Strat Avenger
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,971
Wow...
- Thread starter Strat Avenger
- Start date
Verne Bunsen
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,503
I’m not sure how I feel about that. I mean, to be fair, non-Fender guitars of that shape are typically referred to as “S-Style”, and that shape is only generic and ubiquitous because of the popularity and success of the Strat. So I get where Fender is coming from. But this definitely seems like a bit of legal tee-crossing that should have been done many decades ago. The genie is kind of out of the bottle. Whatever may be right or wrong, I suspect this ruling won’t hold up to much pressure.
Spud
Master Member
- Messages
- 3,115
Maybe in the future to manufacture S tyles will require a licensing fee be paid to the mighty F!
TBurst Std
Hero Member
- Messages
- 3,694
Isn’t statute of limitations in play? The F has allowed obvious Ss other than licensed for what now, 40-50 years ?
First electric I played was a Crestwood S type back in the late 70s. The body and neck were pretty much spot on. Actually it was not bad playing or sounding. Was a neighbors. Tried it against a late 70s Strat back then and I preferred the Crestwood. Eventually my neighbor wanted it back. At that time I had my 1st LP. I knew I also wanted Fender tones. Grabbed a used 69 Tele that had been Bigsby snakebit and undone. Got it for $200. Excellent Tele. I’d still have it if it wasn’t stolen in the early 80s. It was a pale blonde, white guard, maple neck with the threaded saddles.
First electric I played was a Crestwood S type back in the late 70s. The body and neck were pretty much spot on. Actually it was not bad playing or sounding. Was a neighbors. Tried it against a late 70s Strat back then and I preferred the Crestwood. Eventually my neighbor wanted it back. At that time I had my 1st LP. I knew I also wanted Fender tones. Grabbed a used 69 Tele that had been Bigsby snakebit and undone. Got it for $200. Excellent Tele. I’d still have it if it wasn’t stolen in the early 80s. It was a pale blonde, white guard, maple neck with the threaded saddles.
Last edited:
Hodgo
Experienced Member
- Messages
- 1,186
That’s what the video talks about. This particular German court appears to disagree with the US interpretation Fender received in 2004
JohnnyHardtail
Senior Member
- Messages
- 750
I wonder if the copyright still applies to guitars fitted with humbuckers, or S-styles that do not have a pickguard.
From watching the video, this ruling maybe only for EU.
From watching the video, this ruling maybe only for EU.
Tretgeraet
Senior Member
- Messages
- 300
My first guitar was a relatively cheap strat copy, I talked about it 
here
. I got it in 1995 and back then I was convinced that it's a generic shape for an electric guitar, because I had already seen so many different brand names on guitars that looked like that in the various mail order catalogs of the time.
They were all somewhere in the price range of 300DM - 360DM, some were black, others red and most of them in sunburst and I remember brand names like "Hohner" and "Samick"... and apart from the colors they all looked the same to me!
It was much much later, that I first heard the names Fender or Strat/Stratocaster.
So, the ruling doesn't make much sense to me.
here. I got it in 1995 and back then I was convinced that it's a generic shape for an electric guitar, because I had already seen so many different brand names on guitars that looked like that in the various mail order catalogs of the time.They were all somewhere in the price range of 300DM - 360DM, some were black, others red and most of them in sunburst and I remember brand names like "Hohner" and "Samick"... and apart from the colors they all looked the same to me!
It was much much later, that I first heard the names Fender or Strat/Stratocaster.
So, the ruling doesn't make much sense to me.
stratamania
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 12,376
And whether at that time you personally had heard of its original designers or not it was a copy.
And whether you had heard of the names and knew they were the originators of the name and design does not change the facts of the matter.
The ruling makes perfect sense. In a lot of ways more so than earlier rulings outside of the EU.
Tretgeraet
Senior Member
- Messages
- 300
Then: Why now? If it makes sense now, it must have made sense 30 years ago, doesn't it?
