets for one single coil.

Don't forget fabrication of other parts unique to the design, etc.

How much does a Tom Holmes humbucker go for? hmm.. an awful lot...

[aceonbass]

I did catch the "well over $100.00" part, which is why the plus and minus signs appear after my dollar amounts. Well over $100.00 usually means less than $200.00 anyway, which still doesn't account for the rest of the cost of he pickup, allowing for a reasonable profit margin. If RIC starts making them, you can bet they're costs will be less since they will make a lot more. By the way, I happened across a website some time ago (lost since that computer crashed and burned) that showed the guy who made the shoes and how he produced them. I didn't see $50.00 a shoe, and he was making a lot of them, but that's just my opinion. JH may very well be using trademark law to secure control of an expired patent, but that's what I'd do to. As JH said previously, Lollar's pickups don't have to look exactly like RIC horseshoes to work, but they do. Lollar should have found time to challenge the trademark application in court some time since 2005, but he didn't. I'm guessing he thought he was right, didn't need to, or thought it'd never get to this point. This kind of attitude is why Gibson and Fender lost so many of their unique and original trademarks. I hope Lollar loses for the same reason if nothing else...complacency.

[Wiker]

:
Description of Mark: The mark consists of a configuration of a rectangular metal guitar pickup with left and right side metal coverings over magnetic electronics for electronically transmitting sound to the amplification system.


:

The way it looks to me is that the trade mark is the whole assembly with the surround.
The description of the mark - “[...]pickup with left and right side metal coverings over magnetic electronics [...]”. In the strictest sense this does not describe a "true" (=with magnetized shoes) HS PU. The description makes a distinction between the pickup as a separate unit and then the covering. In a true HSPU there are no covering over the pickup as the shoes are part of the pickup unit.

[Kopfjaeger]

This kind of attitude is why Gibson and Fender lost so many of their unique and original trademarks. I hope Lollar loses for the same reason if nothing else...complacency.

Dane,

Bingo! or Yahtzee, if you so desire! Well said, since I agree 100%. That was exactly my point way back in the thread when I stated Fender & Gibson kicking themselves for not protecting the shape of their instruments against the multitude of manufacturers all making a Les Paul and Strat copy.

Label me a "fan boy" if you wish, man I hate that term, but bravo Mr. hall for making sure other manufactures can't copy RIC's intellectual property. Best of luck in your upcoming battle.

Sepp

[soundmasterg]

I did catch the "well over $100.00" part, which is why the plus and minus signs appear after my dollar amounts. Well over $100.00 usually means less than $200.00 anyway, which still doesn't account for the rest of the cost of he pickup, allowing for a reasonable profit margin. If RIC starts making them, you can bet they're costs will be less since they will make a lot more. By the way, I happened across a website some time ago (lost since that computer crashed and burned) that showed the guy who made the shoes and how he produced them. I didn't see $50.00 a shoe, and he was making a lot of them, but that's just my opinion. JH may very well be using trademark law to secure control of an expired patent, but that's what I'd do to. As JH said previously, Lollar's pickups don't have to look exactly like RIC horseshoes to work, but they do. Lollar should have found time to challenge the trademark application in court some time since 2005, but he didn't. I'm guessing he thought he was right, didn't need to, or thought it'd never get to this point. This kind of attitude is why Gibson and Fender lost so many of their unique and original trademarks. I hope Lollar loses for the same reason if nothing else...complacency.

As far as I've heard, Jason Lollar didn't start making the horseshoe pickups to screw with RIC or anything like that, despite what some RIC zealots might think...he started making it because he had so many requests from people with vintage guitars and original pickups missing. They first tried to get something vintage accurate and correct from RIC and got the cold shoulder so they went to Lollar and after a lot of these requests over a lot of years he started making them accurate to the expired 30's patent specs. In order to make something his customers would buy for their vintage instruments (not just basses...probably most were lapsteels) without ruining them, he had to make it to fit in them as close to the originals as possible. RIC could have stopped any competitors from the outset if they had got a trademark long ago, but they didn't....maybe because their patent had already expired and they were wiser then about trying to trademark something that was once patented....They also could have made their own replacement pickup years ago to help their loyal customers maintain their vintage instruments, but they didn't, causing the potential customers to go elsewhere. RIC apparently had no interest in helping their customers maintain their vintage instruments until a competitor came up with a product to do just that. There wasn't a trademark until after Mr. Hall saw Lollar's pickup and got a trademark app rushed through. I don't know why Lollar didn't object in the trademark application process and I expect we might find out in the court proceedings, but that shouldn't make much difference if Wolfe's arguements are correct. They ended up suing Lollar pretty much as soon as the seven year wait expired, so I bet they intended to do just that from the outset which isn't very nice of them. They probably wouldn't even be considering making their own version if it wasn't for Lollar making one and scaring RIC into losing their exclusivity for that pickup type. I think Lollar only does them on a custom order basis and I would bet he sells less than 10 sets a year. It shouldn't take lawsuits and trademarks being rush filed for a company like Rickenbacker to be more receptive to their customer's desires. We've all seen how there appears to be a lot of clamor for a custom shop or WB or 4005's or <insert your desired RIC option here> yet RIC marches to their own beat. That is their perogative but not when it comes at the expense of other makers rights. Rickenbackers are a decided third or fourth or fifth choice for most guitarists. Their basses are more popular I think, but even so, they are probably not a very high choice for most players either. Many players see the attitude and go elsewhere.

