-
This is where one of our lawyer members is gonna have to enlighten us on things.
At risk of seeming "self-righteous" to DawgBone, my take is that this is just more private equity firm BS. After buying the business and recognizing that it's not profitable for various reasons, step one is to declare "intellectual property" violations, step two is to litigate, step three is to lose said litigation and step four is usually to close the business and strip what they can get out of the assets. Fire the workers, steal wages and benefits if possible. Hold the IP in the portfolio in case it is helpful for future litigation or as an attractive asset for a merger with or acquisition by a larger company, and write down the losses against taxes and call it a day. Move onto the next victim.
So what is actually trademarked by Fender in the US? The names "Fender," "Stratocaster," "Strat," "Telecaster," the names of various amp models, the Jazz and Precision basses, the Fender "F," the Fender logos, etc. and, I didn't know this until today, the Bigsby name. They have image trademarks on the outline of the CBS era Stratocaster headstock (but apparently not the original headstock) and the Telecaster headstock. They also have image trademarks for the shape of the Bigsby tailpieces. I think the Telecaster and Stratocaster bridges are also patented but I didn't see it in the list that I checked. It's possible those patents have lapsed.
Fender does not seem to have an image trademark for either the Stratocaster or Telecaster body in the US, which seems like an oversight. However, as I understand it, applications for trademark, patents and copyright can be denied if it is determined that granting that would result in an unreasonable monopoly. Goodyear, for example, could not patent a round tire shape because the round shape is necessary to its function and therefore not appropriate for patent, trademark or copyright protection. I suppose it is possible that the body shapes fell into that category, whereas the headstock shape is largely decorative.
-
05-20-2026 04:52 PM
-
Here one discussion of the matter in Germany,
where large-scale dealers like Thomann are viewing the situation most calmly. They won a lawsuit against Gibson, they'll win against Fender. Germany is neither the Wild West nor MAGA country nor the snakepit of the mafia.
Naturally, there is a great deal of bewilderment and head-shaking here as to why US-Americans would want—or feel compelled—to behave in such a manner, thereby willfully destroying their own legends while simultaneously ruining their reputation and their hitherto unrivaled soft power within the Western world.
One day, it will all come back to haunt them.
A case in point is just one of many comments, translated from German, from a presumably legally more-versed—presumably now-former Fender fan:
The Düsseldorf ruling is not legally binding; once again, those clueless Americans haven't the faintest idea how the legal system works in Europe. I am quite certain that they will fail across the board. It is likely that one could argue this constitutes an abuse of legal process. One might potentially cite the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling of April 25, 2019 (I ZR 186/17) in this context, which establishes that such an abuse exists when the primary objective of issuing warning letters is to generate revenue. Given the sums involved here, that certainly appears to be the case. Ultimately—in my opinion, at least—Fender is an utterly pathetic company that simply cannot stomach the fact that it sells inferior products and may soon be facing insolvency (though I am merely speculating). Should a buyer actually receive a letter—which I highly doubt will happen—they can simply reply briefly stating that they disposed of the guitar in question a long time ago and that the matter is therefore closed. There is no need to anticipate a police search of one's home, so it is unlikely anyone would notice if one were to—quite accidentally, of course—get one's facts wrong.
-
Good point. I presume that litigation is somewhat expensive in Germany and so I wonder what advantage Fender is after. My experience as an attorney informs me that most cases settle and that litigation is often a tool used as an advantage in negotiation.
Originally Posted by Litterick
-
I just think you and others are up in arms about nothing. No one really cared in 2008 when they tried to do it in the states because internet outrage was in it's infancy and there wasn't a slew of retarded youtube guitar influencers to tell us to be so mad and "b0yc0tT fEnDrrr". A corporate attorney has a job to do, and that job is to use the law to the advantage of it's client, who in this case is Fender. It's just not that big of a deal. Originally Posted by Cunamara
Maybe I should be foaming at the mouth cause I have to order my Edwards from Japan since evil corporate Gibson protected the open book headstock shape and so they can't be sold in the states. Never stopped me, a broke musician, for a minute, and it's not gonna stop anyone in Europe from getting what they want either so I think some perspective is in order.
Maybe it's time for someone in the guitar world to do something besides copy other people's designs. Innovation demands more than imitation which is how this became an issue to begin with. There just ain't that much to be mad about unless you have too much idle time. Go play your tele, LOL.
-
Time to make an investment in "lawsuit era" type T and type S guitars which will be valuable in 20 years or so!
-
That assumes that any guitars will hold much value in 20 years. I wouldn't bet on that. Originally Posted by StormyMonday
If you want an investment that will do well in 20 years or so, buy well positioned real estate. They are making lots of guitars today, but nobody is making any more land.
-
Actually, this Fender case is not about US or EU law, it's about German law.
Someone asked the omnipotent "Gemini AI". It's doubtful if a Google-created AI would be in the precise know (or the fake) of the German law thicket, but here is its brief analysis:
If this should prove to be the case, then—from a legal standpoint—Fender's "success" to date in Düsseldorf would have to be regarded as scarcely worth mentioning.
