On 2002-11-03 15:16, goesto11 wrote:
Keith Richards is still alive? I thought they had him stuffed and were wheeling him out on a cart. >John Mac
No, that was Mick JaggerâŚbut I think his lips are still moving 
Seems I remember seeing Keith Richards on the cover of Rolling Stone(I deliver a lot of mags and some covers just jump out at you, it couldâa been some guitar mag too) anyway, mossy? Iâd say craggy. Shows what that lifestyle can do for you if you manage not to kill yourself. Actually heâd make a good anti-drug poster- sure scarier than the fried egg in the skillet.
The good folks at Rolling Stone acknowledged many years ago that they had the band in mind when they named the magazine.
Leaving poor Keef to rot in peace and going back to the original question, I have some sympathy with both sides but I think the Zubivka position is clearly winning. Everyone who starts out in business and doesnât already have a recognisable identity needs a brand name that has the right associations. Weâve just forgotten how many people have got started riding on the back of somebody elseâs fame, talent or success. If you donât violate copywrite, what can the problem be? (Well, maybe copywrite law isnât perfect but thatâs another question.) The Rolling Stones thing was more likely a matter of homage and brand identification than a bad-taste attempt to exploit someone elseâs hard won fame. But why, personal reasons deriving from other disputes aside, should we view the use of âChieftainâ differently? Itâs a brand of whistle, not a rival band. Would it have been better to call it âChieftoneâ or perhaps âChifftoneâ? I donât have a stake in this, I play mainly Overtons.
On 2002-11-03 08:05, Wombat wrote:
Les Paul guitars were on the market well before Gibson bought out Epiphone. I donât have the exact dates handy but Gibson Les Pauls were available from the early fifties and Gibson didnât buy out Epiphone until the late fifties or early sixties.
Iâll have to check later on exact times but Gibson had taken over Epiphones and moved the archtop guitar operation out of NY to Kalamazoo by 1954. They bought Epiphone because they couldnât actually beat them at making archtops.
I hadnât heard the Les Paul connection but the first Les Paul Gibsons were 1952 or 1953, so weâre in the right ball park.
Ironically, Gibson had parted ways with Lloyd Loar in 1925 because he wanted to develop a magnetic coil pickup for musical instruments and they didnât think anyone would ever want one. 
Proving once again that innovation and genius are fleeting but corporate stupidity is forever. B-)
[ This Message was edited by: MandoPaul on 2002-11-03 23:57 ]
On 2002-11-03 23:55, MandoPaul wrote:
On 2002-11-03 08:05, Wombat wrote:
Les Paul guitars were on the market well before Gibson bought out Epiphone. I donât have the exact dates handy but Gibson Les Pauls were available from the early fifties and Gibson didnât buy out Epiphone until the late fifties or early sixties.Iâll have to check later on exact times but Gibson had taken over Epiphones and moved the archtop guitar operation out of NY to Kalamazoo by 1954. They bought Epiphone because they couldnât actually beat them at making archtops.
I hadnât heard the Les Paul connection but the first Les Paul Gibsons were 1952 or 1953, so weâre in the right ball park.
Not quite, Paul. 1952 is right for the first Les Paul I think. Epiphone was sold to Conn in '53, sold back in '55 and bought out finally by Gibson in '57. Check out
http://www.provide.net/~cfh/epiphone.html
I have a personal interest in all this. I have an early to mid 60âs Epiphone Casino and an early '70âs Les Paul Custom. I love both of them.
[ This Message was edited by: Wombat on 2002-11-04 00:37 ]
On 2002-11-04 00:34, Wombat wrote:
Not quite, Paul. 1952 is right for the first Les Paul I think. Epiphone was sold to Conn in '53, sold back in '55 and bought out finally by Gibson in '57. Check out
http://www.provide.net/~cfh/epiphone.html
Youâre right. I was remembering 1953 because 1954 and later Epiphone Emperors are worth a good bit less because they werenât the original, NY Epiphones and I was looking at Emperors a few years back. Iâd forgotten that little stint at Conn.
