Fender goes full Gibson, Declares war on entire S-body shape industry.

[The Shark]

2 hours ago, LucSulla said:

What I don't know due to not being a lawyer is:

To what end exactly?

Exactly my question.  Do they really think they can accomplish the goal of licensing those that build "Strats" or putting them out of business?  This, at best, will result in selective litigation.  I remember when Dan Strain told me about the Fender letter he received.  They didn't like the "Freakin' Danocaster" logo font and his headstock.  He changed both.  They never sent a letter to many of the boutique "S" builders on TGP, but they went after Dan.  

I just hope they leave me and Kizanski alone in their selective outrage.  But lots of my family, friends, bandmates and clients are attorneys!    

 

[scottcald]

Wonder what would happen if I started a company called Bumper. 

[Steve Haynie]

16 minutes ago, The Shark said:

I just hope they leave me and Kizanski alone in their selective outrage.  But lots of my family, friends, bandmates and clients are attorneys!    

Do they work for free?

[Mike Lee]

Strat copies didn't really become a thing until the Japanese started making a lot of them in the mid-late 70's.  So the first 20 years of the Strat's life were relatively copy free.  I think the CBS management at the time didn't see cheap Japanese copies as a big deal.  Fast forward to the creation of the new FMIC when management bought the IP from CBS in the early 80's and nothing else.  They are a separate company than the one that didn't police their trademarks.  Moving through the 80's there were lots of Superstrats but they didn't use the exact Strat shape - Kramer, Ibanez, Jackson, etc. all used a modified shape.

The 90's saw a resurgence of interest in traditional Strats and by the late 90's boutique builders were becoming a thing because of the internet.  Now there are many builders making what are essentially copies at all price levels.  From $200 import copies to $3K-4K high end Andersons and Suhrs.

I really have no issue with Fender going after copies.  It's pretty lame to just make a copy anyway.  It is not difficult to change the shape a little so it's Stratty but not exactly.  Don Grosh does a great job on his Retro Classics.  So anyone who doesn't want to be affected by this simply needs to change the shape a bit.  How hard is that?

[RobB]

On 5/19/2026 at 11:25 AM, tbonesullivan said:

I actually had been planning on selling my G&L Legacies eventually, but now I think I want to keep them just to spite Fender. 

That’ll show ‘em! Go GET ‘em, tiger! 🤣

[tbonesullivan]

5 hours ago, Mike Lee said:

Strat copies didn't really become a thing until the Japanese started making a lot of them in the mid-late 70's.  So the first 20 years of the Strat's life were relatively copy free.  I think the CBS management at the time didn't see cheap Japanese copies as a big deal.  Fast forward to the creation of the new FMIC when management bought the IP from CBS in the early 80's and nothing else.  They are a separate company than the one that didn't police their trademarks.  Moving through the 80's there were lots of Superstrats but they didn't use the exact Strat shape - Kramer, Ibanez, Jackson, etc. all used a modified shape.

The 90's saw a resurgence of interest in traditional Strats and by the late 90's boutique builders were becoming a thing because of the internet.  Now there are many builders making what are essentially copies at all price levels.  From $200 import copies to $3K-4K high end Andersons and Suhrs.

I really have no issue with Fender going after copies.  It's pretty lame to just make a copy anyway.  It is not difficult to change the shape a little so it's Stratty but not exactly.  Don Grosh does a great job on his Retro Classics.  So anyone who doesn't want to be affected by this simply needs to change the shape a bit.  How hard is that?

Making "Better Than Gibson current production" was how Hamer Started.

I think the crux of the matter will be "how different" an S-type guitar needs to be from a Stratocaster to not infringe on the copyright. The Grosh Retro Classic looks pretty much like a Strat to me, except for the headstock, which is slightly different. You need to overlay the two guitar bodies to see how they are different.

[jwhitcomb3]

8 hours ago, The Shark said:

Exactly my question.  Do they really think they can accomplish the goal of licensing those that build "Strats" or putting them out of business?  This, at best, will result in selective litigation.  I remember when Dan Strain told me about the Fender letter he received.  They didn't like the "Freakin' Danocaster" logo font and his headstock.  He changed both.  They never sent a letter to many of the boutique "S" builders on TGP, but they went after Dan.  

I just hope they leave me and Kizanski alone in their selective outrage.  But lots of my family, friends, bandmates and clients are attorneys!    

 

I assume that Fender went after the name "Danocaster" because they were trying to protect the "XXXcaster" IP associated with a guitar. So that's back to trademark law - protecting Fender's rights to the name in the US, even if they can't protect the shape. 