I know for myself I'd like larger frets and wider necks on the vintage models, the option of Gibson style control order, and different dimension pickup options to get different tones, but I know there isn't much chance of those from RIC so I don't bother asking. RIC's apparent disinterest in their customers desires over the years keeps them from growing as a company in my opinion, but again, Mr. Hall can run his business the way he wants to and maybe he wants RIC to stay smaller. I am certainly happy that they continue to be the only large classic US guitar manufacturer to still make everything in the US. Too many companies have gone overseas and we get **** for the same price as before and no jobs here, so no one has money to buy anything, but thats a different subject.

Also, I think I remember hearing that the shoes alone in Lollar's were over $120 and when you include the rest of the parts to make the pickup and the time involved, and the lack of a similar vintage correct pickup anywhere else, and the limited volume, and you compare a toaster pickup's price and how much easier something like that is to make, I think Lollar charges a fair price for his horseshoe pickup.

Greg

[jdogric12]

I did catch the "well over $100.00" part, which is why the plus and minus signs appear after my dollar amounts. Well over $100.00 usually means less than $200.00 anyway, which still doesn't account for the rest of the cost of he pickup, allowing for a reasonable profit margin. If RIC starts making them, you can bet they're costs will be less since they will make a lot more. By the way, I happened across a website some time ago (lost since that computer crashed and burned) that showed the guy who made the shoes and how he produced them. I didn't see $50.00 a shoe, and he was making a lot of them, but that's just my opinion. JH may very well be using trademark law to secure control of an expired patent, but that's what I'd do to. As JH said previously, Lollar's pickups don't have to look exactly like RIC horseshoes to work, but they do. Lollar should have found time to challenge the trademark application in court some time since 2005, but he didn't. I'm guessing he thought he was right, didn't need to, or thought it'd never get to this point. This kind of attitude is why Gibson and Fender lost so many of their unique and original trademarks. I hope Lollar loses for the same reason if nothing else...complacency.

As far as I've heard, Jason Lollar didn't start making the horseshoe pickups to screw with RIC or anything like that, despite what some RIC zealots might think...he started making it because he had so many requests from people with vintage guitars and original pickups missing. They first tried to get something vintage accurate and correct from RIC and got the cold shoulder so they went to Lollar and after a lot of these requests over a lot of years he started making them accurate to the expired 30's patent specs. In order to make something his customers would buy for their vintage instruments (not just basses...probably most were lapsteels) without ruining them, he had to make it to fit in them as close to the originals as possible. RIC could have stopped any competitors from the outset if they had got a trademark long ago, but they didn't....maybe because their patent had already expired and they were wiser then about trying to trademark something that was once patented....They also could have made their own replacement pickup years ago to help their loyal customers maintain their vintage instruments, but they didn't, causing the potential customers to go elsewhere. RIC apparently had no interest in helping their customers maintain their vintage instruments until a competitor came up with a product to do just that. There wasn't a trademark until after Mr. Hall saw Lollar's pickup and got a trademark app rushed through. I don't know why Lollar didn't object in the trademark application process and I expect we might find out in the court proceedings, but that shouldn't make much difference if Wolfe's arguements are correct. They ended up suing Lollar pretty much as soon as the seven year wait expired, so I bet they intended to do just that from the outset which isn't very nice of them. They probably wouldn't even be considering making their own version if it wasn't for Lollar making one and scaring RIC into losing their exclusivity for that pickup type. I think Lollar only does them on a custom order basis and I would bet he sells less than 10 sets a year. It shouldn't take lawsuits and trademarks being rush filed for a company like Rickenbacker to be more receptive to their customer's desires. We've all seen how there appears to be a lot of clamor for a custom shop or WB or 4005's or <insert your desired RIC option here> yet RIC marches to their own beat. That is their perogative but not when it comes at the expense of other makers rights. Rickenbackers are a decided third or fourth or fifth choice for most guitarists. Their basses are more popular I think, but even so, they are probably not a very high choice for most players either. Many players see the attitude and go elsewhere.

