Pearse owns the copyright to the "Weissenborn" name and will not allow any other builders to use that term for their instruments. It's the "Gibson/Dobro" and "Rickenbacker/Aiello & Lollar" stories all over again.

This is total madness, and I have sent this email to John Pearse,- I encourage everyone who feels the same to also get in touch with Pearse:

"Dear John Pearse

I am a weissenborn and lap steel player who's always held your products and company in high regards. Which made it all the more shocking to learn about your decision to stop other independent builders from using the term "weissenborn" about their instruments. While I am sure you have every legal right to do so I can not see what moral/ethical right you have to hijack a name like this,- a term that has been used for these wonderful instruments for ages and has become the common way to name these "hollowneck Hawaiian guitars" (is that how you'd prefer other builders to name their instruments?).

I find your actions in this case to be appalling and a terrible blow to the credibility of your name and company. I will not spend money on any of your products as long as you uphold this practice.

With regards,
Steinar Gregertsen
Norway"

Enough is enough.....

Steinar

------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights

[This message was edited by Steinar Gregertsen on 04 October 2006 at 04:13 PM.]

Weissenborn was not even the inventor of the Hollow neck Hawaiian guitar in the first place. I always thought it was odd he got all the credit . There are not alot of facts about who actually invented this style guitar, but from what I have read in the book on Knutsen instruments ( who was building this style guitar long before Weissenborn).
Chris Knutsens ideas on these style guitars came from seeing Hawaiian musicians guitars built this way. The book also states that Weissenborn was more than likely contracted by Delano ( hawaiian music publicist)to build these for him on a large scale. I think it said Weissenborn was a violin repairman. He probably saw the opportunity to get in on the Hawiian craze, and jumped on it to make $$.... bottom line... I don't think Herman W. was a Hawaiian enthusiast out trying to spread the Hawaiian instrument to the world out of the bottom of his heart because he invented and loved the Hawaiian guitar. It is about making $$ and capitalizing while the market is hot. Which is probably what J.P is doing. All the big instrument company's we love would probably be doing the same thing if they had the opportunity.

I have always refered to my "Weissenborn style" guitars as "Hawaiian Guitars". I think the credit is due to alot more than Herman Weissenborn anyways.

Yes, Gibson pissed alot of folks off ( me included) when they took Dobro's name and ran it into the ground and at the same time sicked there lawyers on anyone who called there resophonic instrument a Dobro. A name I have always admired and still do. I belive it is coming back and biting Gibson in the rear... too bad the Dobro name has to go with it.
People now commonly refer to their " Dobro" as resonator guitars.

I belive John Pearse has owned the Weissenborn name for quite a while, long before there was a big craze about these instruments. Before Ben Harper was big, and most of the other builders of this style guitar began building them. For all we know he has had a big love for this instrument long before most of us new what one was. I know he did build some under the Breezy Ridge label years ago. He has probably leased the name to Gold Tone and may leagaly have to go this route . I have never supported the Chinese instrument market anyways ( don't get me started on this one). And I am not that into big instrument companies when there are plenty of hand crafted instruments to pick from. I am not backing J.P up, I just think before we "get a rope" we might want to look at it differently. I don't think John Pearse is at blame for wanting to protect his investment of the name.

Maybe as Dobro has done... the Weissenborn name will be refered to an inferior instrument. Maybe not?

Heck, lets call it a Hawaiian Guitar and give some credit where it is due anyways.

Todd

Edited for spelling

[This message was edited by Todd Clinesmith on 05 October 2006 at 04:10 PM.]

It's not like JP has bought a company or anything specific like that. And although I know that it is possible to by the rights to a name, it's not like he got them yesterday and is enforcing his rights. He bought the name long ago, and now that he sees that the weissenborns are becoming popular, he is doing all he can to cash in on it.

------------------
Cheers,
Øystein

• Gold Tone Solid Spruce Weissenborn D / Low G / C+9
  
• National Dynamic A6th / C6th / Leavitt
  
• Fender SRV Strat
  
• Ayers Acoustic
  
• Koch Twintone II
  

quote:

---

Heck, lets call it a Hawaiian Guitar and give some credit where it is due anyways.

---

I am tempted to agree with that. Partly because the whole "Weissenborn" name leaves a bad taste in my mouth after I learned about this. Let Pearse have the name and do whatever he please with it,- as you point out it wasn't Herman Weissenborn who invented them anyway...

I don't want my precious Lazy Rivers to be in any way confused or associated with Pearce's "Weissenborn" so I'll rename them on my website,- I might even spray paint over the "GoldTone" label on the case I bought for one of them....

Steinar

------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights

------------------
Cheers,
Øystein

• Gold Tone Solid Spruce Weissenborn D / Low G / C+9
  
• National Dynamic A6th / C6th / Leavitt
  
• Fender SRV Strat
  
• Ayers Acoustic
  
• Koch Twintone II
  

Now excuse me, I need to go look for 'Weissenborn' on my website....and see about copywriting 'Hollowneck Hawaiian Guitar' (Just kidding! )

------------------
Half-assed bottleneck and lap slide player. Full-assed Builder of resonator instruments.