Strat Avenger
Hero Member
- Messages
- 2,971
I understand Trademark; Fender Trademarked their headstock shape, but how do you "copyright" a body shape?? And when did Fender do that?
NedRyerson
Senior Member
- Messages
- 882
Just like a song: upon first publication, as it's being treated as a "work of art." For those of us who are tired of listening to people blather on in videos and would many to read (I really hate being directed to videos when I'm trying to understand something that doesn't require visual or auditory cues as most video producers are terrible speakers):
blabbermouth.net
It can be litigated. Configurations like that would be judged on the basis of what the average, reasonable person would interpret, not guitar nerds who want to "well actually" the process.
"Hey, is that a copy of the 'Mona Lisa'?"
"Well actually no. You'll note that her dress is a different shade of grey, which makes it a Completely Unrelated Painting."
Or Vanilla Ice's attempt to say that the bass in "Ice Ice Baby" has a different "ding dee dee ding" than "Under Pressure," convincing absolutely nobody.
FENDER Secures Legal Ruling To Protect Stratocaster Guitar Body Design
Fender Musical Instruments Corporation (FMIC) has secured a significant legal victory following a ruling by the Regional Court of Düsseldorf that establishes broad legal protection for Fender's iconic Stratocaster guitar body design under German and European copyright law. The decision creates...
blabbermouth.net
It can be litigated. Configurations like that would be judged on the basis of what the average, reasonable person would interpret, not guitar nerds who want to "well actually" the process.
"Hey, is that a copy of the 'Mona Lisa'?"
"Well actually no. You'll note that her dress is a different shade of grey, which makes it a Completely Unrelated Painting."
Or Vanilla Ice's attempt to say that the bass in "Ice Ice Baby" has a different "ding dee dee ding" than "Under Pressure," convincing absolutely nobody.
supertruper1988
Senior Member
- Messages
- 722
We have to remember that German and EU law is different than the US. The US trademark courts decided that the Strat, Tele and P-Bass are "generic" in the 2004 ruling.
In the US trademark takes *active* defense to control the trademark, see the Monster Cable fiasco where anything music related being advertised as "monster" as a descriptor was being sued by Monster Cable because they have to actively defend the Monster™ name.
Fender didnt do that for any body shapes and tried to retroactively trademark them in the early 2000s. Warmoth, Tom Anderson, John Suhr, and a bunch of others who are making parts for these counter sued and won on the basis of a lack of defense on the part of Fender for decades.
Also trademarks are different from trade-dress which is different from a copyright which is different from a patent. All are defended and used in different ways.
The lawsuits in the 70s against Ibanez and others making copies of Strats/Teles/LPs determined that the headstock is part of a trademark but that it must be distinguished from a certain distance. However, you cannot trademark the function of a 6 inline headstock only the non functional bottom half.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice just a layman's understanding of how trademark law is partially handled in the US.
In the US trademark takes *active* defense to control the trademark, see the Monster Cable fiasco where anything music related being advertised as "monster" as a descriptor was being sued by Monster Cable because they have to actively defend the Monster™ name.
Fender didnt do that for any body shapes and tried to retroactively trademark them in the early 2000s. Warmoth, Tom Anderson, John Suhr, and a bunch of others who are making parts for these counter sued and won on the basis of a lack of defense on the part of Fender for decades.
Also trademarks are different from trade-dress which is different from a copyright which is different from a patent. All are defended and used in different ways.
The lawsuits in the 70s against Ibanez and others making copies of Strats/Teles/LPs determined that the headstock is part of a trademark but that it must be distinguished from a certain distance. However, you cannot trademark the function of a 6 inline headstock only the non functional bottom half.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice just a layman's understanding of how trademark law is partially handled in the US.
italoop
Junior Member
- Messages
- 55
More nonsense in a LOT of nonsense happening at this moment on the planet!
Two points come to my mind:
-I wonder how much good Gibson ever had from that silly fight against PRS for a similar reason, a few years back.