I know for myself I'd like larger frets and wider necks on the vintage models, the option of Gibson style control order, and different dimension pickup options to get different tones, but I know there isn't much chance of those from RIC so I don't bother asking. RIC's apparent disinterest in their customers desires over the years keeps them from growing as a company in my opinion, but again, Mr. Hall can run his business the way he wants to and maybe he wants RIC to stay smaller. I am certainly happy that they continue to be the only large classic US guitar manufacturer to still make everything in the US. Too many companies have gone overseas and we get **** for the same price as before and no jobs here, so no one has money to buy anything, but thats a different subject.

Also, I think I remember hearing that the shoes alone in Lollar's were over $120 and when you include the rest of the parts to make the pickup and the time involved, and the lack of a similar vintage correct pickup anywhere else, and the limited volume, and you compare a toaster pickup's price and how much easier something like that is to make, I think Lollar charges a fair price for his horseshoe pickup.

Greg

Excellent post, Greg.

[deaconblues]

Greg, I think you hit the nail on the head there.

[Wiker]

Greg, I think you hit the nail on the head there.

+1


As John Hall has clearly pointed out, this is not a question of copyright - protection against reproduction of a product. It’s about a trademark, which purpose it is to identifying the source of the product (not to protect the product itself) in trading (it’s a trademark).
RIC does not have copyright for the pickup.

So, this lawsuit is not about Lollar "stealing" RIC’s intellectual property, it’s about RIC protecting a mark that (should) distinguish their products as originating from them.

The Rickenbacker truss rod cover obviously is such a mark (and it is registered of course) that should be protected. Whenever one buys a bass or guitar with that TRC, that TRC as a trademark should clearly identify it as a genuine Rickenbacker. Also the bass headstock and body shape is registered as a trademark. I.e., the shape of the product itself is registered as a trademark. This starts to move into foggy land, but it’s not that difficult to argue that the shape itself of a bass is a distinguishing mark that should indentify it’s origin.

The ambiguous situation with the horseshoe pickup is that RIC have managed to get the visual appearance of the part itself, the pickup assembly with cover, registered as a trademark. In my view the pickup itself is hard to consider a trademark, with the purpose of identifying its origin. Registering a product itself as a trademark is not the purpose of trademarks, and (in my view, again) is a misuse of the trademark system. It’s hard for me to see RIC’s intention other than to indirectly "copy-protecting" the pickup, than to protect an actual mark of trade.

There are other ways in which RIC can use trademarks to distinguish there pickups origin, like having "Rickenbacker (TM)" stamped somewhere into the metal of their pickups.


What Lollar can do if he should be found to infringe the so-called trademark, is to not assemble any horseshoe pickups. He can sell the bobbin and mounting plate as a unit, and he can sell the magnetized shoes separately. It’s not a question of copyright or patent, and there’s no trademark on the shoes themselves.

[jdogric12]

What Lollar can do if he should be found to infringe the so-called trademark, is to not assemble any horseshoe pickups. He can sell the bobbin and mounting plate as a unit, and he can sell the magnetized shoes separately. It’s not a question of copyright or patent, and there’s no trademark on the shoes themselves.

Really? Can he? I would think the law would have already sewed up loopholes like this, but maybe not.

[johnhall]

There wasn't a trademark until after Mr. Hall saw Lollar's pickup and got a trademark app rushed through.

This is simply not true. The trademark began its existence on the day it was offered for public sale, in this case, sometime in 1931. That is noted in the trademark registration itself where it states "FIRST USE 0-0-1931; IN COMMERCE 0-0-1931".

This is all part and parcel of the Lanham Act.

