yet another dick move by the estate!

He should NEVER give up the fight!

Intellectual Property Rights legislation is on his side. Just because the Estate comes across as a menacing large company he should not give in. After all, that is what they want.

Let the Estate go to court and lose as it will cost them millions!

I hope soon the Prince estate is passed to the family to manage as I would hope they have a lot more common sense compared to these idiots!

darkroman said:

He should NEVER give up the fight!

Intellectual Property Rights legislation is on his side. Just because the Estate comes across as a menacing large company he should not give in. After all, that is what they want.

Let the Estate go to court and lose as it will cost them millions!

I hope soon the Prince estate is passed to the family to manage as I would hope they have a lot more common sense compared to these idiots!

Don't count on the family having more common sense, it's all about the $$$.

This is more complicated than it sounds. They are challenging RUSAN's trademark. Paisely as far as I can tell are not filing their own.

As of right now ONLY Rusan can sell a guitar shaped like the cloud because in the infinate wisdom of the USPTO they are accepting Rusan's claim that the shape itself now has obtained "secondary meaning" and that people will assume that the guitar was made by him. This is false on its face as there have been multiple manufactures of the cloud.

Paisley park is right in challenging the mark, as should Schecter and other guitar manufactures The design is in the public domain and should be available to anyone.

NOONE should get a trademark on a guitar body design. Ask Gibson how their PRS case worked out.

Trademarks are not meant to be permanent patents.

emesem said:

This is more complicated than it sounds. They are challenging RUSAN's trademark. Paisely as far as I can tell are not filing their own.

As of right now ONLY Rusan can sell a guitar shaped like the cloud because in the infinate wisdom of the USPTO they are accepting Rusan's claim that the shape itself now has obtained "secondary meaning" and that people will assume that the guitar was made by him. This is false on its face as there have been multiple manufactures of the cloud.

Paisley park is right in challenging the mark, as should Schecter and other guitar manufactures The design is in the public domain and should be available to anyone.

NOONE should get a trademark on a guitar body design. Ask Gibson how their PRS case worked out.

Trademarks are not meant to be permanent patents.

Yeah very well said. Probably no one should have a trademark on this - I understand that Dave was trying to ensure that no one tried to stop him selling his guitars, but the trademark was probably a mistake in hindsight and should be removed. Such cases never hold up in court. Dave a lovely guy but I don't blame the estate for trying to contest the trademark - after all, they are selling a cloud guitar of their own, they will want to safeguard that.

The ideal outcome would be that the trademark is removed, and the estate and Rusan reach an agreement to both pursue their own cloud guitar products independently.

I doubt the original agreement on the cloud guitar project was written down anywhere, I doubt there's a paper trail for any of it in terms of who retains ownership of the design etc, or what elements were adopted from other guitars such as the Sardonyx bass. No one is likely to get paid here except the lawyers, so really the estate needs to speak to Dave and just work out an amicable solution. If he gave up his claim to the trademark, and if the Prince Estate agree to permit Rusan to sell his cloud guitars independently, there is no issue here.

ian said:

emesem said:

This is more complicated than it sounds. They are challenging RUSAN's trademark. Paisely as far as I can tell are not filing their own.

As of right now ONLY Rusan can sell a guitar shaped like the cloud because in the infinate wisdom of the USPTO they are accepting Rusan's claim that the shape itself now has obtained "secondary meaning" and that people will assume that the guitar was made by him. This is false on its face as there have been multiple manufactures of the cloud.

Paisley park is right in challenging the mark, as should Schecter and other guitar manufactures The design is in the public domain and should be available to anyone.

NOONE should get a trademark on a guitar body design. Ask Gibson how their PRS case worked out.

Trademarks are not meant to be permanent patents.

Yeah very well said. Probably no one should have a trademark on this - I understand that Dave was trying to ensure that no one tried to stop him selling his guitars, but the trademark was probably a mistake in hindsight and should be removed. Such cases never hold up in court. Dave a lovely guy but I don't blame the estate for trying to contest the trademark - after all, they are selling a cloud guitar of their own, they will want to safeguard that.

