Every now and then, a "pre-lawsuit Ibanez" or a "lawsuit Greco" pops up on the various used web pages. I've always wondered when those lawsuits were, who filed them and how they ended. Surprise surprise, they never happened. Ever. No lawsuit over the Fender or Gibson designs has been filed against the Japanese manufacturers, nothing was ever settled in or out of a court of law. So. Please stop using those terms. They are wrong.
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.
"Lawsuit" and "pre-lawsuit" instruments do not exist
- Thread starter BassAgent
- Start date
Wrong, in Gibson's case. And easily researched... try ChatGPT rather than believing a YT "expert".
Bottom line: Fender largely absorbed the copy market rather than fighting it in court.
Gibson took a much more aggressive legal stance.
This moment is often called the end of the “lawsuit guitar era.”
Fender: mostly
- In the late ’60s–’70s, Japanese makers (FujiGen, Tokai, Greco, Fernandes, etc.) made very accurate Strat/Tele/Jazz Bass copies.
- Fender’s original body shapes weren’t strongly protected at the time, and many design elements had slipped into the public domain.
- Instead of mass lawsuits, Fender took a business solution:
- Partnered with FujiGen in Japan
- Launched Fender Japan in 1982
- Licensed the designs and trademarks
- Ironically, those early MIJ Fenders are now considered excellent and helped revive Fender’s quality reputation during the CBS-era slump.
Bottom line: Fender largely absorbed the copy market rather than fighting it in court.
Gibson:
Gibson took a much more aggressive legal stance.
1977:
- Gibson’s parent company (Norlin) sued Ibanez in U.S. federal court.
- The issue wasn’t the Les Paul body—it was the “open-book” headstock shape, which was protected.
- The case settled out of court in 1978, but it scared manufacturers enough to:
- Redesign headstocks
- Move away from exact copies
This moment is often called the end of the “lawsuit guitar era.”
Aftermath & legacy
- Japanese brands shifted from 1:1 copies → original designs
- Companies like Ibanez, Yamaha, ESP, Tokai went on to become major innovators
- Today, many lawsuit-era Japanese guitars are:
- Highly collectible
- Valued for build quality that sometimes rivaled or beat U.S. guitars of the time
One more twist: Gibson kept litigating
- Gibson later tried similar arguments against:
- PRS (Singlecut) → lost
- Dean / Luna / Heritage → mixed results, many claims weakened
- Courts increasingly ruled that single-cut body shapes are functional and generic, not protectable.
Summing it up, the lawsuit era cannot be called the lawsuit era because there have been no low suits at all, except for the one lawsuit there was.
One huge problem: While it is debatable if the naming is sufficiently justified, the term "Lawsuit Era" is in use, and it works well.
It describes instruments made in a very limited time frame (1970-1978) and from a limited number of production facilities (Matsumoku and FujiGen), copying popular American guitar designs, mainly Fender, Gibson and Rickenbacker.
One huge problem: While it is debatable if the naming is sufficiently justified, the term "Lawsuit Era" is in use, and it works well.
It describes instruments made in a very limited time frame (1970-1978) and from a limited number of production facilities (Matsumoku and FujiGen), copying popular American guitar designs, mainly Fender, Gibson and Rickenbacker.
Hold up a minute!
OP states that "No lawsuit over the Fender or Gibson designs has been filed against the Japanese manufacturers". Which is correct.
In 1977, Gibson partent Norlin sued Elger Co, not Ibanez. Elger was the US distributor for Ibanez guitars, so while a lawsuit happened, it was one US company suing another US company, not the Japanese maker.
Try doing your own research rather than believing the output of a chat machine. ;-)
Of course they sued the USA distributor. Japanese legal system probably wouldn’t have granted them standing on Japanese soil to go at Ibanez directly. You can’t sue an entity off its home soil if their legal system doesn’t allow it, just like China today. The only recourse is to sue whoever is located on US soil aka the distributor.