As stated here previously, trademark REGISTRATION is done as a further step after the trademark is created. Registration is done for two main purposes. First, it serves as a warning or notification to others in a central database- at the US Patent and Trademark Office- so that someone planning to create or register new trademarks can more conveniently determine if the mark is in use. A side benefit is to give a point of contact for those looking for the trademark owners, such as to know who to license it from. The second reason for filing a registration, and perhaps the most important, is that to take a case to federal court, the trademark must be so registered. In our case, we had several parties who were infringing the mark previously and registration was made in case we needed to go to court. While done to preserve our options, you might say that it was a warning shot over the bow as well, and all but one party took the hint that we were prepared to take all action necessary to protect the mark.

They also could have made their own replacement pickup years ago to help their loyal customers maintain their vintage instruments, but they didn't, causing the potential customers to go elsewhere. RIC apparently had no interest in helping their customers maintain their vintage instruments until a competitor came up with a product to do just that.

Vintage horseshoes don't break. Coils can be rewound and the magnets regaussed. Only loss of the pickup or cannibalization would require a complete replacement. In fact, a quick Google search will show you that these third party pickups have generally ended up on products where they were not original equipment. At the same time, we DO offer a replacement part which differs only by deriving the magnetic energy from a modern reliable magnet as opposed to one that easily discharges. You can't buy a 1930's vintage pot or capacitor either but in a similar way to the pickup, functional equivalents ARE available.

RIC's apparent disinterest in their customers desires over the years keeps them from growing as a company in my opinion . . .

An odd and misinformed statement when you consider that we've had a solid pattern of growth for many years now. The last three years back to back have been the best years in company history by a wide margin, at a time when the other makers have been struggling. This year alone we've been able to add more than 30 new stores to our dealer roster, dramatically increased sales in Germany, France, Austria and Switzerland- and a new Australian distributor has been selected.

[WolfeMacleod]

There wasn't a trademark until after Mr. Hall saw Lollar's pickup and got a trademark app rushed through.

This is simply not true. The trademark began its existence on the day it was offered for public sale, in this case, sometime in 1931. That is noted in the trademark registration itself where it states "FIRST USE 0-0-1931; IN COMMERCE 0-0-1931".

This is all part and parcel of the Lanham Act.

Mr Hall, why is it that you are so fond of referring to the Lanham Act, but completely ignore and subvert Functionality Doctrine? Are you not familiar with it, or do you just not care about the law?

[soundmasterg]

There wasn't a trademark until after Mr. Hall saw Lollar's pickup and got a trademark app rushed through.

This is simply not true. The trademark began its existence on the day it was offered for public sale, in this case, sometime in 1931. That is noted in the trademark registration itself where it states "FIRST USE 0-0-1931; IN COMMERCE 0-0-1931".

This is all part and parcel of the Lanham Act.

As stated here previously, trademark REGISTRATION is done as a further step after the trademark is created. Registration is done for two main purposes. First, it serves as a warning or notification to others in a central database- at the US Patent and Trademark Office- so that someone planning to create or register new trademarks can more conveniently determine if the mark is in use. A side benefit is to give a point of contact for those looking for the trademark owners, such as to know who to license it from. The second reason for filing a registration, and perhaps the most important, is that to take a case to federal court, the trademark must be so registered. In our case, we had several parties who were infringing the mark previously and registration was made in case we needed to go to court. While done to preserve our options, you might say that it was a warning shot over the bow as well, and all but one party took the hint that we were prepared to take all action necessary to protect the mark.

They also could have made their own replacement pickup years ago to help their loyal customers maintain their vintage instruments, but they didn't, causing the potential customers to go elsewhere. RIC apparently had no interest in helping their customers maintain their vintage instruments until a competitor came up with a product to do just that.

Vintage horseshoes don't break. Coils can be rewound and the magnets regaussed. Only loss of the pickup or cannibalization would require a complete replacement. In fact, a quick Google search will show you that these third party pickups have generally ended up on products where they were not original equipment. At the same time, we DO offer a replacement part which differs only by deriving the magnetic energy from a modern reliable magnet as opposed to one that easily discharges. You can't buy a 1930's vintage pot or capacitor either but in a similar way to the pickup, functional equivalents ARE available.

RIC's apparent disinterest in their customers desires over the years keeps them from growing as a company in my opinion . . .

An odd and misinformed statement when you consider that we've had a solid pattern of growth for many years now. The last three years back to back have been the best years in company history by a wide margin, at a time when the other makers have been struggling. This year alone we've been able to add more than 30 new stores to our dealer roster, dramatically increased sales in Germany, France, Austria and Switzerland- and a new Australian distributor has been selected.

