Official Luthiers Forum! :: View topic

What if a potential client asks you not to put your brand/logo on a guitar?
Would you leave it off?

If the guitar was to be used as a weapon and dropped from a predator spy plane on a terrorist somewhere and it was in the national interest and it could be traceable with a logo I would also understand....

Here's one for any lawyers on the forum. It is one thing to trademark one's logo but in the absence of a logo, can one have a shape i.e. their unique headstock design trademarked? This is different than having a functional feature like the Laskin Armrest protected by a patent (if Grit actually went to the extent of having it patented). I am sure that there is an unwritten honour (I'm Canadian guys, so you'll have to deal with the spelling

) among the pros that you just don't rip off a comrade's look/design but from a legal perspective, can you lock down the look?

Rick

I think a blank HS looks odd/cheap and unfinished unless its a very unique shape.

Author:	Steve Saville [ Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Branding.
What if a potential client asks you not to put your brand/logo on a guitar? Would you leave it off?

Author:	KenH [ Thu Apr 24, 2008 11:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
Good question Steve! I actually have a guiar I am building right now that will have no logo on the headstock. I did get him to let me put my label in the box though. The shape of the headstock will be the same as all of my other guitars, so it should be easy to spot. After all, he is the one paying for the guitar, he will get what he pays for

Author:	James Orr [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:40 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
I would go for it if your headstock is unique and easily identifiable. I don't remember where I saw it, but years ago there was an image of this beautiful headstock with nothing but a flourish in the center. We all knew it was an Olson because his shape is so identifiable. I really liked it, and it was something different. On a personal level, I'm much more drawn to symbols than word marks anyway. If there is something else distinct about your design, I don't think this would be bad at all.

Author:	peterm [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
For me, my logo is a requirement. I am flexible with inlays and have even done names on the headstock but the logo stays. Its part of the guitar as a whole.

Author:	David Collins [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
Blank headstock, okay, fine. Entirely without marking or identification? I would tell the customer to $%^&-off. Literally, in those words. I would probably consider that request just plain offensive, and have no hesitation in letting them know.

Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Branding. http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=16976	Page 1 of 2

Author:	Howard Klepper [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:40 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
SteveS wrote: What if a potential client asks you not to put your brand/logo on a guitar? Would you leave it off? No.

Author:	Dave Fifield [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 3:51 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
I think I would go with the BMW model here - if they don't want the badges, make them pay more....a LOT more! Dave F.

Author:	martinedwards [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:43 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
I just do the label inside. I don't have anything on my headstock.

Author:	Jody [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
I am not even selling guitars at this point .. but I dont know if I would go for that , why does the person not want your " signature" on the instrument ??? alot would depend on their explaination ,after all they are buying your product. I know i have an aversion to buying clothing with a designers name /logo emboldenen on it , but those things are not hand crafted ,custom made, one of a kind items, I think I might tell the person it cost more to remove the logo from the instrument. or if it was soundhole lable only , I would put the usual headstock logo on that and make it prominent and as difficult to remove as possible . Jody

Author:	Hesh [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:21 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
My initial reaction is to agree with Peter and Howard. This also sounds like a question that requires more information to answer and that there may be different correct answers for different folks. Above all if one were to agree to build without their logo on the head stock (when they typically do put a logo on the head stock) I would require full payment in advance AND the customer would forfeit the ability to return the guitar during any acceptance period. The reasons why are that an unbranded guitar would be very hard, or could be very hard to resell to someone else. Ask yourself if you would even display this guitar at a show without your logo? Your brand should be every bit as sacred as the quality of your work - they are one in the same, inseparable and both of the highest importance. Your logo is your mark of quality, the symbol of the substance of your particular vision for what a guitar should be. Not using your logo on something that you pour your skills into seems very counter productive to me. Now there are some potentially weird-as-hell reasons why this request might not be objectionable to some. For example if the guitar was to be prominently and repeatedly displayed in a feature film and the studio permitted you to self-promote this fact but they just cannot have brand names displayed in the film I would understand. The old is it the actor that is using a product or the actor's character situation. If the guitar was to be used as a weapon and dropped from a predator spy plane on a terrorist somewhere and it was in the national interest and it could be traceable with a logo I would also understand.... But I think that you would still want full payment in advance and this kind of business may be such a diversion to what the mission of your brand is that you might not elect to accept the commission at all. I think that we need more information as to why the request for no logo?

Author:	Hesh [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:31 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
I should have added that in the corporate world terms like private label, white label, apply when you agree to produce something for someone else under their name or no name or any name different from your own. It is a different kind of deal and standard fare to require a higher price if the producer is willing to do this.

Author:	Lillian F-W [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:22 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
Its easy enough to remove or switch a label. A headstock overlay, not so much. To me, it feels like he is either planning on passing your guitar off as someone else's or is embarrassed that he didn't get someone else's. Either one is insulting and wrong.

