Roland trademark 808 and 303


#82

Might be good to remember that trademark law is originally intended to allow customers to uniquely identify a specific business entity as the source of goods or services. It’s explicitly not intended as intellectual property protection even though in practice it often ends up being uses as such.


#83

Im pretty sure they thoroughly went through all of it. Id imagine Behringer has a pretty good team that anticipated this.


#84

Just feels like behringer is infringing on some copyright.

My girl does werk for comicon, and there are AISLES of “fan art” being sold. Even tho the images are altered, they are cracking down on likeness copyright.

Just think if you had a product, even if its legacy, and some arse starts copying and selling your design/concept. I wager you wouldnt be thrilled about it.

(My girl does her own characters :wink: )

I think berhringer makes some good gear. But the knockoffs really tainted my view of that company.


#85

Feelings dont play a big role in a court of law.


#86

I assume it would have been patent infringement or something to make a product with identical components and design under the hood but that this aspect has lapsed due to age of the product - legally.

Isn’t that the issue rather than anything to do with the visual design, which may be a second aspect of the ‘copy’? Not sure on the law details.


#87

Trademark and copyright laws do however.
Im just asking you to get out of your own world and try to not think about how just you feel.

Let me add patents.


#88

does not apply here.


#89

I think most likely, if indeed Roland are planning on legal action (just internet speculation so far) they would pursue on the grounds of trade dress and intellectual property, but Behringer have fallen foul of this kind of thing before so I’d suspect that they have “gone up to the line” but not over it, maybe.

It will be interesting to see what (if anything) happens, if Roland did pursue action and win then it would be likely that Moog and Sequential and possibly Korg might follow suit.


#90

Considering there is nothing illegal in what Behringer is doing, I don’t see any reason for these companies to sue.


#91

behringer has actually been pursued by roland in the past and settled with roland out of court.

i hope they get nailed.


#92

Why? You don’t like affordable gear?


#93

I like respect.

and nailed doesn’t mean destroyed. they make good products. some kinda just break…but good affordable stuff. just need to be reigned in in the rip off dept.


#94

Is that a fact or another feeling?


#95

experience. I won’t get a mixer from them again that’s for sure.
patch bays don’t last too long either.


#96

seems more like an opinion then


#97

my broken gear is opinion based?

weird.

end of this back and forth with you my friend.
until we meet again.


#98

Broken gear happens with all manufacturers. Behringer synths are solid and have 3 year warranty so I don’t see why anyone would want to see a company ”get nailed” because they have had to send a mixer for repairs.


#99

If it would be “just estetics” behringer wouldn’t copy it. We shouldn’t underestimate the visual estetics, it is very important. Just look at what amount of things industries are selling just on account of the looks of things ( and people )
Sorry, you probably didn’t say it is not important, i just wanted to make this clear :slightly_smiling_face:


#100

I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that the units shown at NAMM had switched up colors from the original prototypes (I haven’t compared them closely to check it though). Perhaps that was all it takes to get around the infringement claim.

Also, given UB’s business model, I’m sure he has some pretty savvy IP lawyers on retainer. He’s been cloning stuff forever, it was just that it was known as junk until a few years ago. The dude loves old synths so I imagine this is far more than someone trying to make a quick buck. He really does want to bring this stuff back and get it out there. I think there’s something kind of great about getting previously untouchable stuff in the hands of the masses.

I think Roland might also be a bit ticked because his Moog clone ate into the sales of their Moog clone, and they had to drop the price of it.


#101

Reading the section “ACTIVITY AGAINST COUNTERFEITS AND IP INFRINGEMENTS” it seems that Roland is taking seriously almost any unauthorised use of their IP including sounds and visual looks.

It mentions specifically “Recently, there has been a significant increase in the infringement of Roland’s IP. This activity has been particularly severe on the internet, and is often present on websites offering counterfeit Roland branded products, products displaying confusingly similar clones of Roland products, those infringing Roland’s trademarks, and those containing unauthorized samples and downloads of Roland’s copyrighted sounds.”

And “In order to protect our customers, Roland is determined to take aggressive actions to stop such activities. In addition to a willingness to take direct legal action against infringers, Roland has also partnered with MarkMonitor® for our IP and Brand Protection activities. MarkMonitor is a leader in the field of global IP and Brand Protection. Specifically, MarkMonitor’s Brand Protection™ technology protects corporate brands from trademark misuse and counterfeit sales. MarkMonitor’s advanced infringement monitoring tools serve Roland globally in round-the-clock monitoring of infringing activities occurring on the internet”

Looking at the MS-101, VC-340 the current designs they look very similar to the Roland originals.
image