Dolphin Controversy

Apparently (I am not privy to all details) an american (texan, actually) guitar manufacturer has sent a letter to Nik Huber, forbidding him to use any "dolphin" inlays on his guitars - be it in the fretboard or on the headstock.

Nik Huber had prepped some very fine instruments for the Summer NAMM show in Austin, TX (same state as the aforementioned manufacturer) and now of course he needs to radically alter his plans.
Last year, of about 50 instruments with Dolphin inlays that were produced, about half ended in the US; many of these were moreover built on specific customer order basis (the customer can actually order whatever inlay he likes, beside cetaceans).
So it isn' t a question of an aggressive market practice on part of Nik Huber, as both builders are light-years away from having "saturated" any given "market" in electric guitars - which is suffering anyway from a glut of overproduction by the hands of the traditional heavyweights: Fender, Gibson, PRS.

So what gives?

Is it just a struggling competitor trying to stay afloat in a very competitive environment and therefore resorting to desperate techniques to do so?
It seems unlikely, as this texan niche builder does indeed have his own loyal -albeit small - following.
But Nik Huber has been featured on Vintage Guitar, Musicians Hotline and is bound for a nice article on Tonequest come July - something other manufacturers can only dream of.
Nik Huber is also being carried and sponsored by such heavyweights as Willcutt Guitars and Synergy Guitars - who out of free choice and not on the basis of any comparative factor based on dolphin inlays (!), decided they'd carry Nik's products.
Nik Huber's guitars are being sought by professionals and collectors alike for their inherent quality, in looks and tone; the looks of the guitar go way beyond the details of the fretboard (matter of fact some of Nik's most stunning guitars have no fretboard decoration at all).
Just by preventing Nik Huber from utilizing Dolphin inlays, the texan competitor will not achieve what it expects - i.e. higher sales volumes, revenues, profit margins. These will only derive from improvements in the production methods, distribution, commercial agreements with dealers / distributors, visibility, overall workmanship (if necessary), overall tone (if it be the case).

Ok - So what is the basis of this mess?

We're discussing the whole notion whereby the concept of putting "dolphin inlays" can be trademark (apparently it was thus done), therefore preventing anyone else from doing the same.The use of the "dolphin" name associated with a guitar is also a no-no; Nik calls his main guitar "Dolphin", the competitor however calls it an A****n (the model) Dolphin (further characterization).
Ironically the german bass manufacturer, Warwick, also produces and sitributes worldwide a Dolphin bass, complete with dolphin fretboard inlays.
As of today, said manufacturer (bigger than both guitar builders mentioned in this article) has never even cared about any dolphin-originated-conflict. Probably the same manufacturer will neverr receive any letters from any texan attorney, being that it is sufficiently big to be able to stave-off any form of legal aggression stemming from a much smaller opponent.

The "texan dolphins" themselves look quite different, and the manner in which they're inlayed in the fretboard is also quite dissimilar (no "smoke-filled-room" thesis will ever stand in this specific case IMHO).
To the texan, apparently even Orca inlays would not be acceptable - the other builder went as far as trademarking (conceptually) any sort of fish, whale, seal, sea lion inlay.
Thus it is legally acceptable for me to be the first to say something like "my trademark are pea-green guitars", thus preventing anyone from building any guitar which is pea green in colour (or variations on the theme - which may cause "confusion" in the eyes of the general public), or even naming their guitars "Pea model" or "Green model".

We're clearly at the very edge of outright controversy - while it is true that *inventions* and *intellectual property* must be defended vigorously when there is an actual invention, be it a finished product or a full fledged innovative concept, I strongly believe that allowing for the trademarking of even the most tenuous and generic idea or concept prevents innovation from taking place.
This allows companies and/or individuals to effortlessly manipulate and sidetrack competition and evolution for the better, and even to passively extract some sort of undeserved economic advantage ("passive yield") - as they can milk the competitor's real efforts and success.
By the same token, the family of George Beauchamp - the inventor of the amplified guitar that carries his name (patent 2,089,171, registered in 1937) - could at this point sue any and all manufacturers of electric guitars. A quite laughable idea by today's standards - yet, given the right amount of time and money, and the overall framework, they could attempt to pull it off and prevent *any* other companies from building electric / amplified steel stringed guitars.



Specific Links Of Interest

• US Trademark and Patent Office


• Controversial Dolphin Inlay Registration


• THIS is an Innovation!..


• ...Purdy...but not innovative...


• More Dolphins
  

Caveat: the above article is the copyright of Paul C. Weber (2006), all the opinions expressed are his own. The article is being published in it's present form without any prior approval or help by Nik Huber or Nik Huber Guitars. Some data is necessarily implied by the writer as the writer does not have direct access to certain specific documents.

Keywords. Robin Guitars, Robin Avalon Dolphin Model, Dolphin Inlays, Nik Huber Dolphin, Warwick Dolphin Bass