It was a suit by proxy against Ibanez. The intent was still to curtail Ibanez and it worked because USA was the biggest market. .
I have some chibsons and while it has the name on the headstock, they are not dimensionally accurate copies of les pauls and never get seized by customs. They are legal to own/possess and a non-issue unless you are selling them. It takes a lot of time to really make them shine in their own right but will never compare to a real deal les paul. Plus, they are all over 10lbs. while my Les Paul is under that. The only reason I have the chibsons is because I don't want to so much as scratch my Les Paul so it has been in the case for ten years until I disasssmbled it to document and take pics so I can sell it on Reverb.
Anyway, where were we...?
Anyway, where were we...?
Ah yes, let's believe ChatGPT rather than a music journalist who has done research into this.
Your guitars never having been seized by U.S. Customs simply means that you lucked out. According to the laws governing counterfeit versions of U.S. products such as guitars, they should have been seized.
The article linked to below cites a seizure of a shipment of hundreds of guitars, but while single guitars bought by individual U.S. consumers have often been ignored by Customs, many of those are regularly seized, too.
And they are not "legal to own/possess." Owning a counterfeit guitar for personal use is generally not prosecuted, but possessing, buying, selling, or importing them is illegal under intellectual property laws, same as for any other form of counterfeited goods.)
“This is really emotional and personal for us”: $18 million of fake Gibson guitars seized by US Border Protection officers in biggest counterfeit instrument bust on record
Last edited:
Yes, that all makes sense. I was merely splitting hairs by pointing out that the OP stated that no US company sued a Japanese Manufacturer, which is correct - while they DID sue, they sued the US distribution, not the Japanese maker themselves.
No Lawsuits over copyrighted designs of US guitars have happened in the lawsuit era:
This statement is incorrect. Gibson parent Norlin did sue in 1977 because of Ibanez copying the headstock shape.
No Japanese Manufacturer has been sued by a US company over copyrighted designs:
That statement is correct. The sue was by proxy and between two US companies. The Japanese were not directly involved.
Gibson vs. Elger Co. — filed June 28, 1977 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).
Look it up yourself. It's a matter of public record and, ahem, ChatGPT is accurate in this regard.
This is one of those things where suing the US importer and distributor is also the most efficient ways to kill it because the US market is what drives these sales. It's why the Japanese manufacturers changed their designs even when they weren't directly sued. Being able to sell in the US was critically important to them making money.Gibson vs. Elger Co. — filed June 28, 1977 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).
Look it up yourself. It's a matter of public record and, ahem, ChatGPT is accurate in this regard.
So yes, the lawsuit is why the designs changed.
Gibson has a registered U.S. trademark for the LP body shape (and others) and does send cease and desist notices to retailers that sell replicas and replica kits.
These are essentially a threat to sue and many retailers won’t sell these products once they receive notice.
These are essentially a threat to sue and many retailers won’t sell these products once they receive notice.
Yeah, I know that term/phrase has been bandied around incorrectly or overused, especially in relation to Fender, who took the ‘join them instead of trying to beat them’ path, which was part of a bigger phenomenon in that time that included the automobile industry. Why no mention of Rickenbacker? They certainly followed Gibson’s example. But later on, well into 80’s, Tokai came along with all of their well-done doppelgangers of classic Gibson(and Fender)models, and I don’t recall that much weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth.
Last edited:
I think, of all the TB threads I’ve perused over the years, this one is the worst
CF Martin also sent a cease and desist letter to Takamine over their copying of the CF Martin logo on their acoustic guitars. Takamine complied and no lawsuit was filed, but the early Takamine guitars are still referred to as “lawsuit” guitars.
Edit: I guess it’s easier to say “lawsuit” guitar rather than “cease and desist” guitar.
Edit: I guess it’s easier to say “lawsuit” guitar rather than “cease and desist” guitar.
Y'all just woke up wanting to argue over something...