Mike - I see your point, and I realize he has every legal right to do what he does. However, I don't think your example with the "Pearse strings" hold water - "Pearse" is his own creation, and it has never become a generic term for guitar strings in general.

Someone mentioned on another forum that Pearse has owned the copyright to the "Weissenborn" name since '97, I didn't realize that. But to me it still doesn't make sense that someone - could have been me if I'd had the money - can simply copyright a name that has developed to become a common way to describe a certain instrument, just as with the dobro, and claim to have exclusive rights to use that name.
Legally, sure, I understand how it works, but - and I know this sounds terribly naive - "it's just not fair".....

I mean, we have Gibson guitars, Fender guitars, why not have Lazy River weissenborns, Gold Tone weissenborns, etc? How anyone can "own" that name - besides the Weissenborn family - is beyond me. I can't see how it would hurt his business either, unless he's afraid of the competition (which he should be, considering the quality of his instruments...).

"There is only ONE Weissenborn; The Pearse/Gold Tone"? Bull****

Terry - brilliant!

Steinar

------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights

[This message was edited by Steinar Gregertsen on 05 October 2006 at 08:10 AM.]

Because 'Weissenborn' was and is a tradename, not a type of instrument. Yes, like Kleenex it's sort of become a generic term but you can't start making tissues and stick 'Kleenex' on the box. It's still protected even if everybody on Earth calls anything they wipe their nose on a Kleenex.
As far as the Fender/Gibson analogy, try making the 'Steinar Stratocaster' and see what happens.
The people that currently own that name didn't make the first Strats and Leo is dead may years, but they still legally own the name and the right and financial obligation to protect it.
I guess what I object to is calling John, a guy that's been there and done that and helped many a musician along the way mean and greedy (and even dead!) because he's protecting a name that he had the foresight and initiative to invest in and supports his family with.

Whether his Weissenborn instruments are any good (and I've read the reviews too) is basically irrelevant legally, but I understand the sentiment there. On a personal level I wish he cared more about the quality associated with the name.

------------------
Half-assed bottleneck and lap slide player. Full-assed Builder of resonator instruments.

[This message was edited by Mike D on 05 October 2006 at 08:39 AM.]

quote:

---

Because 'Weissenborn' was and is a tradename, not a type of instrument.

---

Yeah, but as far as I know it had been inactive and not under any copyright for approx 60 years until Pearse suddenly decided to trademark it. In that time it had pretty much been established as a common way to describe "hollowneck Hawaiian guitars".

Fender created the Stratocaster and has been actively producing them ever since. Pearce copyrighted a name that had been "dead" for 60 years. That's a big difference, IMO. Perhaps not legally, but 'morally'...

Steinar

------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights

[This message was edited by Steinar Gregertsen on 05 October 2006 at 09:25 AM.]

quote:

---

because he's protecting a name

---

I don't know Pearse, but IMO he's not protecting the name, he's killing it. By taking a piece of our musical history and having it mass produced as inferior instruments in China. Anybody who really cares about those instruments and that name would have made sure the products lived up to the heritage of that name.

Steinar

------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights

[This message was edited by Steinar Gregertsen on 05 October 2006 at 09:37 AM.]

quote:

---

Their reply to his email acknowledgement was they are taking him to court.

---

HUH???????

Steinar

------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights

Pearse has actually owned the Weissenborn name since that period - about ten years. Bear Creek and a few others others have been careful to use terminology like "styled after the guitars by Herman Weissenborn in the 1920s" though Pearse hasn't done much about the Weiss trademark .... apparently, until now.

Personally, I didn't like it when Gibson had the suits enforce the Dobro trademark and I don't like it here with Weissenborn. I certainly don't think it's at all worth the ill will it breeds in a relatively small, and generally supportive community of artists, luthiers and potential buyers to co-opt a generic name. Nevertheless, if Pearse owns it he has a right to enforce his trademark, however misguided and insensitive it may be to do this. The market can respond with its wallet though and it's questionable how much cachet the Weissenborn name has in influencing potential buyers. Anyone who does a modicum of research learns about Knutsen and all the various facets of the story as well as who's building these guitars. Like Pearse, nobody's going to make a windfall in this very tiny market niche and it's a shame he can't play well with others. In any case, we'll have to see how this all plays out but I wouldn't buy any stock in Breezy Ridge anytime soon.

[This message was edited by Andy Volk on 05 October 2006 at 01:06 PM.]

Steinar

------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights

Though in fairness, I would like to hear John Pearses' side of the story.

All that aside, I'll put in a plug for one of the posters, because in the interest of decorum he won't do it himself.

Play one of Todd Clinesmith's Hawaiians and you will be checking the credit card balances to place an order! They, like his resos, are outstanding guitars!

I have played a few actual historic Weissenborns, and I would take a Clinesmith Hawaiian any day of the week.

[This message was edited by John Bushouse on 05 October 2006 at 03:28 PM.]

------------------
Half-assed bottleneck and lap slide player. Full-assed Builder of resonator instruments.

