Discuss. Fender just won a Strat copyright lawsuit in the EU

a) I wonder how closely it has to resemble the Strat shape. . . e.g. are "sharper" super-strat styles protected or no?
b) Sucks for all the vendors who sell a S-style guitar, but you know, come up with something unique.
c) Point b aside, what's to stop an acoustic manufacturer from doing the same thing with the standard acoustic shapes?
 
I heard something about this, but don't know the details. Is it just the EU? What about all the Strat & Tele copies coming out of China? Seems a little late in the game for this, honestly. If folks want a genuine Strat, they know where to get one. :shrug:
 
I have no idea how eu trademark protection works but the decision seem awfully late to the game and ultimately self defeating. I can understand wanting to protect your own eu firms but this just seems like an unnecessary giveaway to Trumps trade pressure and large American cooperation who failed to pursue the protection in its home market.
Here in the good ol USA to protect a trademark you gotta be prompt, aggressive, and sue the pants off everybody a la Gibson.
 
Seems weird.

The Strat is so old and fundamental that it seems like it should be public domain by now... but I suppose if they can get the rights to protect the shape it will just force manufacturers to be more creative with shapes and designs... which may be good... or may be the ushering in of the era of the ugliest guitars ever seen by mankind. :messedup:
 
baimun said:
Seems weird.

The Strat is so old and fundamental that it seems like it should be public domain by now... but I suppose if they can get the rights to protect the shape it will just force manufacturers to be more creative with shapes and designs... which may be good... or may be the ushering in of the era of the ugliest guitars ever seen by mankind. :messedup:
Click to expand...
That's pretty much where I land as well. Same could be said for Les Pauls. That design has been around for 70-ish years.
 
I mean, I welcome experimentation and unique takes like these:

1773326649435.png


But when the music business is already incredibly difficult to make profitable, it's easy for even subtle shape changes, an off headstock, or something that is just a bit past the comprehension of most of us thick guitar cavemen.... it's a slippery slope of building a better mousetrap that you can't sell enough to keep your doors open. :(
 
Strandberg is probably the most innovative design that has broken through to the masses enough to a) make the company profitable, b) have other companies trying to mimic their design, and c) actually introduce something more drastic than subtle shape, color, or hardware elements from it's 1950's ancestors.

This one is my favorite of their line... but it's was kind of an expensive limited run. Something I'll probably track down in the future, but I'm not willing to lay the cash out for right now. Something that would kill a smaller company, so I'm glad their other shapes and styles are keeping the company going.

1773327208262.png
 
I always thought it was strange that only the headstock was protected. The Strat body was brilliant and unique when introduced. But, it’s weird to have all the years pass with nothing, and then this ruling.

Guitar manufacturers should make their own unique designs, or pay Fender a licensing fee. Warmoth pays Fender licensing fees.
 
I feel the same way about this that I did about Gibson suing Dean. They looked the other way for 30+ years, it seems like it’s a little late to get ugly about it now. But I’m not an EU copyright lawyer so my opinion doesn’t matter much.
 
I never understood why Fender and Gibson never sought/filed for patents, trademarks, and other IP protections of the day for the complete instruments. I know they went for headstocks and pickups, but they dropped the ball as far being forward thinking was concerned.

I have no problem with IP creators and owners preventing others from stealing and profiting off their designs. When they go after something that is not a direct and complete copy, it's BS. Gibson suing PRS for the Single Cut was weak and never should have held up for even a second in court...no one was accidentally buying a PRS assuming it was a Gibson.
 
I haven't seen any explanation of the criteria used to determine the copyright infringement so far in this decision from a legal pov. Hard to know what the ramifications of this decision will mean in the EAU market I guess until Fender goes after more potential violations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top