Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I'm not quite sure, wheter they fit into the 4001 models, but if it is possible, then finally eveybody could (should) have one!!!
http://originalsite.renaissanceguitars.com/modelt.html

Lets see if they sell them as an aftermarket part.

The RT horseshoe pickup does not have enough clearance for a Rick, I think.

Wouldn't they be a RIC trademark infringement?

I believe the Rickenbacker lawyers stopped Jason Lollar from making " horseshoe " style pickups several years ago .

I would guess that's infringing and will be pursued by RIC.

And it's too bad, because: A) it looks like it's well-done, B) RT probably spent a lot of time re-creating it, and C) he probably had no idea that the part is legally off-limits.



But the good news is that a 70's hi-gain allows full access to your strings and looks better anyway.

I fully understand RIC wanting to protect it's patents and all. But why stop Lollar from making the HS if RIC isn't now(and may never) offer the HS as an aftermarket part to people that want them. They could have given exclusive authorization for him him to do it to original specs to protect the copyright, and make it available to those of us who like the look and sound of the HS and make some money in the process. I mean if they aren't going to do it themselves.......

Maybe I'm just having a bad day.

Maybe you are...it's a simple matter of infringement on RIC's duly-registered and thus protected intellectual property.

And, I can't believe that Rick Turner doesn't know better...

Rick Turner has ahd this model out for at least ten years now. I asked him once at NAMM (A=Maybe 2001-2002) if he sold the Horseshoes separately and he told me "no." Something about his answer suggested to me that he didn't make them himself - but I have no evidence for that.

As to the IP, the patent on the horseshoe must have run out 50 years ago on the originals. Perhaps a new one was issued for the bass pickup but that would have run out in the early '70's if not sooner. The only way they can claim infringement is if they decalare the horseshoe to be a trademark, rather than a pick of technology. This is how Fender protected its headstock shape. But that argument sounds like a stretch -especially as the trademark appears to be satisfied by a plastic handrest. Still a single fellow in his shop would have a hard time going up against Rics lawyers.

Do they still have the horseshoe under trademark? It began in 1934... and they used it up until what year? Then when did they re-issue it? Rick doesn't even make the thing anymore, its totally different. The horseshoe was also encased in a chrome enclosure as part of a larger look, this is just on its own and seems to be constructed its own way. I think this is a case of the design necessitating a certain look rather than them going after making the look to sell their stuff as "rickenbacker".

jamespaul71 wrote:Do they still have the horseshoe under trademark? It began in 1934... and they used it up until what year? Then when did they re-issue it? Rick doesn't even make the thing anymore, its totally different. The horseshoe was also encased in a chrome enclosure as part of a larger look, this is just on its own and seems to be constructed its own way. I think this is a case of the design necessitating a certain look rather than them going after making the look to sell their stuff as "rickenbacker".

The payments have been kept up, and it's protected.

It's not a "patent". It's "trade dress".

Here's a quick primer in trade dress rights:

http://www.idearights.com/trddrss.htm

"Ownership" means the owner controls the terms of use of the thing owned. RIC owns the trade dress on horsehoe p/ups, so they control the terms of use. They can make HS p/ups or not, it's their choice. If RIC decides not to make and sell horseshoes, it doesn't mean someone else can go ahead and make them because RIC isn't making them.

That would never hold up in court. But that wouldn't stop them from trying. (After all Harley Davidson tried unsuccessfully to trademark the "sound" of a Harley - which probably would have made them be able to claim liscense fees from anyone making a big v-twin.)

Does Ric make anything with a horseshow beside the 4001v63? It is hard to argue that the horseshoe is esential to Rickenbacker's look.

That may explain Turner. He and his partners may just be big enough to tell Ric to shove it.'

Oh and tradmarks can be renewed indefinitely.

nbfanca wrote:That would never hold up in court. But that wouldn't stop them from trying. (After all Harley Davidson tried unsuccessfully to trademark the "sound" of a Harley - which probably would have made them be able to claim liscense fees from anyone making a big v-twin.)

Does Ric make anything with a horseshow beside the 4001v63? It is hard to argue that the horseshoe is esential to Rickenbacker's look.

That may explain Turner. He and his partners may just be big enough to tell Ric to shove it.'

Oh and tradmarks can be renewed indefinitely.

..which was the basis of my last post. They've kept the trade dress registration renewed, and continue to pursue infractions, as is required in order for them to enjoy continued protection. Fender failed to prevail in their half-century-too-late attempts to register the dress of the Strat, Tele, and Jazz Bass, for just this reason--for decades people have been knocking them off, and they've turned the other cheek.

Incidentally, it does stand up in court, RIC having never lost a case yet.

The specifics of the Turner situation are something I'm not privy to, but if it's been going on for a decade, there must be an intriguing reason or some sort of arrangement.

Do you know a case where they went to court about the horseshoe and won?