Who says mergers and acquisitions foolishness was a product of the 1980sâŚ
Iâm looking for, and canât seem to find, a photo I saw recently of Les Paul with an oddly canted cast on his arm. He broke the arm and then had the doctor put the cast on in such a position that he could still get the arm around his guitar. Heâs playing a hollow-bodied Epiphone in the photo.
Iâll post it if I can find it later today.
On 2002-11-03 23:43 Wombat wrote:
Leaving poor Keef to rot in peace and going back to the original question, I have some sympathy with both sides but I think the Zubivka position is clearly winning. Everyone who starts out in business and doesnât already have a recognisable identity needs a brand name that has the right associations. Weâve just forgotten how many people have got started riding on the back of somebody elseâs fame, talent or success. > If you donât violate copywrite, what can the problem be? > (Well, maybe copywrite law isnât perfect but thatâs another question.) The Rolling Stones thing was more likely a matter of homage and brand identification than a bad-taste attempt to exploit someone elseâs hard won fame. But why, personal reasons deriving from other disputes aside, should we view the use of âChieftainâ differently? Itâs a brand of whistle, not a rival band. Would it have been better to call it âChieftoneâ or perhaps âChifftoneâ? I donât have a stake in this, I play mainly Overtons.
That is exactly the problem, Wombat. Although it isnât copyright law, itâs actually a trademark issue. When a person or company spends time buliding up good will in their name, they have a right to that name. So if I were to come out now with a âJoanie Maddenâ whistle, I would be trying to (unfairly) take advantage of the good will she has built in her name. Now if I do that with her permission, that is another story.
In US trademark law, one test for whether a trademark has been violated is a âlikelihood of confusionâ test. So is there a likelihood that an average person would be confused with the origin of this product. For me, I was confused, since I thought that these whistles were endorsed by the band.
John Mac
On 2002-11-04 10:33, goesto11 wrote:
That is exactly the problem, Wombat. Although it isnât copyright law, itâs actually a trademark issue. When a person or company spends time buliding up good will in their name, they have a right to that name. So if I were to come out now with a âJoanie Maddenâ whistle, I would be trying to (unfairly) take advantage of the good will she has built in her name. Now if I do that with her permission, that is another story.In US trademark law, one test for whether a trademark has been violated is a âlikelihood of confusionâ test. So is there a likelihood that an average person would be confused with the origin of this product. For me, I was confused, since I thought that these whistles were endorsed by the band.
John Mac
I take your point about confusion John. But I fear that it takes more than that to establish a sensible case for prohibiting name use here. Remember, people here were unaware that âRolling Stonesâ was taken from a Willie
Dixon song popularised by Muddy Waters. Others didnât know whether âLes Paulâ was used with the manâs consent. Mightnât someone in the know have been likely to think that the Stones had Dixonâs and Watersâ blessing? Why not? Nobody so far has claimed that they didnât have a right to use the name. Might not some benighted fool think that the Chieftains really were genuine chieftains? I just canât see a clear boundary here between the legitimate use of a word to give the desired impression and a rip off. The Joannie Madden example does seem a clear rip-off. But thatâs a personal name, not a descriptive name. That said, if there is another Joannie Madden around who makes whistles, she would have every right to market her whistles under that name. Any suggestions as to where the boundary lies and why it lies just there?
[ This Message was edited by: Wombat on 2002-11-05 10:47 ]
In Ecclesiastes, it is written: âWhat has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun.â ⌠been true for a long time, huh, podners?
Cheers,
Bill Whedon
Wombat,
I understand your position, but there are clear (?) boundaries, at least in the US. But I donât think anyone here wants a treatise on Trademark law. 
I think the main issue here is ethics. Was there someone who was trying, unfairly, to leverage someone elseâs name? I think here the answer is yes, so I would not support that business by purchasing from them. But ultimately, it is the band the Chieftains that has to decide if they want to do anything about it, and they have apparaently decided that it is not important to them.
John Mac
I think youâre right, John. I just donât think that the boundaries are clear. But they donât have to be. As consumers, we all have the right to boycott products if we think there is anything unethical about them (or their producers) and to publicise our reasons. In the marginal cases, some will agree and some wonât.
