Fender company sent legal notices to every other company that manufactures stratocaster-shaped guitars or sells them in Europe. Fender wants them all to stop, destroy the whole already existing stock and pay compensation.

So far Fender managed to win a case in a German court against one single Chinese company, but that was only because the defendant's representative did not appear in that court. Fender's lawyers try to intimidate numeorus other companies, although Fender's arguments are very, very weak.

Many people started boycotting Fender because of this.

 

Last edited: May 18, 2026 at 8:19 PM

Given that they are basing this on precedent set by winning a previous case based on the other party not showing up, and the Strat body shape being public domain in the US and failing legal protection in previous cases, I'd say their claims probably won't go anywhere and Fender will lose these cases (and a lot of customer goodwill).

Really silly move, imo.

 

They are a "bit" late aren't they?

 

This is what happens when finance bros take over.

 

This sort of move is the worst thing I can imagine for brand image, we are so far removed from these being just the work of the original creator. The majority of the guitar designs (Strat, Tele, Jazz, Jag, P Bass, J Bass etc etc) were all designed by Leo Fender (with assistance from G. Fullerton & F. Tavares) & he has not been involved with the Fender company since he sold it to CBS when he was facing health issues in 1965 & then later went to create guitars for Music Man.

IP/Patent Trolling is some of the scummiest business out there. I also imagine this will have a knock effect & cause further Fender boycott, perhaps including people being less likely to use (the former Presonus StudioOne) now Fender Studio Pro DAW

 

How would it be IP/Patent trolling?? If Leo actually trademarked and/or owned those designs, then all rights and ownership would have transferred to CBS when they took over and then passed on to whoever else owned the IP after that. Just like inMusic owns the MPC nowadays. The "Strat" shape didnt exist until Fender invented it, just like the Les Paul shape didnt exist until Les Paul and Gibson came up with it. And in that case, that means whoever owns Fender now, owns that IP and the rights to that shape. Did nobody notice (or are you all too young) all the 'Super Strat' guitars in the 80s/90s weren't exactly shaped like Strats? My old 90s Ibanez RG550 might be 'similar' but it's not anything remotely close to the actual shape or contours of my 96 Strat.

Won't affect me at all, my guitars are all happily Fender (except for the Gibsons and Epiphones), and I'll keep buying them because, not only is Fender a local business (Charvel used to be right by my house in the 80s too), they do the job they were supposed to do and its what I've been playing for 35 years or so.

 

Last edited: May 19, 2026 at 3:46 AM

True, but the imaginary customer anger and resulting "boycott" are what predictably follow and then don't happen. Even the demanded destruction of inventory won't happen; they will just end up on eBay.

 

Fender guitars and basses have been facing a lot of (excellent, if not better) competition, so I can imagine that (lazy, incompetent and greedy) executives would want to fight back and look for ammunition wherever and however they can.

That's almost normal, considering how tight and competitive the market has become since the Strat body went public, so to speak. It's not as if Fender can compete or fight back on quality, or price. So where does that leave the (incompetent and greedy) executives?

Stepping back from the music industry for a beat, it would 'pay' to look at the company history and trajectory of Levi Strauss & Co. Levi's imported their denim (from Nimes, France presumably - hence the name "de Nimes" morphing into denim) but really came into making their own line of clothing (overalls, trousers, and later, vests, jackets and coats) after they partnered with a California tailor who had the very practical idea to use rivets to reinforce the structuring of the items, and started making their own denim in the US.

Eventually, Levi Straus & Co's rivet patent expired, but the company kept growing, slowly but surely, as "blue jeans" became a part of American culture (WW2 gave them quite a boost as well). Levi's peaked in the 60's and 70's, after which they faced increased and strong competition ("designer" jeans costing 3-6 times more than a pair of 501s) in the 80s.

As should sound familiar to most guitar and bass players, and anyone familiar with the death of the Mall in the US, Levi's had to close dozens of stores, and was crumbling under billions of dollars of debt. Meanwhile, brands from Asia, or European brands who made their jeans in Asia, were gobbling up market shares (and not relinquishing them) - a bit (a lot) like what happened with boutique guitar and bass brands and luthiers in the 80s, 90s, and since (minus the billions in debt).

