Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2017 0:53:24 GMT
I believe that Fender and Gibson have patent, trademark and perhaps other legal protection of their headstock and body shapes, etc. It must be the case that National and Dobro lost, or never had pritection of their basic designs or they were generic to begin with. They did have patent protection on their resonator cone systems, but I guess they were never renewed, so anyone can build one. Also, the National shield apears to have been not protected. But then, somehow NRP cannot use the Duolian name and Gibson owns the Dobro name. Maybe Michael, Mark or others can shed some light on these issues...
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Jun 25, 2017 12:33:08 GMT
Hi Fred Here are the answers to your questions. I am not lawyer and much of this is hearsay, but this is how I think it is... There is no legal protection for the design/shape of original National guitars. There is legal protection on the names Duolian - now owned by Gibson/Dobro, and Triolian - now owned by National Reso-Phonic Guitars. There is legal protection on the National brand name, but only in the musical instrument industry. There is legal protection on the Dobro name, and I have heard that they have enforced this in the musical instrument industry and in other areas. John Dopyera Junior's home was called 'Dobro Acres' and apparently he was legally forced to change it. I heard this from John. There is legal protection on the National shield logo. The history of Gibson and Dobro is a long story, but if you know the story, it is no surprise that Gibson buried the Dobro brand. Personally, I think that what has happened to the Dobro brand is a crime. Apparently we are supposed to put the registered trademark symbol ®®®®® next to the D® word every time we use it. Try doing that in the Czech Republic! Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by Ian McWee on Jun 25, 2017 13:05:44 GMT
That's quite correct ~ on our recent short break in Dubrovnik, I lost count of the number of times the word 'Dobro' appeared in Croatian subtitles during English films on T.V!
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Jun 25, 2017 14:16:51 GMT
Dobrodan® Ian,
In fact the D® word is used in most of the Slavic languages.... Czech Republic, Croatia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, all use that word.
Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by Stevie on Jun 25, 2017 16:00:34 GMT
And in Polish too (dobry)
Obviously just a happy coincidence in DOpyera BROthers
cześć Fred, Ian and MM!
e&oe...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2017 20:53:49 GMT
Thanks for the info. I did some googling (while sitting home watching Yankees game) ...the whole deal with patents, copyright and trademark is confusing. It seems that every trade name from the 50's is back. I guess in the case of the National name and trademark, it may have gone into disuse and abandoned... but I guess that, unlike music and patents that go into the public domain, a trademark may be picked up and protected by another owner...
|
|
karlos
Serious MM Forum Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by karlos on Jun 28, 2017 9:22:17 GMT
Hello guys,
I'm not a lawyer too but I've read somewhere that name "National" cannot be protected as a brand name as it's considered as public domain in US, and probably in most english speaking countries. It's very likely reason why "Dobro" brand name has always been protected and had various owners during the time while "National" hasn't.
Michael has right that word dobro or its variants (dobry dobre dobra) meaning good or well is used in all slavic languages except russian.
Karlos
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Jun 28, 2017 9:47:23 GMT
Hi Karlos,
Just to correct you on that point. I once questioned this point with the late owner of NRP, Don Young, and he was able to prove that the name 'National' is owned by National Reso-Phonic Guitars Inc, but ONLY in the musical instrument industry. This is a fact, not hearsay or a rumour that I read somewhere.
Shine On Michael
|
|
karlos
Serious MM Forum Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by karlos on Jun 28, 2017 15:01:56 GMT
Interesting. As I said - I'm not a lawyer. Everyday we can learn something new . Cheers Karlos
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2017 15:47:45 GMT
The category aspect of the trademark or tradename protection is understood and well-enforced. I am wondering if the National name was owned by some entity and purchased by Young (NRP) or was it legally abandoned by Valco/Kay or whoever owned it last in 1968 and taken by Young et als... I cant think of any musical instruments from 1968 thru the '80's labeled National. Usually when a corporation dissolved, its trademarks are acquired and repurposed in the industry.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Makin on Jun 29, 2017 13:14:03 GMT
Hi Fred After the sale of Valco in 1968, the National brand name became Japanese owned. Instruments were made in Japan and marketed back into the US, under the brand names of 'National', 'Ensenada' and 'Norma' through the early 1970s by the "Strum & Drum" company of Wheeling, Illinois. Strum & Drum and also the National name later fell under the ownership of Bill Kaman (Ovation instruments). It is from here that it went to Don Young.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2017 18:56:49 GMT
Hi Mark What sort of guitars were 'Ensenada' and 'Norma'? Any resos? Cheers TT
|
|
|
Post by Mark Makin on Jun 30, 2017 14:11:28 GMT
Hi Tone Norma guitars were generally very bad quality, inexpensive beginners' acoustics and electric solid bodies. The Ensenadas seemed to be predominantly classical guitars and bad copies of things like Gibson Dreadnoughts such as Doves and Hummingbirds. The only resonator I can find was a Dreadnought shaped Dobro with screen holes and spider. It was branded as a National "REPRO". I wouldn't waste my time actively going out looking for any of them Tone!! Best M
|
|
|
Post by mitchfit on Jul 7, 2017 16:41:19 GMT
MM said:
..."There is legal protection on the National brand name, but only in the musical instrument industry."...
some may recall previous rants from itself about how music laws are incredibly constipated to interpret---to the point that a team of lawyers could have as many opinions as members.
on the same case.
suppose it is testimony to the polar differences in personality traits between lawyers and musicians.
this is the first time i've been forced to consider anomalies extending into even the musical instrument industry however.
it springs into my mind the potential litigation from the name of Fender's jaguar model guitars.
or Gibson's corvette guitar. even more specifically the "'63 Corvette Stingray" model...
there must have been ~some~ sort of financial arrangements made there. especially from a company that would later successfully sue PRS for selling "LP" shaped solid body guitars.
i guess the flip-side of that record would be Ford's mustang automobile, and Pontiac's firebird.
don't recall the thread here from the past about somebody's near prehistorical guitar collection. same went all the way back to African turtle shell body instruments to present variations. in the final view, i learned that there a actually very few "new" design innovations in acoustic guitars.
just another question mankind has been pondering since the dawn of civilization.
:^}
mitchfit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 18:34:42 GMT
I think copyright law is clear, as MM stated, that allows name protection based on product category. A corvette guitar is in a different product category than a corvette car.
|
|