The ideal outcome would be that the trademark is removed, and the estate and Rusan reach an agreement to both pursue their own cloud guitar products independently.

I doubt the original agreement on the cloud guitar project was written down anywhere, I doubt there's a paper trail for any of it in terms of who retains ownership of the design etc, or what elements were adopted from other guitars such as the Sardonyx bass. No one is likely to get paid here except the lawyers, so really the estate needs to speak to Dave and just work out an amicable solution. If he gave up his claim to the trademark, and if the Prince Estate agree to permit Rusan to sell his cloud guitars independently, there is no issue here.

Why is he the one who has to give up his claim on the trademark? Why can't he keep it, and if he wants he can then give the Estate permission to sell them.

PennyPurple said:

ian said:

Yeah very well said. Probably no one should have a trademark on this - I understand that Dave was trying to ensure that no one tried to stop him selling his guitars, but the trademark was probably a mistake in hindsight and should be removed. Such cases never hold up in court. Dave a lovely guy but I don't blame the estate for trying to contest the trademark - after all, they are selling a cloud guitar of their own, they will want to safeguard that.

The ideal outcome would be that the trademark is removed, and the estate and Rusan reach an agreement to both pursue their own cloud guitar products independently.

I doubt the original agreement on the cloud guitar project was written down anywhere, I doubt there's a paper trail for any of it in terms of who retains ownership of the design etc, or what elements were adopted from other guitars such as the Sardonyx bass. No one is likely to get paid here except the lawyers, so really the estate needs to speak to Dave and just work out an amicable solution. If he gave up his claim to the trademark, and if the Prince Estate agree to permit Rusan to sell his cloud guitars independently, there is no issue here.

Why is he the one who has to give up his claim on the trademark? Why can't he keep it, and if he wants he can then give the Estate permission to sell them.

Because it is so problematic for everyone. Most (all?) of the unique design elements that made the guitar recognizeable originated elsewhere. All guitars borrow elements from other instruments, none of them are created in a vacuum. Guitar bodies are just variants on a few commonly used and function-dictated shapes, they should not be trademarked - everyone should be free to pursue their own cloud guitar instruments if they wish, and let the market forrces decide which is most popular.

Also, when Prince's people comissioned Rusan, as an employee of Knut-Koupee at the time, to make a custom guitar as a prop for Purple Rain, do you really think it is normal practice for the employee doing the work to retain ownership of the intellectual property? If so I better make some phone calls, my whole life I've been making other people rich as an employee. It's highly unlikely that was the arrangement. Dave made a bit of a land-grab with this trademark and it should never have been granted to anyone.

There are thousands of "off brand" stratocaster-style guitars, telecaster-style guitars, Les Paul style guitars, SG-style guiltars. No one gets to own a fucking shape, which is why such claims are always thrown out of court.

[Edited 8/30/19 23:30pm]

ian said:

PennyPurple said:

Why is he the one who has to give up his claim on the trademark? Why can't he keep it, and if he wants he can then give the Estate permission to sell them.

Because it is so problematic for everyone. Most (all?) of the unique design elements that made the guitar recognizeable originated elsewhere. All guitars borrow elements from other instruments, none of them are created in a vacuum. Guitar bodies are just variants on a few commonly used and function-dictated shapes, they should not be trademarked - everyone should be free to pursue their own cloud guitar instruments if they wish, and let the market forrces decide which is most popular.

Also, when Prince's people comissioned Rusan, as an employee of Knut-Koupee at the time, to make a custom guitar as a prop for Purple Rain, do you really think it is normal practice for the employee doing the work to retain ownership of the intellectual property? If so I better make some phone calls, my whole life I've been making other people rich as an employee. It's highly unlikely that was the arrangement. Dave made a bit of a land-grab with this trademark and it should never have been granted to anyone.

There are thousands of "off brand" stratocaster-style guitars, telecaster-style guitars, Les Paul style guitars, SG-style guiltars. No one gets to own a fucking shape, which is why such claims are always thrown out of court.

[Edited 8/30/19 23:30pm]

But the Estate wants to own the shape, correct?

More info about the "Cloud bass": https://madcatsandclouds....loud-bass/

On a related note: https://www.smithsonianma...180973083/