Forgive me for not being completely accurate on my phrasing as I don't know nearly as much about trademarks as you I am sure. I should have said trademark registration rather than trademark I suppose. Since '68 or whenever you stopped making the original horseshoe design, you have been passing off a facsimilie to your customers when they wanted that original design...

Vintage horseshoes don't break? What about Macca's bridge pickup in his bass when it came to your factory in the 70's for repair and it was decided his shoes couldn't be recharged so your workers put a high gain pickup in there? I know there were problems with the original materials used for the shoes and the fact that they lose charge over time. It stands to reason that others have probably failed. Sure many on vintage instruments have been removed and/or lost over time. Back in the day these pickups were probably discarded for under string pickups due to advantages in playing style and it was only later that people decided they liked the sound so much of the original horseshoes that they could live with the adjustments to their playing styles. The other thing is that you are missing the point about your replacement pickup....while it sounds good and has a unique sound in its own right, it isn't the same as the originals and doesn't function the same way and doesn't sound quite the same. It looks mostly the same....but the proof is in the pudding and these just aren't the same. The customers that want these pickups want the original ones, or something that is made to be just like the original ones. If that wasn't the case and there wasn't demand, then you wouldn't have alluded to the idea that you are considering producing an accurate original style horseshoe pickup in the future. While you may have got the magnetic energy the same or close with your modern pickup ( would have to check with specialized and expensive equipment to be sure) the materials it is made of affect not only the gauss of the pickup as a whole but they affect the reluctance too. The way the magnetic structure behaves as the string is moving around in the middle of the horseshoe magnetic field is going to be different if you have alnico slugs under it and then connect metal shoes around that are also magnetized vs. if the only magnetic elements in the pickup are the shoes themselves and whatever materials they are made of. The strength of the magnets isn't the only consideration....otherwise there would be no difference in a pickup's sound when using any of the alnico grades as long as the strength was kept the same....but there is.

You know your business numbers better than I do of course, but I know what I see when I play out and talk to other musicians and go to stores etc. Most guitar players think of using a RIC as a decidedly lower option than other makes. They have grown used to custom shops at companies like Gibson and Fender and the fact that RIC doesn't have one and apparently doesn't have any interest in one, or in allowing optional modifications to certain instruments as a standard order option such as larger or taller frets on vintage instruments means that many of these musicians go elsewhere to get their needs fulfilled. While you may be growing and doing well business-wise, I just have a feeling you could be doing even better (and have more happy customers) if you as a company were more receptive to what your customers want. Take it or leave it...no difference really as its just an opinion I and others share.

Greg

[Wiker]

What Lollar can do if he should be found to infringe the so-called trademark, is to not assemble any horseshoe pickups. He can sell the bobbin and mounting plate as a unit, and he can sell the magnetized shoes separately. It’s not a question of copyright or patent, and there’s no trademark on the shoes themselves.

Really? Can he? I would think the law would have already sewed up loopholes like this, but maybe not.

What loophole?
A patent is what protects a design against copying, not a trade mark. The only function of a trademark should be to identify its origin. “A design that produces a benefit other than source identification is functional.” [from some court ruling]
If a trademark itself should stop anyone from making and selling a steel bar bent into a horseshoe shape, chrome plated and magnetized, there is something wrong – that is not the purpose of a trademark.

A trademark for Audi is four circles. Should that stop anyone from using circles, like the Olympic rings for example? ‘Microsoft’ is a trademark, but that doesn’t make using the words ‘micro’ or ‘soft’ an infringement, not even in other trademarks.

“[…] the Supreme Court in TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. 3 held that a feature is functional when it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article. 4 Further, when the product feature was the subject of an expired utility patent, there is a strong evidentiary inference of functionality, and the patent owner bears the burden of showing that such a feature was not a useful part of the invention, but was instead arbitrary, incidental or ornamental.”

The appearance of horseshoes pickup which RIC have trademarked, is not a functionless ornament designed with the only purpose of identify RIC as its origin. The whole appearance of this pickup came from its functional design.

[cassius987]

Give me a pencil and paper and I'll draw as many non-infringing designs using the horseshoe principle as you can stand. (There's one I won't draw for you, because I think it's so aesthetically pleasing that it's worthy of a trademark of its own!)

I can also think of a number of ways to make it much better than the original- better because you're NOT limited to the current physical configuration described in the trademark.

This doesn't come from the 50+ years of experience I've had designing pickups but just basic design sense.

Some people would rather tell you ten reasons why something can't be done, whereas I prefer people who work to find ten reasons why it CAN be done.

GREAT post.