On 2002-11-05 10:46, Wombat wrote:
The Joannie Madden example does seem a clear rip-off. But thatâs a personal name, not a descriptive name. That said, if there is another Joannie Madden around who makes whistles, she would have every right to market her whistles under that name.
Wrong. At least under US law. Just ask anybody named McDonald who has tried to name their hamburger stand after themself in the past forty years or so. Which is especially ironic since Ray Kroc was the one who formed the franchise that trademarked the name. In '61 or '62 the McDonald brothers sold all rights to Ray.
Yep, if your name is McDonald and you try to sell hamburgers using your own name, you will almost certainly be sued into the ground by a company that has no relationship whatsoever to the McDonald clan but owns the trademark. Welkom to Amerika.
John
[ This Message was edited by: OutOfBreath on 2002-11-05 12:26 ]
On 2002-11-05 11:00, goesto11 wrote:
I think the main issue here is ethics. Was there someone who was trying, unfairly, to leverage someone elseâs name? I think here the answer is yes, so I would not support that business by purchasing from them.
I understand your position here John, and I post my own not to debate you on yours, but to give a different perspective.
When I got my first Chieftain whistle, it never even crossed my mind that it might have been made by the Chieftains, or even endorsed by them. I never even considered that another person might come to that conclusion.
On the other hand, the Waltonâs Guinness whistle is clearly using a liscensed brand. To me, this is pretty obvious, as thereâs a sticker of the Guinnessâ trademarked harp, and other information to help make the association in the purchaserâs mind. This seems obvious that this is an attempt to âIrish-upâ the whistle. I can see Phil Hardy perhaps choosing the Chieftain name for similar reasons. Or he may have chosen the name for totally unrelated reasons. I wasnât in his mind when he did so.
Should Phil have licensed the Cheiftain name? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Iâve never seen him claim that the whistles were made by or endorsed by the Chieftains. Likewise, Iâve just popped over to http://www.uspto.gov (us patent and trademark office). The Chieftain](http://tess.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=ds8lcn.4.3%22%3EChieftain) trademark registration clearly trademarks the words âThe Chieftainsâ for performances and shows (ie: as a band..âentertainment servicesâ), and not as makers of instruments (which would be some kind of manufatured good). They have another registration covering their recorded works. Additionally, there are 3 dozen other registrations (both âliveâ and âdeadâ) for the word âCheiftainâ and/or âChieftainsâ, from everything from beer-making kits to rice products to firemanâs gear. Is Philâs use of the single word âChieftainâ close enough in name and genre to dilute âThe Chieftainsâ? I personally donât think so..but Iâm neither a judge nor a lawyer.
I personally havenât seen any evidence that he has attempted to purposefully confuse anyone, and I donât think the name alone makes a primae facia case of unethical behavior. I have noticed that itâs human nature for people to ascribe more sinister motives to the behavior of folks they donât like as opposed to those they do. I think Philâs use of the word is no worse than the thousands of cases of using similiarities to help brand a product.
[ This Message was edited by: Wandering_Whistler on 2002-11-05 17:56 ]
Right John, I was forgetting that. I think Joannie would be a bit more understanding somehow. I suppose what I really meant was a moral right since that was what was in question. I think weâd both agree that a McDonald ought to be able to use the name, wouldnât we?
I havenât read all the comments here. Hereâs a slighly OT comment. We make comments about whistles. That can hurt some feelingsâŚso be it. But before posting a message about persons or motives we should pause and consider the following: âWhat evidence can I present?â If itâs just an opinion without evidenceâŚkeep it to yourself.
I remember reading something like this in a customerâs office. Itâs not great literature, but the concept stuck in my head for 30 years:
The rational mind dwells on things
The great mind discusses ideas
The small mind talks about people
E-flat: good point.
You other guys just crack me up. Did any of you read that article in the NYTimes Mag about a year back about his 13-year old kid giving free legal advice on the internet? He got the highest confidence & competence ratings (even AFTER he was outed) from the other surfers who wondered if Phil Hardy could shut them down if they started a band called âKerry Proâ.