As would be familiar to anyone following IP lawsuits, Levi's sued a Chinese denim company (in China) for a trademark infringement and won (the case and damages). This was just before the pandemic.

What's striking beyond the parallels between Levi's and Fender's trajectories, is that Levi's innovated or at least adopted innovative techniques to 1) reduce their dependency on water in, and 2) remove all chemicals (and even lasers) from the manufacturing process.

In other words, Levi's once led, lost their IP, stumbled, found a way back through culture, stumbled again and fell hard, but decided to bounce back and responsibly, by 'innovating' or leading the industry (again) with new manufacturing technology - and back into profitability.

One could ask, how has Fender innovated since the 1950s and 60s? I couldn't answer that question - I'm not a guitarist (I do play Fender Jazz basses on occasion though, and I wouldn't trade them for any other - okay maybe for Stenback's Jazz basses, one can dream).

And in fairness, one could ask the same of Steinway, or Bösendorfer. But Paolo Fazioli did innovate piano manufacturing (it's actually quite fascinating how he merged his mechanical engineering competency with that of a master acoustician, and wood experts to create the best and most sought after piano), so evidently, it is possible to innovate, even on a perfect design.

Fender should take note, and even several pages out of Paolo Fazioli's book (maybe also Levi's): quality, quality, quality, and innovate, innovate, innovate. It's literally not rocket science. Hopefully their greedy lawyers won't lead them down the war path much longer.

Good luck and best wishes to all Fender employees.

 

NI, Gibson, Roland, Yamaha, Sweetwater, Guitar Center, Avid, Reason, Arturia, Steinway...

 

btw, you can not win a trial only because the other party did not appear. if you make a claim you have to provide the reasoning and submit evidence for the facts you claim. if the other party appears is pretty irrelevant.
the exception are reminder notices, where you have to defend yourself by disagreeing.

 

Is that how it works in the EU?

 

Finally, a company is taking legal action against product piracy!

 

I don't know if I can keep them out very much longer, they've shot up the house, fired two morters at the outer wall and I can smell the diesel from their revving tanks just outside of the gates of my compound/studio, Loisland. In the next few minutes I think they're gonna try to breech the perimeter as I hear their snarling hounds and can only imagine them taught on their lines hoping for some fresh meat for lunch. This might be my last post and so probably I should bid you all farewell. Thanks, Saint, it's been grand! Fuck Fender, long live Blade guitars!!!

 

Gibson destroy their OWN guitars with hammers and even bulldozers. And destroy import guitars from China too, pretending stopping the flood.
But they still sell overpriced sh*t, like SG standard with factory marks on them.
During this time, the fake LP flood still go.

Even asking a luthier to make a LP copy will cost you LESS than their mass produced ones. And with better woods, pickups ...

Same problem with Fender.
Last video i seen was comparing 6000 bucks vs 175 bucks Fender vs Squier ... really 6000 ?
I prefer a good Fender copy at 300 bucks, with good pickups and tuners, than anything Fender.

On the other side, if ppl pay for that ... they are part of the problem.
I can't even imagine what i could get from a luthier at 6000 euros ...

 

more or less, yeah.

if somebody sues you for copyright infringment, theft or insulting, and you know it is wrong because it did not happen, you just do not react at all. there will be no disadvantes or risks if you do not defend. same as in criminal law, too. the prosecutor has to prove what he says, not you the opposite.

but if somebody sues you for not paying a bill, you have to lodge an objection against his claim or you will have to pay even if you can prove that it is wrong afterwards. (that is why lawyers who want ot make money by false claims usually send their claims during the summer holidays.)

 

I agree with you on paper but the thing is that Fender is doing this in order to gain sales. They will not gain sales, quite the contrary. So they're actually choosing to sacrifice sales for a principle, which I really don't think was their intention when they decided to go through with this.

Knowing when to fight your battles is just as important as fighting them. 2026 ain't the time for that.