As LucSulla pointed out, there are many ways to slice the IP pie, the main IP categories being copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. And then there is geographic scope, as the IP laws differ by country/region. Even if the laws themselves may be similar, the judicial precedents for interpreting and enforcing the laws may be considerably different in different regions. 

Patents expire after roughly 20 years, so any inventive aspect of the original Strat has been up for grabs since the 1970s. Patent laws were intended to give inventors a limited term monopoly over their inventions, which thereafter become public domain. This provides incentive to the inventors in the short term before the invention becomes part of society's technology base.

Trademarks protect a business entity, not an invention. Trademarks enter the public domain if they become generic due to lack of enforcement by the trademark holder: names like escalator, aspirin, thermos, etc. Add the strat body shape to that list in the United States. But it seems Fender can still protect the name "Stratocaster" in the USA, as well as any variants that might reasonably create confusion in the marketplace. So in the USA, you can produce and sell a strat copy, but you can't call it a XXXcaster. 

Trade secrets can only be protected as long as they are kept secret. A guitar design is readily apparent, so it's never a candidate for being a trade secret, although a specific manufacturing technique might be.

That leaves copyright. Different countries/regions have different time limits for copyrights. Fender seems to believe it has an angle on protecting the strat shape as a work of art in Europe, so they are going for it. So yeah, it's a small piece of the IP pie - but Fender has calculated that  the European market for strats is big enough to go after. 

The present internet kerfuffle reflects the layman's general misunderstanding of both IP and the landscape of international law. Fender's European gambit is not a quest for WORLD DOMINATION OF ALL THINGS GUITAR. It is a corporation grasping at the final available IP straws protecting its cash cow. 

[django49]

[alantig]

3 hours ago, django49 said:

You know, I kind of see his point.

[Mike Lee]

12 hours ago, tbonesullivan said:

Making "Better Than Gibson current production" was how Hamer Started.

I think the crux of the matter will be "how different" an S-type guitar needs to be from a Stratocaster to not infringe on the copyright. The Grosh Retro Classic looks pretty much like a Strat to me, except for the headstock, which is slightly different. You need to overlay the two guitar bodies to see how they are different.

Yes it looks like a Strat but the body and pickguard are different.  Different enough not to be a copy.  it's actually better IMO.  The contours are more comfortable.

Ibanez makes an AZ "Strat" but like Grosh, the body and pickguard are not the same as a Strat.  This is not hard and negates any issue with Fender.

The reason many builders make exact Strat copies is to take advantage of commodity pricing for parts.  A standard Strat pickguard is cheaper than a custom one.  A standard Strat body blank is cheaper than a custom one.  And so on.

Hamer's Standard is an Explorer shape but I've never checked to see if it's exactly the same.  Remove 1/4" from the rear edge and it's no longer a "copy".  Not sure if they did that but you get the point.

 

 

 

 

[Steve Haynie]

Holy crap!  Mike Lee is back!

[kizanski]

23 hours ago, The Shark said:

Tell 'em to F'off...

[The Shark]

On 5/23/2026 at 10:13 PM, Steve Haynie said:

Do they work for free?

The one in my band does.  

[The Shark]

15 hours ago, jwhitcomb3 said:

I assume that Fender went after the name "Danocaster" because they were trying to protect the "XXXcaster" IP associated with a guitar. So that's back to trademark law - protecting Fender's rights to the name in the US, even if they can't protect the shape. 

As LucSulla pointed out, there are many ways to slice the IP pie, the main IP categories being copyright, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. And then there is geographic scope, as the IP laws differ by country/region. Even if the laws themselves may be similar, the judicial precedents for interpreting and enforcing the laws may be considerably different in different regions. 

Patents expire after roughly 20 years, so any inventive aspect of the original Strat has been up for grabs since the 1970s. Patent laws were intended to give inventors a limited term monopoly over their inventions, which thereafter become public domain. This provides incentive to the inventors in the short term before the invention becomes part of society's technology base.

Trademarks protect a business entity, not an invention. Trademarks enter the public domain if they become generic due to lack of enforcement by the trademark holder: names like escalator, aspirin, thermos, etc. Add the strat body shape to that list in the United States. But it seems Fender can still protect the name "Stratocaster" in the USA, as well as any variants that might reasonably create confusion in the marketplace. So in the USA, you can produce and sell a strat copy, but you can't call it a XXXcaster. 

Trade secrets can only be protected as long as they are kept secret. A guitar design is readily apparent, so it's never a candidate for being a trade secret, although a specific manufacturing technique might be.

That leaves copyright. Different countries/regions have different time limits for copyrights. Fender seems to believe it has an angle on protecting the strat shape as a work of art in Europe, so they are going for it. So yeah, it's a small piece of the IP pie - but Fender has calculated that  the European market for strats is big enough to go after. 