-Companies like Warmoth (and several others) should not have any problems because they are licensed by big F to build a Strat body.
Truth? Fender has a terrific "platform" in their hands, the Stratocaster AND the Telecaster. Instead of wasting time and resources in these stOOpid legal things, they should and definitely could invest time and R&D is widening their offer with more woods choices, pickups choices, building details choices (fretboard radius for instance) and stuff that would make them a much better product builder.
I just can't imagine in any dream to pay 10k or 15k for a 7.5" radius Strat resembling an old one from whatever madness you want to call it (custom shop). They could do much better at lower prices and provide NEW things, along with the same old beaten stuff....
As an example, think of a choice of Telecasters where I could have:
-a 14" radius
-maybe a Gibson scale length
-a mahogany or ash or dual woods body
- ebony fingerboard
-a semi-hollow choice
-P90s // Charlie Christian PUs // Nashville config // Dual humbuckers from Lollar and Fralin // active EMGs configs // Strat NECK+TeleBRIDGE // and several other things.....
I mean... get some variety on the list...
Two points come to my mind:
-I wonder how much good Gibson ever had from that silly fight against PRS for a similar reason, a few years back.
-Companies like Warmoth (and several others) should not have any problems because they are licensed by big F to build a Strat body.
Truth? Fender has a terrific "platform" in their hands, the Stratocaster AND the Telecaster. Instead of wasting time and resources in these stOOpid legal things, they should and definitely could invest time and R&D is widening their offer with more woods choices, pickups choices, building details choices (fretboard radius for instance) and stuff that would make them a much better product builder.
I just can't imagine in any dream to pay 10k or 15k for a 7.5" radius Strat resembling an old one from whatever madness you want to call it (custom shop). They could do much better at lower prices and provide NEW things, along with the same old beaten stuff....
As an example, think of a choice of Telecasters where I could have:
-a 14" radius
-maybe a Gibson scale length
-a mahogany or ash or dual woods body
- ebony fingerboard
-a semi-hollow choice
-P90s // Charlie Christian PUs // Nashville config // Dual humbuckers from Lollar and Fralin // active EMGs configs // Strat NECK+TeleBRIDGE // and several other things.....
I mean... get some variety on the list...
Last edited:
Rick
Epic Member
- Messages
- 7,173
Not really a wow ... more like a meh ... (if I'm reading this right .... could be wrong ...)
The decision was won by a default.
the real fun will start if fender tries to enforce a default decision.
The fender lawyers were smart though, because they picked the right target. Now they have this decision, and if say Sadowsky wants to fight it, (they were located in Brooklyn (at least when I lived there) (don't mean to pick on Mr. S, I like his work and have been to his shop, just using it as an example) they have to go over to europe and higher lawyers over there (an expensive pain in neck). I'm pretty sure Fender won't pick an eu manufacturer as the next target. Fender should buy their lawyers a cup of coffee. Good job boys! (I'm not sure I'm thrilled with the result, but you gotta give credit ...)
Though calling it a "meaningful affirmation" is kinda stretch, given it was default.
https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/fender-eu-germany-stratocaster-trademark-ruling/
The decision was won by a default.
the real fun will start if fender tries to enforce a default decision.
The fender lawyers were smart though, because they picked the right target. Now they have this decision, and if say Sadowsky wants to fight it, (they were located in Brooklyn (at least when I lived there) (don't mean to pick on Mr. S, I like his work and have been to his shop, just using it as an example) they have to go over to europe and higher lawyers over there (an expensive pain in neck). I'm pretty sure Fender won't pick an eu manufacturer as the next target. Fender should buy their lawyers a cup of coffee. Good job boys! (I'm not sure I'm thrilled with the result, but you gotta give credit ...)
Though calling it a "meaningful affirmation" is kinda stretch, given it was default.
https://guitar.com/news/industry-news/fender-eu-germany-stratocaster-trademark-ruling/
Last edited:
Similar threads
