Another fender lawsuit

[TheArchitect]

1) Their have not been additional lawsuits, just C&D letters that are not lawsuits.
2) The body shape is what they claimed copyright on. There was no mention of pickguards, pickups or anything else that I have seen so anything not the body itself is not in play

 

[BTL]

I agree with this, except requiring three pickups and tremolo bridge would exclude quite a few Strats, and neither affects the arguably "artistic" elements of the design, like the body outline, pickguard outline, and jack shape and location/orientation. There have been several HH Strats and a few hardtails, and I owned a 2001 American Series "Big Apple" Strat that was both. (It was a great guitar, and I never should have sold it.)

My current thoughts are that, in order to be considered infringing, a body design must incorporate three key design elements:

1. Body Outline (confusingly similar)

2. Pickguard Shape Outline (confusingly similar)

3. Ornamental Metal Work Outline (if present, confusingly similar control plates and/or output jack)

Assuming that is the copyright standard Fender chooses to pursue, I would expect Fender to assert copyrights on the Telecaster Guitar, the Jazzmaster Guitar, the Jaguar Guitar, the Jaguar Bass, the Precision Bass, the Jazz Bass, the Mustang Bass, and the Mustang Guitar.

Assuming that’s correct, this will be an interesting ride.

1) Their have not been additional lawsuits, just C&D letters that are not lawsuits.
2) The body shape is what they claimed copyright on. There was no mention of pickguards, pickups or anything else that I have seen so anything not the body itself is not in play

Fender won a lawsuit against Yiwu Philharmonic. The Stratocaster design contested and asserted in that case and the current round of C&D letters is more than just the body outline.

 

[Miles_ONeal]

using the term Commiefornia says a lot about...

Ha! That post is gone.

 

[Miles_ONeal]

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.

You either have a viable business model or you don’t. Demanding the courts cover your butt for something you should have known to do decades ago, but did not, is not — and should not be — a viable business model.

 

[Miles_ONeal]

Yup. It's the same crap Gibson pulled years ago. It didn't work then, it won't work now.

The Gibson issues I know of were different because Gibson DID file design patents on body and headstock shapes. IIRC, they had some problems due to a period of time where they weren’t enforcing.

 

[Miles_ONeal]

Another perhaps relevant fact is that case settled for a much lower amount than the verdict ...

IMO, to an arguable significant percent of Fender's goal, process and procedure is being used to chill copying; where Fender is highly unlikely to win in other cases if they are defended, litigation itself extracts penalty ... a currently common approach not just in copyright claims.

Toys-R-Us threatened to sue me over the name Roadkills-R-Us. It was ridiculous but they counted on their victims rolling over before the threat from a (then) large corporation.

Spoiler: it didn’t work in my case.

For the curious, go to www.rru.com and look for the “no giraffes” icon.

 

[Miles_ONeal]

If Ford built a car that looked exactly like a Corvette, would that be legal? We’re not talking about ‘does it have tires or an engine?’ but about the shape/look.

AFAIK classical guitars are public domain unless it’s really different from customary, which is unlikely.

If GM failed to protect the shape from the beginning, yes, it would be legal. At least in the US.

 

[Miles_ONeal]

I wonder for fun... what is the ratio of Lawyers : Fender fanbois on Talkbass? Bound to be some crossover... can't be mutually exclusive.

I’m sure carrots are involved.

 

[Miles_ONeal]

Who plays a new Fender?
I've got a couple old Fenders, but I don't use them to gig.
All the guitar players I know, might have an old one around, but they don't rely on them.
Any new stuff I've seen from Fender has not been impressive.
I've relegated Fenders to beginner instruments.

If Fender doesn't want to go the way of SWR and G&L, they need to step up their game and make a decent instrument instead of chasing patents and copyrights that have long since expired.

Agreed. A desperation ploy by the incompetent. IMO.

 

[Miles_ONeal]

I feel like rather than trying to shut all these companies down, force them to pay Fender to use the shapes and all.

Maybe that's just me being incredibly naive about how this stuff works but wouldn't that bring in more money than trying to win all these dumb lawsuits? *shrug*

If they had a valid point, maybe. But Fender forfeited all such rights long ago.

 

[Miles_ONeal]

Agreed 100% and I know you’ll agree with this. Waiting 50+ years to start defending your trademarks should not be allowed.

It generally isn’t, at least in the US. They don’t.

 

[Miles_ONeal]

The Strat is iconic with many great legacy players. Design your own guitar instead of imitations. Besides, isn’t this the capitalism way what Fender is doing?

In practice today by large corporations, yes. But it shouldn’t be.

 

[Miles_ONeal]

Ron Bienstock has entered the chat.

Beautiful.

 

[Miles_ONeal]

Saw a YT short from Highline Guitars mentioning an article on Guitar World website with clarification from Fender. I recommend going over to read it. Basically they're saying the target is exact Strat body clones. Not kinda-strat guitars.

As I said before, I think those horses are already out of the barn, but I do have some sympathy for Fender wanting to prevent exact clones.

Decades later? I have no sympathy. Especially for lying bullies.

 

[Miles_ONeal]

Fender owns and is now enforcing the Stratocaster body shape copyright in the EU. That has been decided in the German court. If someone wants to challenge Fender on this point and thinks they have a great footing to do so, they will file a declaratory judgment in the EU. So far, that has not happened.

Why? Let 7ender spend the money and make themselves look worse.

 

[MovingPitchers]

Fender is gonna lose this one (again), take a hit on their reputation, lay low, and release a new line of P Basses and J Basses and people will forget about the failed lawsuit lol.

Tis the cycle.

 

[SoonerBill]

What design elements do you feel make a body a Stratocaster?

I’ll take a stab at it:

1. Symmetrical, rounded lower bout with a flat bottom
2. Narrow waist
3. Asymmetrical (offset), rounded upper bout
4. Double-cutaway fret access with rounded horns
5. Three pickups
6. Tremolo/vibrato plate-style bridge with a threaded-rod arm
7. Pickguard shape that contains all three pickups, mirrors the body outline, and ends at the bridge plate
8. Three control knobs
9. Blade-style pickup selector
10. Forearm bevel and belly cut
11. Oval-shaped output jack plate

I feel there is a difference between a “Super-S-Type” and a Stratocaster body, but I’ve never given much thought to where the lines should be drawn.

How many of those things would have to different? Would 2 or 4 pickups, 4 control knobs and a round jack plate make it untouchable?

 

[BTL]

My current thoughts are that, in order to be considered infringing, a body design must incorporate three key design elements:

1. Body Outline (confusingly similar)

2. Pickguard Shape Outline (confusingly similar)

3. Ornamental Metal Work Outline (if present, confusingly similar control plates and/or output jack)

Assuming that is the copyright standard Fender chooses to pursue, I would expect Fender to assert copyrights on the Telecaster Guitar, the Jazzmaster Guitar, the Jaguar Guitar, the Jaguar Bass, the Precision Bass, the Jazz Bass, the Mustang Bass, and the Mustang Guitar.

Assuming that’s correct, this will be an interesting ride.

 

[DigitalMan]

The court allowing what is properly a trademark or “trade dress” decision to be litigated as copyright probably needs to be resolved. It would be chaos if a company could litigate it both ways.

 

[Mastermold]

You either have a viable business model or you don’t. Demanding the courts cover your butt for something you should have known to do decades ago, but did not, is not — and should not be — a viable business model.

I think it more accurate to say they either have a viable legal case or they don’t. Had they sought copyright protection for the entire guitar shape instead of just the headstock they would have a better case today.