Guitar Bodies and Copyright

[rickboy88]

There is an interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal newspaper backing up the decision by Rickenbacker to go after "copy" manufacturers many years ago.

Earlier this year, a regional court in Germany ruled in Fender's favor in a copyright case involving a Chinese manufacturer of copies. Fender is now going after various manufacturers. It looks to just involve the "Stratocaster" body shape. They apparently don't want manufacturers to destroy or recall products, but stop making those products going forward.

Apologies if this has already been covered elsewhere on the forum.

[rickenbrother]

It's actually trademarks. Fender and Gibson did not trademark their body and headstock shapes, whereas Rickenbacker did when they were designed.
IMHO, after many years of other guitar makers' established livelihood from making Strat-style guitars, the best scenario would be a licensing fee paid to Fender to use the body design. Many of these guitar builders make higher-quality instruments than Fender, some at more affordable prices. I'll put a Harley Benton against your average Fender any day.

[admin]

David, thanks for raising this important issue. I concur with Joey that perhaps the most straightforward way to go forward would be to require a licensing fee for those companies that are currently producing instruments that may violate Fender's copyright. I think this would have avoided hard feelings and a show down with between Fender and others.

[Korladis]

IIRC Fender lost their trademark to the strat shape in US courts decades ago because they didn't bother enforcing it for a while. Personally I think it's kinda ridiculous to suddenly start enforcing it all this time later after so many years of not bothering.

While Rickenbacker might seem petty for issuing cease and desists, this is why they do it. Use your trademark or lose it.

[rickboy88]

Yeah, I'd thought it was Trademark but the article referred to the trial in Germany being a "copyright" case (so I went with that), but Trademark is referenced elsewhere regarding 2009. The article also notes that in 2009 Fender lost an attempt to trademark the shapes of the Stratocaster and Telecaster guitars, as well as the Precision Bass. More than a dozen companies challenged that attempt as the shapes became generic over many decades (as noted here) and the federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed.
I agree that licensing would be the best way going forward, but it looks like Fender is pushing for body redesign with the other manufacturers, including the family owned builders. This could get interesting.

[kennyhowes]

Yeah, I'd thought it was Trademark but the article referred to the trial in Germany being a "copyright" case (so I went with that), but Trademark is referenced elsewhere regarding 2009. The article also notes that in 2009 Fender lost an attempt to trademark the shapes of the Stratocaster and Telecaster guitars, as well as the Precision Bass. More than a dozen companies challenged that attempt as the shapes became generic over many decades (as noted here) and the federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed.
I agree that licensing would be the best way going forward, but it looks like Fender is pushing for body redesign with the other manufacturers, including the family owned builders. This could get interesting.

David is right, the workaround in the Fender case involves the term copyright rather than trademark.

I'm not informed enough on the subject to adequately discuss, but it's a thing.

[admin]

Yeah, I'd thought it was Trademark but the article referred to the trial in Germany being a "copyright" case (so I went with that), but Trademark is referenced elsewhere regarding 2009. The article also notes that in 2009 Fender lost an attempt to trademark the shapes of the Stratocaster and Telecaster guitars, as well as the Precision Bass. More than a dozen companies challenged that attempt as the shapes became generic over many decades (as noted here) and the federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed.
I agree that licensing would be the best way going forward, but it looks like Fender is pushing for body redesign with the other manufacturers, including the family owned builders. This could get interesting.

David is right, the workaround in the Fender case involves the term copyright rather than trademark.

I'm not informed enough on the subject to adequately discuss, but it's a thing.

I hear you on the work around used by Fender, Kenny. That said, the legal ruling in the German court was awarded to Fender as the respondent in the case did not show. The ruling in favour of Fender, then, was awarded by default and hence has not been fully tested. I would think that going forward with this decision would not be wise for Fender should they meet up against a manufacturer with sizable legal resources. I am thinking that cooler heads may result in a compromise position. One such compromise might well be having Fender license other manufacturers to continue with their builds, for a fee.

[rickenbrother]

David is right, the workaround in the Fender case involves the term copyright rather than trademark.

I'm not informed enough on the subject to adequately discuss, but it's a thing.

Ahh, because they're claiming it's a work of art, or something like that. If Fender made consistently good guitars, people wouldn't be looking for a better product at a better value...and how are they going after PRS for the John Mayer model if the Strat body style is okay to copy in the USA?

I bought a Squier Classic Vibe Jazz Bass a few years ago to use in a Jimi Hendrix tribute. As much as I sometimes wish it said "Fender" on the headstock, I probably got a better quality instrument, considering the price point.

[doctorwho]

Gibson did the same thing and won their case after a retrial in 2025:

"... The jury’s decision reinforces the validity and strength of Gibson’s intellectual property rights”: Gibson emerges victorious in copyright infringement retrial battle with Dean ..."
Excerpted from https://www.guitarworld.com/music-indus ... nt-retrial