Entirely apart from any further legal power play on Fender's part—and even if they were to let matters rest at this point—it is, however, clear that Fender's reputation has already suffered massive damage throughout the entire guitar world, not only in Germany.
-
When we were looking at a camp on a little lake in a depressed rural area 27 years ago our financial advisor said " Don't buy it to maybe make money - only buy it if you love it". We loved it and still do (but you're right, it's worth a lot more now). I use the same logic for guitars plus I'm too old to wait for x_casters to appreciate Originally Posted by Stringswinger
-
I expect Fender will stop Ali Express and the other online retailers – Amazon, Thomann, Temu, etc – selling cheap Chinese copies in Germany and the rest of the EU. Fender will probably negotiate licensing arrangements with the more respectable imitators of their guitars – the likes of Suhr, PRS and James Tyler. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
-
Gemini did not read the court's ruling, and appears to have paid too much attention to guitar forums. Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
-
There sure is a lot of angst on the Net about what Fender is doing. I own two Fender Strats and a Boutique Tele, so I am set for Fender type guitars myself, but others may have to pay a small premium for non-Fender S and T type guitars moving forward.
-
-
Its mostly rich guys suing other rich guys.
As a player Im not gonna say, "Wow, this is almost a copy but they didnt get it right".
Just change it a little.
If it feels good and plays good I dont care.
I guess the kids do but there are so many generations of strat copies.
Whatever the outcome, they missed the boat on this one by a lifetime.
The only way these tactics work is if your like the French Champagne company who for decaded has defended the name (though they recently finally lost). It hasnt stopped people from buying Sparkling Wine by other makers.
-
I don’t think the small makers are rich by any means. PRS and Ibanez are one thing, but lawsuits of this kind are often quite effective at intimidating the little guy, even if the suit is not really legally sound.
I have a friend who was sued by Universal over a composition, and although I don’t think it would have stood up in court it was terrifying for him.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
And I think that's all it is: bullying. I have info from an insider that these cease & desist letters only apply to the Stratocaster body shape, and only to guitars than are to be sold (or have been sold) in Germany. If that's the case, this whole thing is just intimidation, and much ado about little. Originally Posted by Christian Miller
-
Fender’s attempt to bully certain dealers and small-scale manufacturers is bound to fail. As mentioned above, they have absolutely no legal standing in Germany. They merely won a lawsuit in a lower court on purely procedural grounds—a case in which the substantive merits of the underlying charges were never even addressed.
Btw., a lot of BS gets spouted regarding "German Angst." Yet right now, I sense nothing in the scene but scorn—and a strong urge to initiate a complete boycott—perhaps mixed with a dash of anger. The latter stems solely from the fact that Fender evidently attempted to exert direct pressure on private customers in a manner that has been both legally impermissible and utterly contemptible. This is being taken extremely ill here.
Incidentally, the true balance of power is being misjudged: Thomann alone would be capable of buying Fender out. In the past, for some valid reason, Thomann had suspended trade with Gibson products for one year.
Through monumental blunders of this kind, Fender will inevitably follow in Gibson’s footsteps.
Leo Fender was a great guy. But then again—who *is* Fender Musical Instrument Corporation, really?
-
That is not inside information. The court's judgment was about the body, and the court's authority is confined to Germany. Originally Posted by ruger9
-
Fender won in a German court so their case has legal standing in Germany. Fender won its case because the judges were convinced by Fender's argument. Originally Posted by Ol' Fret
How did Fender attempt 'to exert direct pressure on private customers'? Fender's lawyers have written only to businesses.
Thomann could not buy Fender if Fender's owners do not want to sell.
-
Well, volcanos in the Pacific have been making more land, but it's unusable within multiple human lifespans. China built themselves an island; ISTR Saudi Arabia or UAE doing something similar. But for the most part Will Rogers's advice remains pertinent. In my area city councils and state legislators are working hard to create a land of a few landlords and many renters, basically heading towards a return to feudal society. Only 40% of the residents of my city own where they live, while the other 60% don't have secure, stable housing. Originally Posted by Stringswinger
Will guitars be worth much in 20 years? Good question. Famous ones might be and maybe the high-end luthier built guitars might ( D'Angelico, D'Aquisto, etc.). Most will probably not- like the hundreds of thousands of medium quality Fenders being pumped out. Somewhere between now and 20 years, though, almost all popular music will be created by AI without human musicians or songwriters being involved. I watched an obvious AI video on YouTube a couple of days ago, replete with a guitar-slinging grizzled country-blues veteran singing about the daughter who turned her back on him... half of the comments were "wow, how moving, dude sang his heart out..." That's the level of the audience for this slop. They can't tell. Cheap emotions are the deal, like a dinner of potato chips instead of real food.
There'll always be a discerning audiences for actual musicians, but it may not be enough to economically sustain the music. Or guitar prices.
-
@ Litterick:
1. "Fender won its case because the judges were convinced by Fender's argument."
Oh, man - that's plain wrong! This is not the actual USA: untrue things do not become any truer simply because one repeats them often enough—or keeps on repeating the rubbish of others. Explained in my last post.
