Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I know John Hall has been diligent in protecting the copyright on designs for Ric guitars and basses, suing various offenders over the years. Does the brilliant 'normal' sized 12-string headstock design come into this? I've not seen it copied but it's such a great idea you would think someone would.

Pretty sure it's a Rick intellectual property of some variety.

I dunno, but the Charvel Surfcaster (among others) mimiced the staggered tuners with the rout:


OTOH, I believe that Fender has patented the shape of their headstock (and that's about the only thing they can protect from knock offs).

Looks like the Charvel has triangular inlays as well. The Bastards!

Spencer: Charvel also has a slash sound hole in this instrument.

I don't mean to nitpick, but we're talking about trademarks here. Big difference. Copyrights protect works of authorship, patents protect inventions. Trademarks protect company names, logos, and in some cases the "trade dress" of its products.

You can't trademark function. Now a headstock is functional, but when the "dress' of the headstock sets it apart so it's identified with a particular company, it can be trademarked.

All of Rickenbacker's headstock and body shapes are trademarked. But AFAIK the tuner arrangement on the 12 string is not, and I don't believe it would qualify, since it's matter of function and not just style.

FWIW, Fender is now trying to trademark the Strat, Tele and Precision body shapes, but their application has been opposed by a number of smaller companies. Time will tell. It will hinge on whether or not the shapes have become generic.

I would think that years and years of Fender not protecting their body shapes (i.e. indifference to "clones") would affect the decision, and that said influence would not bode well for Fender. The horse may be out of the barn on this one.

I agree with Adam. I think Fender has a lost cause, as the design trademarks would be deemed abandoned given the lack of enforcement over the years, which is why it is imperative to enforce your right when infringed.

"Spencer: Charvel also has a slash sound hole in this instrument."

- Arrrgghhh !!!! Noooooo !!!!

Actually, now I remember picking one of those up at a music store when they first came out, I just haven't seen a 12 string version.

Aside form trademarks, it's really just a question of honor. Many companies have none.

Spencer,

I own the guitar in the picture. It's a nice instrument, it plays well, and it's well made. There's nothing at all wrong with the quality of that guitar. It does weigh a ton, though.

It's not a Rick, but then, it doesn't pretend to be. There may be certain stylistic similarities (e.g. the tuner layout and sound hole), but no one would ever mistake it for a knockoff. Look at the inlays; they may be triangular, but they're much wider than a Rick. Note the bound headstock, or check out the body shape, number and location of controls, stringing pattern, pickguard, pickups, etc. Furthermore, these guitars were about the same price as RIC 12-strings when new (~$1100 in the early 90's). It is what it is, and you may like it or not, but it isn't a cheap Rickenbacker ripoff.

Adam, Can you post some pictures of your Charvel?

Oh, I know Adam - I'm just being dramatic...

I don't really have a problem with it, but I do think the Ric 12 headstock design is brilliant and that they really should own that one.
I mean, hell - if PRS can't make a single cut guitar, then, y' know...

Gretsch even trademarked their 'floating sound unit' - are you familiar with THAT aborrition?

that guitar looks mighty bitchin' ! doesn't Rickenbacker employee a former "rain maker" from either Jackson or Charvel ?

I read in the Bacon/Day book that Rickenbacker made a few 360/12s with the slots completely thru the headstock very early, probably prototypes. Easier to string up, I bet. Wouldn't that be cool?