 

Last edited: May 19, 2026 at 6:29 PM

A surprising ruling from Düsseldorf strengthens the protection of the Stratocaster body design.
Fender wins legal battle in Germany over the Stratocaster shape
by the editorial team ,March 9, 2026(Image: Fender Musical Instruments Corporation)
Fender has won a ruling in the Düsseldorf Regional Court classifying the Stratocaster body shape as a copyrighted work of applied art. This is particularly noteworthy because Fender's attempt to trademark the outlines of the Strat, Tele, and Precision Bass guitars in the US failed in 2009. The extent of the ruling's impact remains one of the most pressing questions for the industry.

The verdict
Fender has achieved a significant legal victory in Germany. The Düsseldorf Regional Court has ruled that the Stratocaster body design is protected under German and European copyright law . According to the company, the ruling establishes enforceable rights against guitars that use this body shape and are sold or distributed in Germany or other EU countries – regardless of where they were manufactured.

UPDATE: According to the Düsseldorf Regional Court, the decision is a default judgment . The judgment was issued because the defendant, Fender, failed to defend itself in court or did not appear.
The court stated that the default judgment was nevertheless justified in writing. This is because the decision is intended to be enforced outside of Germany as well. As of now, the Düsseldorf Regional Court has neither published a case number nor an official press release regarding the proceedings.

This is important for context: A default judgment is not a mere formality, but it is also not a judgment following a fully argued case between both parties. Put simply, in such a case, the court decides based on the submissions of the appearing party, because the opposing side has not presented its arguments. This does not automatically diminish the significance of the decision, but it does make it more vulnerable to procedural challenges: An appeal against an initial default judgment is possible within two weeks. The case would then revert to a regular trial, and the court would re-examine the case on its merits. In this Fender case, this means: The judgment should certainly be taken seriously, but it does not yet have the same finality as a classic contested judgment after a trial.

(Image: Fender Musical Instruments Corporation)
The specific case
The legal proceedings were triggered by electric guitars from the Chinese company Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co., which were offered for sale via AliExpress, including for shipping to Germany. According to Fender, the court concluded that these instruments unlawfully reproduced the Stratocaster design. Crucially, the design was classified not merely as functional product design, but as a copyrighted work of applied art .

What this means legally
It is also relevant for the market that simply offering such instruments in Germany or other EU countries could establish liability. According to a press release, Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co. has been prohibited from manufacturing, offering, or distributing guitars with a Stratocaster body shape in Germany and the EU. Future violations could result in fines of up to €250,000 per offense or, alternatively, imprisonment of up to six months.

A look at the USA
The ruling is also noteworthy in light of its US history. In 2009, Fender's attempt to register the two-dimensional body outlines of its Stratocaster, Telecaster, and Precision Bass as trademarks failed before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the US Patent and Trademark Office. The TTAB deemed the shapes generic and, alternatively, found insufficient acquired distinctiveness . It's important to understand that the TTAB decides whether a trademark can be registered—not whether a sign may be used generally.

(Image: Fender Musical Instruments Corporation)
Another legal approach
That's precisely why the Düsseldorf ruling seems like an interesting counterpoint: Fender failed in the US with a trademark-based approach, but in Germany the company has now succeeded on copyright grounds. Whether this will signal a trend for other legal proceedings remains to be seen. However, it's already clear that the decision will likely be followed closely beyond this specific case.

What this means for the market
In its press release, Fender emphasizes that the aim is not to stifle innovation or fair competition, but to take action against clear legal infringements. For guitarists, however, the practical core of the announcement is something else entirely: the distinctive Stratocaster silhouette is now more legally protected in Germany than before.

(Image: Fender Musical Instruments Corporation)
Open questions for the industry
The question now is how broadly this ruling will be interpreted in the future. What does the decision mean for manufacturers who have relied on familiar S-style shapes for years? And how will German guitar makers react when a classic body outline is suddenly not just design history, but also a copyright-protected area?

www.fender.com

Source: https://www.gitarrebass.de/stories/...chland-rechtsstreit-um-die-stratocaster-form/

 

Last edited: May 19, 2026 at 6:06 PM

I mean.. most major guitar brands have trademarked their headstock designs and that's been tested in court a couple times - with various outcomes. The mere potential of legal repercussions is enough to deter virtually all companies from copying headstock designs 1:1.

 

Stuff like that is usually done when you're about to to go bankrupt and need cash fast.
So I predict in about 5 years some Chinese company is going to buy them for pennies on the dollar.