The Wurly (Wurlitzer Electric Piano) is Coming Back!!!! (Hopefully, if this announcement isn't a scam)

[PavlovsCat]

The Wurly (original trademark spelling) AKA the Wurli AKA the Wurlitzer electric piano is coming back to life in 2024 according to Music Radar. 

I am surprised that Music Radar's writer couldn't find out if Gibson still owns Wurlitzer or not, especially if they found this news out at NAMM. In any event,  it's pretty exciting news to find your favorite electric piano is soon going back into production. 

EDIT: If you read my later posts, you'll  find that I'm longer confident that the party behind this Wurlitzer website is legitimate.  

https://www.musicradar.com/news/new-wurlitzer-electric-piano?utm_content=keyboard&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=socialflow&fbclid=IwAR06lTzR7GJExVBLHWY9KTLYd76JSeiZPxI-cAKVUapIP6pS4PnrMc4GYlY

Edited January 30 by PavlovsCat

[Bapu]

I'd love to own one, just to say I own one.

[PavlovsCat]

The more I research this, the more I question if this is a scam.  

A few months ago I DMed the developer of AcousticSamples and asked him why he removed his Wurlie library from his site. He told me that he was contacted by a man out of Germany who claimed to be the heir of the Wurlitzer company.  I knew the story was pure BS because my late mother worked for Wurlitzer and I knew they were an American company that Baldwin purchased maybe a few decades ago and then Baldwin was later purchased by Gibson. Anyhow, the guy claimed he owned the trademark and basically was trying to scam the developer for money. 

I told the dev this was almost certainly a scam and conducted a USPTO trademark search. It turned out the guy registered a trademark for Wurlitzer for use in sports entertainment. The last owner of the Wurlitzer trademark was Gibson.  I doubt this guy even used a lawyer to file that trademark. So I went back to the developer and told him to ignore the scammer. 

Today,  Music Radar published a story that the Wurli is back but stated it didn't know if its part of Gibson or they sold it. I am really surprised their editor let that get published without even checking the source. This would normally come In a press release and they always feature contact info. A journalist could also easily call Gibson. It appears that none of that happened. 

So, suspecting that this could be the same scammer creating this site to extort sample developers,  I checked who was behind the website. It turns out that the Wurlitzer Company lists a residential address, a single family home in Germany,  no business address. Yes, it could be a wealthy businessman, but wealthy businessmen have business addresses.  

Therefore, my current take on this story is that I question its authenticity. I asked my friend Dave Kerzner -- owner of Sonic Reality, musician and fellow Wurli enthusiast who is well connected in the music industry-- what he thinks and he finds I've raised some serious questions. I'll update this as I learn more.  

Edited January 30 by PavlovsCat

[Fleer]

Happy I got that Wurlie when it was still available. 

[Fleer]

18 minutes ago, Bapu said:

I'd love to own one, just to say I own one.

Nah, we know you, you would just say…

 

 

 

 

 

… installed!

[PavlovsCat]

Just now, Fleer said:

Happy I got that Wurlie when it was still available. 

It's  still available. He brought it back after I showed him the evidence the guy trying to shake him down didn't own a trademark for Wurly -- Gibson was the last owner but they abandoned the trademark. 

[Fleer]

41 minutes ago, PavlovsCat said:

It's  still available. He brought it back after I showed him the evidence the guy trying to shake him down didn't own a trademark for Wurly -- Gibson was the last owner but they abandoned the trademark. 

Well done!

[jude77]

14 hours ago, PavlovsCat said:

The more I research this, the more I question if this is a scam.  

A few months ago I DMed the developer of AcousticSamples and asked him why he removed his Wurlie library from his site. He told me that he was contacted by a man out of Germany who claimed to be the heir of the Wurlitzer company.  I knew the story was pure BS because my late mother worked for Wurlitzer and I knew they were an American company that Baldwin purchased maybe a few decades ago and then Baldwin was later purchased by Gibson. Anyhow, the guy claimed he owned the trademark and basically was trying to scam the developer for money. 

I told the dev this was almost certainly a scam and conducted a USPTO trademark search. It turned out the guy registered a trademark for Wurlitzer for use in sports entertainment. The last owner of the Wurlitzer trademark was Gibson.  I doubt this guy even used a lawyer to file that trademark. So I went back to the developer and told him to ignore the scammer. 

Today,  Music Radar published a story that the Wurli is back but stated it didn't know if its part of Gibson or they sold it. I am really surprised their editor let that get published without even checking the source. This would normally come In a press release and they always feature contact info. A journalist could also easily call Gibson. It appears that none of that happened. 

So, suspecting that this could be the same scammer creating this site to extort sample developers,  I checked who was behind the website. It turns out that the Wurlitzer Company lists a residential address, a single family home in Germany,  no business address. Yes, it could be a wealthy businessman, but wealthy businessmen have business addresses.  

Therefore, my current take on this story is that I question its authenticity. I asked my friend Dave Kerzner -- owner of Sonic Reality, musician and fellow Wurli enthusiast who is well connected in the music industry-- what he thinks and he finds I've raised some serious questions. I'll update this as I learn more.  

That was some amazing detective work!  Very impressive.  I hope you never decide to investigate ME!

[PavlovsCat]

2 hours ago, jude77 said:

That was some amazing detective work!  Very impressive.  I hope you never decide to investigate ME!

Ha! I founded and edited a publication for a decade and I have had a long career in marketing where I've handled a good deal of trademarks and worked with IP attorneys. But, as I explained earlier, I have a deep history with the Wurlitzer company and the Wurly that makes this intriguing to me.  

I believe this new site (in my OP) comes from the same guy that approached Acoustic Samples last year and demanded money for their use of Wurli "trademark" or they'd sue the developer.  He claims that he bought the IP rights to the Wurlitzer trademark from Gibson in 2021, but he doesn't hold a USPTO trademark for the use of the Wurlitzer brand name for pianos or electric pianos, and he doesn't have a US federal trademark for Wurli/Wurly/Wurlie. Gibson, bought the Wurlitzer company when they purchased Baldwin a couple of decades ago and still maintains active trademarks for the Wurlitzer brand. So if this guy bought the Wurlitzer trademark, why does Gibson still maintain active trademark claims? Sure, they could have sold the IP rights to some guy with a home-based business out of Germany, but you'd expect they'd have modified their trademark records to reflect that. 

Here's another big piece of investigative journalism that makes this German fellow's claim even more suspect. He claims to have purchased or somehow gained the rights to the Wurlitzer trademark from Gibson in 2021 (it's stated on the below linked website), however, the USPTO registration claims to the Wurlitzer trademark are dated prior to 2021 -- they're dated 2020 or earlier. Perhaps Gibson and this man didn't initiate the paperwork and he's made claims before his IP purchase, but it all looks pretty sketchy. Or perhaps Wurlitzer has developed time travel technology and that can explain his trademark registration pre-dating his stated date of purchasing the IP rights from Gibson??? I kid, I kid. He indeed could be a home-based entrepreneur who bought the IP rights to Wurlitzer for cheap. It is possible. I would just question why Gibson still keeps the trademarks active and why the company has made no statement. The guy's website does state that "The original Wurlitzer family re-secures the rights to the brand for multiple music and consumer electronics categories and regions." I suppose that could mean that the guy thinks that his mere registration of the name Wurlitzer in various country trademark databases gives him IP rights.  FTR, I suspect that is the case. But that's pure speculation. 

On a side note, the IP violations of the guy's below website are pretty over the top. He's using images of Billy Ellish, Olivia Rodrigo, John Lennon, John Baptiste and other images unquestionably without proper licensing. So this doesn't reflect a legit business that respects IP rights. it comes off as highly suspect and combined with trying to shakedown developers of Wurly sample libraries for money, and it looks a lot like a scam. 

https://www.wurlitzer-brand.com/

Edited January 30 by PavlovsCat

[Lionel]

Anyone contact Gibson to verify this?

[PavlovsCat]

A German trademark site lists that the fellow claiming to own the rights to Wurlitzer trademark founded the company as an LLC in 2021 with  3,000 Euros in capital.  Hmmm.... I have a hunch that making a deal with Billy Ellish that he uses on his website might require a bit more than 3,000 Euros. I'm just sayin'... 

https://www.companyhouse.de/WURLITZER-Licensing-UG-Neustadt-an-der-Aisch

Edited January 30 by PavlovsCat

[Alan B.]

OTOH, the USPTO's online TM search system lists the live/active registered mark "WURLITZER" (Reg. No. 6,207,843;  Registered Dec. 01, 2020).

This registration addresses "Goods and Services" classification "IC 015," specifically:  "Cases for musical instruments; Clarinets; Electronic musical keyboards; Electronic musical instruments; Glockenspiels; Horns; Mouthpieces for musical instruments; Music synthesizers; Organs; Recorders; Reeds for use in woodwind mouthpieces; Stands for musical instruments; Triangles".

The current owner is listed as "Wurlitzer Licensing UG" ("UG" is a form of "entrepreneurial" limited liability company). 

The original application was made by "Dipl-Ing. Gudrun Wurlitzer," and later assigned to the UG (at the same address).

You may be able to access the complete PTO application record directly, here.

If not, go to the PTO's TM search page here, enter "6207843" in the search box, and click on the little magnifying glass.  A large icon indicating the record will appear, and you can click on the word "WURLITZER" to be directed to the record.

Once you're at the registration record, click on the "Documents" tab to view copies of all correspondence/paperwork associated with this word mark application.

 

[Alan B.]

^ ^ ^

What a way to de-lurk, huh?

[Alan B.]

ALSO:

The same German company holds two other live U.S. trademarks for the word mark "WURLITZER" (Reg. No. 5987058) (Reg. No. (Reg. No. 5987058), each covering different classes of goods/services.  You can look those up, on the USPTO website, the same way.

Gibson filed an opposition to these other applications, but subsequently withdrew its opposition.

 

[Alan B.]

Gibson still maintains a couple of live/active WURLITZER marks in its own name, for jukeboxes and cigarette vending machines.

I guess that's where the real money is.......

[PavlovsCat]

24 minutes ago, ArsP said:

OTOH, the USPTO's online TM search system lists the live/active registered mark "WURLITZER" (Reg. No. 6,207,843;  Registered Dec. 01, 2020).

This registration addresses "Goods and Services" classification "IC 015," specifically:  "Cases for musical instruments; Clarinets; Electronic musical keyboards; Electronic musical instruments; Glockenspiels; Horns; Mouthpieces for musical instruments; Music synthesizers; Organs; Recorders; Reeds for use in woodwind mouthpieces; Stands for musical instruments; Triangles".

The current owner is listed as "Wurlitzer Licensing UG" ("UG" is a form of "entrepreneurial" limited liability company). 

The original application was made by "Dipl-Ing. Gudrun Wurlitzer," and later assigned to the UG (at the same address).

You may be able to access the complete PTO application record directly, here.

If not, go to the PTO's TM search page here, enter "6207843" in the search box, and click on the little magnifying glass.  A large icon indicating the record will appear, and you can click on the word "WURLITZER" to be directed to the record.

Once you're at the registration record, click on the "Documents" tab to view copies of all correspondence/paperwork associated with this word mark application.

 

Okay, this is funny, now there's two of us on the case! 

I'm not sure if that's the same guy that contacted AcousticSamples, but he registered a bunch of US federal trademark claims for Wurlitzer, but as I mentioned, a registration is really just a claim to the right for a trademark -- it doesn't necessarily mean that you are the rightful trademark owner. In 2020, Gibson was certainly the real registered owner of the Wurlitzer trademark, so I think the above individual just wasted his money and didn't bother to use a trademark attorney.  

The reason that I searched the USPTO last year was to see if anyone was making a claim for Wurly/Wurli/Wurlie and the last legitimate registered trademark came from Gibson, but they let it expire. You could go today and register a trademark for Wurly and it would likely go through. It wouldn't mean much in court. (I'm not an attorney, but I've spent a good deal of my career working with trademark attorneys and these are trademark basics; Fleer however, is an attorney). 

I know that Gibson did have a battle with a company out of Germany over the Wurlitzer trademark in the early 2000s, but Gibson won that battle and I suspect this guy was not part of that based on the fact that he seems to be a one man show. Also consider that the guy behind the websites claiming that he owns the right to Wurlitzer, claims that he got the rights in 2021, not 2020. He's likely registered a bunch of trademarks believing that he could get them because there's a bunch of dead trademarks from Gibson. Of course, without using them in commerce, he won't have much of a claim and I would think that Gibson's common law use and history would likely make his trademark claim meaningless. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm knowledgeable enough in this area that Interpol quotes me in their documentation on international trademark laws. 

Edited January 30 by PavlovsCat

[Alan B.]

Quote

a registration is really just a claim to the right for a trademark -- it doesn't necessarily mean that you are the rightful trademark owner

The Registration Certificate sitting at the other end of the first link in my first post is a government-issued *TRADEMARK*, full-stop, not just a self-asserted right to one.

The German company is the rightful holder of that mark. 

This was a "Section 66(a)" application, which means that the registrant had already obtained an "international registration" via the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") in Geneva.

Quote

I know that Gibson did have a battle with a company out of Germany over the Wurlitzer trademark in the early 2000s,

Gibson's counsel filed the withdrawals of opposition that I referred (and linked) to, above, in 2019.

[PavlovsCat]

1 hour ago, Alan B. said:

The Registration Certificate sitting at the other end of the first link in my first post is a government-issued *TRADEMARK*, full-stop, not just a self-asserted right to one.

The German company is the rightful holder of that mark. 

This was a "Section 66(a)" application, which means that the registrant had already obtained an "international registration" via the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") in Geneva.

Gibson's counsel filed the withdrawals of opposition that I referred (and linked) to, above, in 2019.

Ha! So it sounds like you're an IP attorney. Is that right?

Not challenging your knowledge,  this copy from an IP attorney firm does a better job of making the point IP lawyers have always explained to me: 

"A federal trademark registration means that you carry the legal presumption of ownership of the mark and possess the right to use it "  That is, it is not the USPTO guaranteeing that you're the rightful owner to that trademark, it just gives a date when a claim was made and live, conflicting trademarks were not found in the database at that time. 

My understanding, and I do recall having dealt with another company claiming common law rights to a registered trademark a company I was with used. To make this a bit more relevant to this, if a USPTO trademark search finds no live claims on a trademarked name (not a logo), but someone registers it but doesn't use it in commerce, their trademark claim doesn't necessarily trump a company that was using it unregistered in commerce for 30 years during the period of registration. For example, Gibson let the Wurly trademark lapse, but a small opportunistic developer registered it for use by his business. If Gibson still has been marketing a product using the Wurly name, my understanding is that the small developer with the federally registered trademark still may likely not have a case for infringement against them. Is that correct or incorrect? 

So the withdrawals to opposition from GIbson you referred to in 2019, does that pertain to using the Wurlitzer trademark for musical instruments? And is the owner of that trademark the same party that has the website referenced in my original post? 

Edited January 30 by PavlovsCat

[Alan B.]

The German company's trademarks are legit, and Gibson consented explicitly to their issuance by the USPTO.

Per this July 2020  Trademark Consent Agreement between the parties, which was filed with the USPTO, Gibson kept its "WURLITZER" trademark for use in connection with "jukeboxes," and the German company received its "WURLITZER" trademark for use in connection with:

• CLASS 9: Amplifiers; downloadable music files; downloadable ring tones for mobile phones; laptop computers; loudspeakers; magnetic tapes; microphones; sleeves for laptops; notebook computers; portable media players; radios; phonograph records featuring music; record players; selfie sticks; smartphones; smart watches; smart glasses; headphones; in-ear headphones; blank USB flash drives; wireless headsets for cellular or mobile phones and computers; blank Credit card-style USB flash drives

• CLASS 15: Cases for musical instruments; Clarinets; Electronic musical keyboards;  Electronic musical instruments; Glockenspiels; Horns; Mouthpieces for musical instruments; Music synthesizers; Organs; Recorders; Reeds for use in woodwind mouthpieces; Stands for musical instruments; Triangles

• CLASS 35: Carrying out auction sales; Providing on-line auction services; Provision of an online marketplace for buyers and sellers of goods and services.

This is in addition to the two other "WURLITZER" trademarks (issued in connection with different classes of goods/services), referenced above, which were issued to the German company after Gibson withdrew its objections.

It's all right there, in the text and links provided above for your dining and dancing pleasure. 

[Alan B.]