Author:	Terence Kennedy [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
I was asked once and said no. That was the end of that. It raised a few red flags with me. Terry

Author:	Rick Cowan [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:55 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
Here's one for any lawyers on the forum. It is one thing to trademark one's logo but in the absence of a logo, can one have a shape i.e. their unique headstock design trademarked? This is different than having a functional feature like the Laskin Armrest protected by a patent (if Grit actually went to the extent of having it patented). I am sure that there is an unwritten honour (I'm Canadian guys, so you'll have to deal with the spelling ) among the pros that you just don't rip off a comrade's look/design but from a legal perspective, can you lock down the look? Rick

Author:	Michael Dale Payne [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:14 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
This is a more common request than you may think. I have left my logo off a lot of front side peghead and placed it on the rear side of the peghead and I have left it off completely. I use to fight this tooth and nail. However I have recently had a change of heart on peghead logos, but I do attach labels regardless

Author:	SteveCourtright [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:39 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
Slightly OT, but see design patents listed below, responsive to question by Rick: D566,748; D560,709; D557,331; and D555,191, for example. I counted at least 25 design patents for instrument headstocks.

Author:	grumpy [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
I've done the bare headstock wen requested, but inlaid my logo at the 12th fret instead. Kinda cool, actually. And if I do a torch headstock inlay, there's no logo at all(unless I add it at the 12th, which I haven't yet done). That's quite normal.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Burton LeGeyt [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:55 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
I would have no problems leaving off all markings on a guitar. I would ask the person why they wanted that but I can think of a couple reasons I would have no problem with. I probably would ask them to contact me if they ever sold it though.

Author:	Dave Taylor [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:58 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
Steve, I think it depends entirely on the situation. If you are you an experienced builder with many builds & sales under your belt and a 'known' brand - then I would definitely add an additional charge to make up for the lack of promotion you will get from an un-branded guitar or just say no. If you are a relatively new builder who could use the experience of building a commissioned guitar as well as the joy of knowing you are getting paid to build one - then just do it. Obviously, you would have the have some form of identification on it that it's yours, but that could just be a signature inside the body somewhere. Also, as someone mentioned earlier - get a larger deposit up front. It may also give you the opportunity to experiment with some slightly different building methods that you may be afraid to try on your current model(s).

Author:	David Collins [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:08 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
Hesh wrote: If the guitar was to be used as a weapon and dropped from a predator spy plane on a terrorist somewhere and it was in the national interest and it could be traceable with a logo I would also understand.... Hesh, they use banjos for that - usually strapped to a player. Plus this wouldn't be an issue with a banjo anyway, as they would have to pay a lot extra if they did want me to actually put my name on one of those.

Author:	SteveCourtright [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:17 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
Rick Cowan wrote: Here's one for any lawyers on the forum. It is one thing to trademark one's logo but in the absence of a logo, can one have a shape i.e. their unique headstock design trademarked? This is different than having a functional feature like the Laskin Armrest protected by a patent (if Grit actually went to the extent of having it patented). I am sure that there is an unwritten honour (I'm Canadian guys, so you'll have to deal with the spelling ) among the pros that you just don't rip off a comrade's look/design but from a legal perspective, can you lock down the look? Rick The believe that the short answer is yes, you can trademark something like a unique headstock design. Also, design patents are possible, i.e., protecting the non-functional, ornamental appearance of something.

Author:	Zach Ehley [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
I think a blank HS looks odd/cheap and unfinished unless its a very unique shape. If they are requesting putting some other inlay on there that is a different story. Martin obviously leaves the logo off when they put a torch inlay on there. But leaving it blank I believe detracts from the image of the guitar. Thats not to say I wouldn't do it for a price, but I'd fight to have some sort of inlay on there.

Author:	Dave White [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:59 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
zehley wrote: I think a blank HS looks odd/cheap and unfinished unless its a very unique shape. This fine example is by a builder that charges (and people are queueing up to buy) $26k+ for his instruments - certainly not cheap. Personally I don't like logos on headstocks.

Author:	Colin S [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
I personally wouldn't buy a guitar with a headstock inlay, I don't like the look of any inlay on the headstock, just personal taste. I'm not keen on labels either for the most part either. My preference is for a brand or inlay inside, say on the heel block, kind of like Martin's serial number. However, I certainly would expect the builder to have his mark somewhere on the instrument. Even BMW or Mercedes keep the radiator badge when leaving the model number etc off the boot. Colin

Author:	James Orr [ Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Branding.
This brief article on symbol vs. wordmark in identity design might be interesting to some people: http://www.identityworks.com/issues/issues3.htm Something to think about when you're developing your identity package is whether or not it will hold up if one of the elements is deleted. The design of your headstock is as much part of your logo as the text or graphic on it and should be strong enough to be recognizable. Jeff's headstock above is extremely identifiable even without "Traugott" written across the top. Brock's headstock is another good example. I recognize it without reading "Poling." My design uses a textless headstock too, but the shape is unique and obvious. The wordmark is inside on the label.