Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

You may have a point. Having said that, I'm not sure you can overlook the fact that it was indeed Rickenbacker who came up with the horseshoe pickup design. Anyone?

I don't think it was the subject so much as I think it was the fact that a lot of insulting things were hurled at JH and Rickenbacker. I read that thread, one person can no longer post here because of it. I was appalled at some of the things that were said, he owns the company that makes the basses and guitars we all play and no respect was shown him at all.

Yes, they have trademarked the name, that was covered in the now-deleted thread.

If you look at the steel guitar pickups on Jason Lollar's site now, he carefully avoids using the term "horseshoe pickup" to describe his pickups for prewar Ric lapsteels. He does describe them as having horseshoe magnets. And at Rick Aiello's horseshoemagnets.com site, under "The Magnets" section, the completed pickup is called an "H-shoe". I believe Jason Lollar and Rick Aiello developed these in a joint venture.

With trademarks it's a question of use in commerce, not necessarily who came up with it. If you use it in commerce and it becomes identified with your company to the buying public, it's eligible. If you allow anyone and everyone to use it (like the term humbucker) to where it's no longer specifically identified as your product, then it becomes generic and your trademark is void. That's why RIC took action to defend it.

Yes, Dave is right on both accounts. Jason and Rick are collaborators on the Lollar H-Shoe pickups and if you don't jealously guard your trademarks, copyrights, and patents they can slip into the public domain.

Looks like fun either way....

but the problem is there ... certain spare parts aren't available ... and the sale some spare parts are blocked ... the copyright and trademark is Rickenbacker's problem ... not getting spare parts is a problem to the end user

You are right Jeff. Randy Wood Guitars put some replacement truss rods up on Ebay and someone forced the auction to be closed. RIC does not make these rods and is apparently not interested in making them. I don't know if pressure was placed on Randy to stop making them or if it was just RIC legal reaching out to Ebay. Auctions for Bartolini and Seymour Duncan Rickenbacker replacement pickups are never pulled. Why should one for replacement truss rods get yanked? Split rods like that are not unique to Rickenbacker. I saw an 1890's lute in a shop in Prague last year that had a truss rod of the same design. It looked like it was made by a blacksmith but it operated using the same priciple.

Jeff, exactly what parts are they blocking?

Let's say you wanted to manufacture tailpieces for Rickenbacker guitars. Uncle Jeff's Friendly Tailpiece Company could make tailpieces to fit any Ric ever made -- no problem. But you would not be able to make a replica of an "R" tailpiece because its trade dress is trademarked. And you couldn't market them as Rickenbacker tailpieces, you'd need to make it clear to any customer that you are not affiliated with RIC and that they were tailpieces made by you to fit Rics.

BTW, copyrights cover works of authorship and have nothing to do with this.

Ted, there is no problem at all with making replacement truss rods. You're right, it's an old design, and improved modern variations of it are popular today (Stew-Mac's "hot rod" trussrods, for example).

I know nothing about Randy Wood's auction or why it ended, but if the auction title said "Rickenbacker truss rods" that would imply that they were made by Rickenbacker, and that wouldn't be acceptable.

Dave seems to be one of the very few posters here that understands trademark law.

Not only is "keyword spamming" (i.e. the use of a brand name in a subject line for goods not produced by that maker) contrary to current federal law, it's against eBay policy:

eBay Keyword Spamming Policy

The "Brand Name Misuse" section suggests some specific exceptions although these are broader than those that have generally been accepted by the courts. The most recent decisions favor eBay's KWS definition as "A listing that contains the logo of a company that did not make the item offered."

Thanks John. Just out of curiosity, how could someone who made replacement parts that fit a Rickenbacker (say truss rods, or some other nontrademarked part) advertise what they were for then?

I can see how using "Rickenbacker truss rod" wouldn't be acceptable, but "truss rod for (or fits) Rickenbacker" doesn't imply that the part was made by Ric, just that it fits the guitar. Would that be acceptable?

I have no intention of marketing parts, I'm just curious.

As for keyword spamming on ebay, there is no shortage. As for ebay's policing of trademark/copyright infringement, that is entirely up to those who hold the rights. Just today I saw at least 2 dozen auctions for a set of DVDs that even say they are ripped in the subject, and I doubt very much they will be removed. It sure makes it harder for those with legitimate product to compete.

It's perfectly acceptable to indicate in the body copy the brand name for purposes of compatibility, i.e. "Fits Rickenbacker 4003 bass". The body of the message is also searchable but does not have the same legal implication of the subject line.

As you note, for the moment policing on eBay is up to the IP owner but the Tiffany case has the potential to change that rapidly. Nevertheless, current interpretations of the law have always pushed the burden back on the IP owner who must uniformly and unequivocally take action or face loss of the mark.

To be honest, I don't remember Randy's actual wording on the title. He may well have said Rickenbacker truss rods instead of truss rods for Rickenbacker.

Ted, carefully read what I posted as well as the eBay link. Doesn't matter- either way is unacceptable by law and/or Ebay policy as far as the subject line is concerned.

"Bass Truss Rods" in subject line and "Fits 4001 Rickenbacker bass" in body of auction, on the other hand, would be a perfectly legitimate way to offer the product.

Auctions like this one are pretty common and if I am reading the policy right, would be in violation of the Ebay policy because of the use of a brand name that does not apply to the maker of the item. Is that right?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=22670&item=3773073403&rd=1