On 2002-11-05 13:46, Bloomfield wrote:
E-flat: good point.You other guys just crack me up. Did any of you read that article in the NYTimes Mag about a year back about his 13-year old kid giving free legal advice on the internet? He got the highest confidence & competence ratings (even AFTER he was outed) from the other surfers who wondered if Phil Hardy could shut them down if they started a band called âKerry Proâ.
Donât believe Iâve heard that one, Bloomy. Got a link? A google search failed to turn anything up.
However interesting, I donât really see how the actions of someoneâs 13 year old kid have to do with the current discussion, though.
On 2002-11-05 12:27 Wandering_Whistler wrote:
When I got my first Chieftain whistle, it never even crossed my mind that it might have been made by the Chieftains, or even endorsed by them. I never even considered that another person might come to that conclusion.
I find it surprising that you didnât make that connection. It jumped out at me. Iâm not saying that you didnât, Iâm just surprised that you didnât. And I canât believe it surprised you that someone else made that connection. A whistle making having the same name as a worldwide Irish band? Whoâd have thunk it?
Should Phil have licensed the Cheiftain name? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Iâve never seen him claim that the whistles were made by or endorsed by the Chieftains. Likewise, Iâve just popped over to http://www.uspto.gov (us patent and trademark office). The Chieftain trademark registration clearly trademarks the words âThe Chieftainsâ for performances and shows (ie: as a band..âentertainment servicesâ), and not as makers of instruments (which would be some kind of manufatured good). They have another registration covering their recorded works. Additionally, there are 3 dozen other registrations (both âliveâ and âdeadâ) for the word âCheiftainâ and/or âChieftainsâ, from everything from beer-making kits to rice products to firemanâs gear. Is Philâs use of the single word âChieftainâ close enough in name and genre to dilute âThe Chieftainsâ? I personally donât think so..but Iâm neither a judge nor a lawyer.
I personally havenât seen any evidence that he has attempted to purposefully confuse anyone, and I donât think the name alone makes a primae facia case of unethical behavior. I have noticed that itâs human nature for people to ascribe more sinister motives to the bahavior of folks they donât like as opposed to those they do. I think Philâs use of the word is no worse than the thousands of cases of using similiarities to help brand a product.
Are you sure youâre not a lawyer? You are using some pretty lawyerly words. Are you just trying to hide something from us to avoid abuse?
Wombat wrote:
I think weâd both agree that a McDonald ought to be able to use the name, wouldnât we?
Actually, I donât agree. I work in the area of intellectual property law, and branding is very important. If my last name were McDonald (itâs not, but close), I would know that I could not open a restaraunt named McDonalds, because one already exists.
I also know that views on intellectual property vary depending upon where people live. I am a product of the American culture, which places different value on IP (patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.) than other cultures.
E = Fb wrote:
I havenât read all the comments here. Hereâs a slighly OT comment. We make comments about whistles. That can hurt some feelingsâŚso be it. But before posting a message about persons or motives we should pause and consider the following: âWhat evidence can I present?â If itâs just an opinion without evidenceâŚkeep it to yourself.
I remember reading something like this in a customerâs office. Itâs not great literature, but the concept stuck in my head for 30 years:
The rational mind dwells on things
The great mind discusses ideas
The small mind talks about people
I love platitudes like this. You present an opinion, about me, saying that you shouldnât post opinions about others. And what kind of evidence are you looking for? A comment from a maker that âYes, I purposefully stole their name so that I could take economic advantage of it to their detrimentâ? I couldnât find any comments along those lines. Sometimes you have to look at the circumstances. Did you know that over 90% of all murder convictions are based on circumstantial evidence?
Bloomfield wrote:
E-flat: good point.
You other guys just crack me up. Did any of you read that article in the NYTimes Mag about a year back about his 13-year old kid giving free legal advice on the internet? He got the highest confidence & competence ratings (even AFTER he was outed) from the other surfers who wondered if Phil Hardy could shut them down if they started a band called âKerry Proâ.
Still trying to decipher this one.
John Mac