Big resellers or builders like Thomann is one thing, the problem is for small builders who can't afford an attorney, especially in a country where you loose the case if you don't show up.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Another fender lawsuit
- Thread starter GodPlayedBass
- Start date
I did read a little more about the topic and I try to explain what I've found. Disclaimer: This is German Legal Language. If you thought casual German is complicated, Law German is complicated to Germans. I won't translate some terms properly and I am no lawyer.
In early March 2026, Fender won a case against a company named Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co. at the Landesgericht in Düsseldorf (this is a regional court and there are courts above it).
Fender won in part, because Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co. did not show up and present a case - Germans call this a "Versäumnisurteil". This is binding, but not as strong as a ruling where both parties showed up and presented a case.
One of the rulings the judges made was to recognize the strat body and headstock shape as a work of art, which can be protected.
My prediction of how this might continue is that whoever will take Fender on and drag them to court again will use the No-Show of the Chinese company as a lever, stating that Fender is trying to build a legal case on a ruling they have won because the opposing party never showed up in court and never argued their case - plus the fact that Fender lost a similar case in 2009 in the US, so this whole thing might be opened up again and re-examined.
In early March 2026, Fender won a case against a company named Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co. at the Landesgericht in Düsseldorf (this is a regional court and there are courts above it).
Fender won in part, because Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co. did not show up and present a case - Germans call this a "Versäumnisurteil". This is binding, but not as strong as a ruling where both parties showed up and presented a case.
One of the rulings the judges made was to recognize the strat body and headstock shape as a work of art, which can be protected.
My prediction of how this might continue is that whoever will take Fender on and drag them to court again will use the No-Show of the Chinese company as a lever, stating that Fender is trying to build a legal case on a ruling they have won because the opposing party never showed up in court and never argued their case - plus the fact that Fender lost a similar case in 2009 in the US, so this whole thing might be opened up again and re-examined.
Read up on that McDonald's case because you have been misinformed like many others.
Wrong or not the point still stands, regardless of how the Mcd's case is perceived.
I have a couple of gigs comming. Maybe I should leave my Jazz Bass at home...
As far as I know, this does not apply in the US due to public domain.
Yes, for patents (the mechanism via which something works) and trademarks (style elements which brand your product.)
Leo Fender held various patents for things he in invented. Patents are temporary, all of his have expired.
Leo Fender also registered trademarks. Trademarks last forever, potentially, if the trademark holder continues to use them and protects them from infringement. The Fender body shapes were never registered as trademarks, competitors have been using them for decades, and Fender has already lost court cases trying to claim trademark protections for body shapes.
But you cannot copyright a tool. Copyrights don't protect usable things. You can't copyright a shovel, you can't copyright a shoe, you can't copyright a guitar. It's not how copyright works.
It will be argued Fender allowed the shape to become generic!
This has nothing to do with communism- what a silly statement.
This is late stage capitalism at its best...... sorry
This will be a tightrope ride. If one manages to get the strat body shape copyrighted, to what extend will that be?
Let's assume the bevel cut for the tummy is at a 13° angle. When someone makes a body that is identical in any way, but has a 15° bevel, it is not identical.
In many ways, the shape of the strat is that of a generic electric guitar. There is a reason the top horn is that particular length, because it has a function (placing the strap pin in the position that will hold the guitar in balance). There is a reason for the lower horn's size and position (gaining access to the upper frets while also helping the guitar sitting on your lap playing sitting down) - and that list goes on.
At the end of the day, one would have to specify what angles and radii, what distances from this point to that etc. make a strat a strat, and that's basically laying down the blueprint for the rest of the industry on how to make an electric guitar that is as close to a strat as possible without violating law, while every single point Fender could make will be disputed because others will argue it's generic at this point.
In my humble opinion, it would be okay to argue that people have to stop building guitars where you can sand off the headstock, apply a Fender decal, put a layer of clear coat on top and then it needs an expert to tell it's not a real Fender.
Let's assume the bevel cut for the tummy is at a 13° angle. When someone makes a body that is identical in any way, but has a 15° bevel, it is not identical.
In many ways, the shape of the strat is that of a generic electric guitar. There is a reason the top horn is that particular length, because it has a function (placing the strap pin in the position that will hold the guitar in balance). There is a reason for the lower horn's size and position (gaining access to the upper frets while also helping the guitar sitting on your lap playing sitting down) - and that list goes on.
At the end of the day, one would have to specify what angles and radii, what distances from this point to that etc. make a strat a strat, and that's basically laying down the blueprint for the rest of the industry on how to make an electric guitar that is as close to a strat as possible without violating law, while every single point Fender could make will be disputed because others will argue it's generic at this point.
In my humble opinion, it would be okay to argue that people have to stop building guitars where you can sand off the headstock, apply a Fender decal, put a layer of clear coat on top and then it needs an expert to tell it's not a real Fender.
I'm not surprised Fender is being the bad guy in this. I think their new CEO has a long history of reviving Fender in Japan/Asia. They're going aggressive tactics to try and gain some majority of the U.S market. "They want a strat? They'll have to come to us and us only, and we can raise the price cause only we have it" very simple summary of course. Speaking of corporations and being evil;
McDonald's ran a very successful slander campaign against some poor old lady to cover their behinds for their incompetent workers.
The coffee was boiled to a ridiculous unnecessary degree of heat, the lid was put on improperly, and the lady only wanted the corporation to pay for her med bills, it burned her skin on her lap, it was awful.
McDonald's ran a very successful slander campaign against some poor old lady to cover their behinds for their incompetent workers.
i sense much information in many of the posts here. is this where a.i. gets their data? hmmm .....
Yep. Fender should have sought initial copyright protection of their entire guitar, not just the headstock. By the time they realized their oversight it was too late. I don’t know how much success they’ll have today with this but I don’t have any problem with them seeking to protect their business though the courts.
Meanwhile...The fine folks over at Rickenbacker are yelling "You go Fender!"
Yup. It's the same crap Gibson pulled years ago. It didn't work then, it won't work now.
The McDonalds case has its own wiki page. It's a fascinating case in itself, and changing perceptions of it are also an interesting story.
I am so sick of Fender being this way, but from what little I know of (US) law, they're not going to have a good time.