2. "Fender's lawyers have written only to businesses."
Eh, correct! You'd be enlightened though, if you would have watched that video mentioned above. It is in German because it has happened in Germany:
3. "Thomann could not buy Fender if Fender's owners do not want to sell."
Well, just have a look at the actual economical data of both companies!
In other words, if Thomann wanted to, they could exhaust every single lawsuit against Fender's woof-woof ("Bird & Bird", or whoever) right to the very end.
The fact is, not everyone understands irony: Thomann would be completely nuts if they seriously entertained the idea of ??acquiring a company like Fender.
Before I run the risk of having to keep repeating myself here like Sisyphus once had to: good luck, Fender Company, and goodbye—maybe someday you'll get some really guitar-competent or, at least, legally trained management!
-
As I understand it, Germany is a country of mostly renters. Landlords are regulated to make a reasonable profit (without taking undue advantage), and renters can be mobile and go wherever their careers take them without the hassles of buying and selling real estate. Perhaps the Twin City mindset is to go after that model? I like the idea of home ownership myself as it makes stakeholders out of those who own their homes. But I have been a landlord myself for many years. I provide homes in areas with great schools to renters that cannot afford those areas. They get a top-notch education for their kids, and I get long term stable tenants and a great overall return on my investments. I see it as a win-win. I guess it is a bit feudalistic, but it is good to be the lord in any kind of feudal system. As always, fortune favors the strong. Originally Posted by Cunamara
-
-
(Asking out of my ignorance) ...what about all the 335 copies, for instance? Yamaha, Collings, Sire and smaller companies everywhere...
Is that legit?
-
AI's reply:
The short version is: guitar body shapes sit in a messy area of intellectual property law, and different companies have had very different success enforcing them.
For example, Fender Musical Instruments Corporation tried for years to secure stronger trademark protection over the Stratocaster, Telecaster, and Precision Bass body shapes. Meanwhile, Gibson Brands has also aggressively defended shapes like the Les Paul, Flying V, Explorer, and ES-335 — but with mixed legal outcomes.
The key issue is this distinction:
- Copyright protects creative expression.
- Trademark / trade dress protects source-identifying appearance (a shape that consumers associate with a brand).
- Functional or “generic” industrial designs become much harder to monopolize over time.
A guitar body is usually not protected by copyright in the strong way people assume. What companies mostly rely on is trade dress.
Why Fender had trouble
Fender actually lost a major attempt to lock down the Strat/Tele shapes in the U.S.
The problem was that dozens of companies had already been making “S-style” and “T-style” guitars for decades:
- Tokai
- Suhr
- Yamaha
- G&L
- Warmoth
- ESP
- countless boutique builders
Courts and trademark authorities concluded that consumers no longer saw those outlines as uniquely identifying Fender alone. The shapes had become, in effect, industry-standard forms.
So today, many companies can legally make Strat-style guitars as long as they avoid:
- Fender logos
- exact headstock shapes
- confusing branding
The headstock is actually where Fender has historically had much stronger protection.
Why Gibson is different — but not completely
The Gibson ES-335 shape is distinctive, but Gibson has faced the same core problem: decades of tolerated copying.
Companies such as:
- Yamaha Corporation
- Collings Guitars
- Sire
- Ibanez
- Heritage
- Eastman
have long produced 335-style semi-hollows.
Why can they do this?
Because in practice:
- The double-cut semi-hollow format became an accepted product category.
- Gibson would need to prove that consumers automatically identify that body shape alone as “this must be a Gibson.”
- That becomes difficult once many competitors have openly sold similar instruments for decades.
Also, Gibson has sued over these issues many times — especially over:
- Les Paul single-cut designs
- Flying V
- Explorer
- open-book headstock
Sometimes Gibson wins, sometimes loses.
A famous example:
PRS Guitars was sued by Gibson over the PRS Singlecut. Gibson initially won an injunction, but PRS later won on appeal because the court found consumers were unlikely to confuse the guitars.
The “genericization” problem
Once a design becomes strongly associated with an entire type of product rather than a single maker, protection weakens.
Think:
- Strat-style guitar
- Tele-style guitar
- 335-style semi-hollow
- LP-style single cut
These became quasi-generic archetypes in the market.
What companies still protect aggressively
Even when body shapes become hard to monopolize, brands often still successfully defend:
- logos
- model names
- headstock shapes
- truss rod covers
- exact decorative details
That’s why many copies look similar from afar but differ in:
- horn geometry
- pickguard shape
- cutaway curves
- headstock outline
The headstock is especially important because courts often view it as a stronger source identifier than the body silhouette.
So is it “legitimate”?
Generally yes — if:
- the branding is clear,
- the design differences are sufficient,
- consumers are unlikely to think it is actually a Gibson.
The practical reality is that the electric guitar industry evolved around a handful of classic templates from Fender and Gibson, and courts have often been reluctant to grant perpetual monopolies over shapes that became industry standards over 50–70 years.
-
Originally Posted by frabarmus
Evidently, this question is beyond AI's capabilities.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos