Would the Custom Shop do this?

[fullmetalguitar]

I really like the headstock that they used back in 1996 for the first PC-1 models and those SD Charvels. I think you guys call it the Sears headstock. Anyway, I'm just wondering if you can still get that headstock on a custom shop order. Since they started using the real stratheads again, has anyone ordered or seen a guitar with the old headstock?

[neilli]

It's their design so I can't see why they wouldn't do it. Probably be an upcharge though....

[shreddermon]

Hmmm. The very early PC1s and mid-90s Charvels? I'm guessing they probably won't do it.

My understanding is that FMIC legal may have issued a cease and desist letter back then, claiming it was too close in design to Fender's strat headstock. And that's why J/C changed the headstock to the later, more rounded PC1 design.

I tried to order a custom shop guitar with that earlier headstock design a few years before the FMIC buyout, and they wouldn't do it. I had to go with the then-current PC1 design.

Doesn't hurt to ask, though.

[fullmetalguitar]

Here is another thing I've been curious about. After '96, they made the headstock more rounded, as you mentioned. But made in Japan Charvels from 2002 had headstocks that looked more like the ones from '96 (not so rounded) and that was before the FMIC buyout. How did they get away with it then I wonder?

[shreddermon]

I've always wondered that myself. Actually, it kind of p**sed me off at the time those import Charvels were introduced, because that was only a year or two after my custom shop guitar was done.

My guess is that, by that later date, J/C did some further research on the subject and decided that FMIC didn't have a totally sound legal basis for the mid-90s C&D threat. i.e., They felt that the original design's shape was different enough from Fender's strathead to be considered a new, unique design. ...It doesn't take much to be "legally" different, actually.

And, actually, that last point was (later) somewhat played out in court between Gibson and PRS, although on body designs, instead. The courts pretty much bitch-slapped Gibson's lawyers and PRS won the case on all points. So I think Fender and Gibson aren't feeling quite the same level of "legal oats" that they were prior to that court case's decisions.

Also, since those Charvel guitars were MIJ (although sold in the US), that may have further complicated the legal arguments.

But WTF do I know? I'm not a lawyer.

[rjohnstone]

And, actually, that last point was (later) somewhat played out in court between Gibson and PRS, although on body designs, instead. The courts pretty much bitch-slapped Gibson's lawyers and PRS won the case on all points. So I think Fender and Gibson aren't feeling quite the same level of "legal oats" that they were prior to that court case's decisions.

You're almost right.
Body shapes are not considered protected based on the courts ruling, however the court ruling made no mention of headstock design.

Headstock designs/shapes can be legally trademarked, which Fender has done.
Trademark law is much different than copyright law.

One thing that is in play with trademark infringement is you don't have to prove direct infringement has taken place, you only have to prove the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace.
This is what Gibson tried to present in their case under Copyright law.
Under Copyright law, you have to PROVE actual infringement (direct copying), and you also have to prove the uniqueness of the design in question. (Trademark laws require a uniqueness factor as well when applying for a trademark.)
The court ruled their design was too "generic" and did not qualify for Copyright protections.

Gibson never held a trademark for their body designs, only the headstock and logo.

Fender has legal grounds and the means for protecting their trademarked headstock design.
So they were well within their rights to issue a C&D to J/C.
Now that they own JCMI, they might be more amiable to let the CS make the headstock.
Doesn't hurt to ask. Worst thing they can do is say no.

[ToneZone]

Does anyone have pictures with the not-so-rounded ('96) headstock and the newer one? I'd like to see and compare.

[rjohnstone]

Ask and ye shall receive.

96 SD reissue



96 PC1

[ToneZone]

Ask and ye shall receive.

96 SD reissue



96 PC1

Aah. Thanks a lot!

[shreddermon]

You're almost right.
Body shapes are not considered protected based on the courts ruling, however the court ruling made no mention of headstock design.

Agreed. That's what I meant with the "somewhat" qualifier.

I also suspect that PRS/Gibby ruling made FMIC's lawyers take a step back on their agressive headstock practices. i.e., Yes, they have a valid trademark. But they aren't quite on the same solid legal ground as they were before the court ruling. The PRS/Gibby case makes it easier for other companies to prove that even small design differences can be "legal" - even for trademarked headstock designs - as long as there will be no reasonable way a consumer can confuse the products between the two different companies.

[rjohnstone]

The old SD/PC1 headstock looks great, but I would hardly see any grounds for confusion.
It's clearly not a Fender headstock shape.

[shreddermon]

Right. And maybe that's why J/C started using it again on those (pre-Fender) import Charvels. And also why - maybe - the custom shop won't do it yet again. i.e., The lawyers may perceive it to "undermine" FMIC's legal protections on the strathead trademark. Wouldn't want that to happen from within the "family", now would we?

Again, though, doesn't hurt to ask. Worst they can do is say no.