1920s/early 30s - Herman Weissenborn builds his instruments

Mid/late 30s - Weissenborn stops making them/dies

Mid 30s to mid 90s - Nobody produce instruments using the brand name Weissenborn, it is effectively "dead".

Mid/late 90s - John Pearce buys the rights to use the name Weissenborn and copyrights it. In the meantime (and since then) "Weissenborn" has become a common term used to describe hollownecked lap slide guitars.

Is this correct, or was there any activity during those 60 years that I'm not aware of?

Steinar

------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights

[This message was edited by Steinar Gregertsen on 06 October 2006 at 02:58 AM.]

If he had enough $$$ behind him ... he probably could have obtained a "Design Mark" for that look ... like so many others have.

Then it would take some serious cash to have the "mark" overturned.

The flaw is in the US Patent/Trademark Offices ... they are allowing "perpetual patents" ... ie trademarks issued on expired patents ...

And allowing "Trademarks" on names ... on a first come, first serve basis ... without thorough investigation into the history/use of those names (as seen here with Pearse).

The very laws and agencies ... created to eliminate monopolies ... are now being used to create them.

------------------

Dustpans LTD.
The Casteels
HSGA

[This message was edited by Rick Aiello on 06 October 2006 at 06:02 AM.]

In another forum, someone pointed ot that the German village of Weissenborn is spelt "Weißenborn" ("ß" being a German "double-S"), and that this could be an option. (I bet the villagers are thankful for the "ß" - without it they would now obviously be forced to come up with something more original to call their village).

------------------
www.myspace.com/fredkinbom

www.frockmusic.com
www.myspace.com/ilikerecords

[This message was edited by Fred Kinbom on 06 October 2006 at 08:46 AM.]

Dear....oh, you didn't sign your name.

Thanks for your email and the continuation of the "madness" started on the Acoustic Guitar BB. I will be posting to the bulletin board and will send you the url. My mother always said that paper was wonderful...it would lie still for anything to be printed on it. You believed everything that was said on the BB and responded to us in the same misinformed way.

Mary Faith Rhoads-Lewis
Breezy Ridge Insts.® Ltd.
John Pearse® Strings
==================================

Can't wait to read their response based on the wonderful customer service tone above....
Ultimately these knuckle-heads will lose in future revenues much more than they could ever hope to gain in hijacking the Weissenborn name.

http://www.guitarseminars.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/015545.html

Steinar

------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights

[This message was edited by Steinar Gregertsen on 06 October 2006 at 11:52 AM.]

Does anyone know who he purchased the trademark from? the Weissenborn estate? In that case I can see he has an issue.

If John was the first to take advantage of a trademark that was available - so be it.

I also own a couple of genuine Dobro's and some other fine resophonic guitars.

Regardless of what the instrument is called or named, you can still buy what you want, can't you?

quote:

---

Be glad he just "trademarked" the name.

If he had enough $$$ behind him ... he probably could have obtained a "Design Mark" for that look ... like so many others have.

Then it would take some serious cash to have the "mark" overturned.

The flaw is in the US Patent/Trademark Offices ... they are allowing "perpetual patents" ... ie trademarks issued on expired patents ...

And allowing "Trademarks" on names ... on a first come, first serve basis ... without thorough investigation into the history/use of those names (as seen here with Pearse).

The very laws and agencies ... created to eliminate monopolies ... are now being used to create them.

---

I totally agree. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer - but frankly, it's not so clear that many of these so-called "trademarks" are actually legal, if adjudicated. For example, several guitar companies claim that their headstock and body designs/shapes are essentially "trademarks". I disagree - IMO, they are design features, whose patents expired decades ago, and to me, the notion of a "design mark" on a central design feature is a total oxymoron.

But their names and logos are trademarks, because there has been a continuous thread of enforcement from their first inception - through good and bad times, as well as changes of ownership. IMO, it is entirely reasonable for them to enforce their trademarks. The same is true for John Pearse, if, in fact, he legally owns the trademark.

However, to my understanding, the mere issuance of a patent, copyright, or trademark does not guarantee its legal validity. Purely IMO, I also think it's questionable that a "trademark" that sat dormant for 60 years is actual property that can be bought. As Mike D. says, one needs to have a continuous history of protecting a trademark - so why does this also not apply to the original Weissenborn mark? What gives John Pearse the right to "buy" it. Who "owned" it and had the right to "sell" it?

Of course, as Rick A. points out - to have this adjudicated requires a lot of money. Sometimes, the right of "ownership" is primarily in "possession" (claimed or otherwise). In the end, isn't "civilization" primarily about lawyers, guns, and money?

But there are occasional successes. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Gibson's appeal to reverse a federal appeals court decision that allows PRS to produce a single cutaway guitar Gibson claimed infringed on their "trademark" on the Les Paul Guitar. http://www.ag-ip-news.com/getArticle.asp?Art_ID=3132&lang=en

I love this comment from the article: "The court observed that Gibson conceded that only "an idiot" would ever confuse a PRS Singlecut and a Gibson Les Paul. Based on that concession and the overwhelming evidence, the Sixth Circuit found that Gibson's trademark case had no merit and summarily dismissed the suit."