The present internet kerfuffle reflects the layman's general misunderstanding of both IP and the landscape of international law. Fender's European gambit is not a quest for WORLD DOMINATION OF ALL THINGS GUITAR. It is a corporation grasping at the final available IP straws protecting its cash cow. 

Danocaster is not changing their name.  Not sure where you got that idea.  

[The Shark]

1 hour ago, kizanski said:

Nice...Looks like my Chandler Telepathic featured in Guitar Player.  I wonder if GP has liability for promoting the guitar all those years ago.  

[hamerhead]

20 hours ago, Mike Lee said:

Yes it looks like a Strat but the body and pickguard are different.  Different enough not to be a copy.  it's actually better IMO.  The contours are more comfortable.

Agreed - the Grosh looks great!

[bruce919]

[LucSulla]

I would have preferred to just read this, but I can't find it and am left to a "reaction" video 

Nonetheless, the response by the lawyer representing a group of builders makes it seem like Fender's case in Germany was really, really slapdash. A lot of the basic facts claimed by Fender in the case are just objectively inaccurate and rather embarrassing to hear listed out now that there is an attorney presenting an actual defense.  
 

 

[LucSulla]

^Man, that attorney really bodied Fender in my amateur opinion. 

 

[tbonesullivan]

8 hours ago, LucSulla said:

I would have preferred to just read this, but I can't find it and am left to a "reaction" video 

Nonetheless, the response by the lawyer representing a group of builders makes it seem like Fender's case in Germany was really, really slapdash. A lot of the basic facts claimed by Fender in the case are just objectively inaccurate and rather embarrassing to hear listed out now that there is an attorney presenting an actual defense. 

Yeah... like if the Chinese company had even tried, they might have actually won. But instead they ignored it, or possibly were never even notified, given how good they are about keeping a mailing address for legal procedures. I heard that they argued the shape was based on a woman's body? Did Leo Fender EVER say that? 

[LucSulla]

10 hours ago, tbonesullivan said:

Yeah... like if the Chinese company had even tried, they might have actually won. But instead they ignored it, or possibly were never even notified, given how good they are about keeping a mailing address for legal procedures. I heard that they argued the shape was based on a woman's body? Did Leo Fender EVER say that? 

Apparently, never, nor was he the sole designer of the strat. Nor was there ever a transfer of copyright between him and CBS when CBS bought the company, more than likely because one was never assumed to exist. I'm not sure when circumstantial evidence becomes material, but it sure is weird that with all of those sales of Fender of the years that no contracts around the ownership of the Stratocaster copyright ever took place. Seems like a pretty valuable piece of intellectual property to happen to forget about when selling a company to new owners. 

The fact that FEIC DID trademark and copyright this and that, thus indicating that were aware that intellectual property was a thing and that it needed to be officially documented and/or enforced, depending on what type it was, can't help. 

Fender even trademarked the P Bass then never enforced it. There is a pretty extensive papertrail of FEIC (OG Fender Company Pre-CBS) having never designed around aesthetics per se but from a solely utilitarian approach and that they had little interest in policing their designs, which should be just poison for arguing there is anything here deserving of copyright protection, should doing a lot of work there. There's actually more evidence that Leo thought it was awesome if other people thought his designs were so good that they imitated them. 

It's always seemed to me that date of creation, chain of ownership, and some clear intent to protect something are of paramount importance in intellectual property disputes. Fender did none of this for nearly half a century with the stratocaster, even marketing themselves as an original in a see of clones quite often in the 80s and 90s. They were openly acknowledging the ubiquity of the strat design for two decades and not lifting a finger about it legally, according to that attorney's response to Fender's initial notice. 

I would think that would all be far too much to overcome, but I am just a pastiche of a copyright attorney. I'd be curious what actual IP lawyers think. 

[django49]

[tbonesullivan]

Well, it's now been confirmed that PRS was one of the companies hit. I would very possibly assume that the video above is from their response. Whoever made this call at FMIC is definitely short on more than a few brain cells, to go after PRS with such a flimsy "win".

https://www.guitarworld.com/gear/electric-guitars/prs-fender-cease-and-desist

[Hbom]

Kind of humorous that FMIC is using Birds brothers as attorneys to go after PRS. 

 

[veatch]

2 hours ago, Hbom said:

Kind of humorous that FMIC is using Birds brothers as attorneys to go after PRS. 

 

Queue up "Ironic" by Alanis Morissette. 

And respond, "No, that's coincidence. Ironic is wiring a song about coincidence and calling it irony..."