rukind.com

Grateful Dead Music Forum

A place to talk about the music of the Grateful Dead 

Chat about Equipment Info
 #58969  by jackr
 Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:40 pm
They should have thought to trademark that shape in the beginning. But who know I guess? If they didnt start that shape I wonder who did? That may have been some windfall if they had one. The strat is just about the most common shaped guitar I would think.
 #58972  by pjcenedella
 Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:47 pm
Any one who's buying a Fender would be able to tell the difference between a real Fender and an imitator anyway, so the trademark I don't think is really necessary.
 #58978  by jackr
 Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:48 am
pjcenedella wrote:Any one who's buying a Fender would be able to tell the difference between a real Fender and an imitator anyway, so the trademark I don't think is really necessary.
I dont know if I would agree with that statement but that is not the point many people have no clue what they are buying. That shape alone helps sell other brand guitars because it is so recognizable. There are some that use that shape that dont try to imitate fenders and that are very high end. And is G&L an imitator since they were designed by Leo Fender? If fender had won the suit even those would not be allowed.
 #58980  by playingdead
 Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:58 am
I think it was more than just about cheap, inferior imitations.

John Suhr was a party to that lawsuit -- he built Mark Knopfler's Strat-style guitars when he played a Pensa-Suhr guitar.

I have a Suhr Classic Strat guitar ... play that against a new Fender Custom Shop Strat and you'd probably buy the Suhr, they are just beautiful instruments. He builds other shapes as well, but for people who want a handmade Stratocaster that is an improvement over the current offerings from Fender, there are boutique builders who are out there.

http://suhrguitars.com/classic.aspx
 #58996  by FretfulDave
 Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:37 am
Seems kind of late in the game for the body shape. They should look more to the headstock designs if not already done. But agree that it was an attempt to distinguish between inferior products. On the other hand, there are too many products that could be considered superior to trademark the shapes at this point. Same with the other manufacturers. How many Les Paul body shapes are out there? How about double cutaway hollow bodies? Maybe this explains the price increases... they blew a bunch of cash on the trademark attempt :shock: .

Dave
 #59006  by Rusty the Scoob
 Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:05 am
The headstock shapes were the subject of a huge lawsuit that Fender/Gibson ended up winning, sometime around the early 80's I believe. Ibanez, for example, built really great Gibson copies before that time.

Fender must be licensing their headstocks to Warmoth, they're the main company currently making exact copies, and they make really great stuff... definitely better than Fender's rank-and-file instruments.