EdwardMarlowe Posted May 29 Posted May 29 So the latest episode in the ongoing saga of Fender's Lawfare Department's declaration of war on Strat-inspired guitars has just made things really interesting, and we're likely to see this come to a head sooner rather than later. They've sent a C&D letter to PRS over the Silver Sky. https://www.guitarworld.com/gear/electric-guitars/prs-fender-cease-and-desist This all kicked off over a default judgment in a regional German court. Fender had sued a Chinese brand selling Strat copies (*not* counterfeits) on AliExpress. It's a well established legal fact now that Fender left it too long to protect the Stratocaster and Telecaster body shapes in trade mark, so here they turned to a (franklyh spurious) argument based on copyright. The defendant didn't turn up for the court case, so Fender were awarded the win by default, and have now proceeded to try and claim this as a confirmation they can claim an artistic copyright in the body design of the Stratocaster. Leo died in 1991, so this would give then several decades yet of ownership of the Strat design if that were legally accepted. They started sending out all sort of cease and desist letters to a lot of smaller builders. Fender must know their argument here is shaky. It should also be noted that the default judgment they are trying to base this on has no precedential value, even within the limited jurisdiction of the regional court that granted it. Really, it seems to me to be a classic example of Lawfare - basically big company with lost of money threatens smaller company that can't afford to take the risk of losing a court case; smaller company complies with big company's demands as path of least resistance to avoid risk. Now, however, they've taken on PRS, who won't be afraid to fight it. PRS already won on Appeal against Gibson some years ago when Gibson tried to claim the PRS single cut was too like a Les Paul in an argument based on trade mark. Fender can't reopen the trademark issue, so this will all hinge on their copyright claims. If Fender did win this would be huge, though my instinct is they're not going to. Especially not once a judge actually reviews the accuracy and otherwise of some of the claims they made in their submission to the German court that kicked this all off.
ezbass Posted May 29 Posted May 29 7 hours ago, EdwardMarlowe said: Now, however, they've taken on PRS, who won't be afraid to fight it. PRS already won on Appeal against Gibson some years ago when Gibson tried to claim the PRS single cut was too like a Les Paul in an argument based on trade mark. Fender can't reopen the trademark issue, so this will all hinge on their copyright claims. And this will form the basis of the case against Fender’s claims (which are ridiculous after 70 years). If Fender are so desperate for money, they should save money by not entering into litigation in the first place. No one is getting rich here except the lawyers. I hope that who ever eventually presides over the case, where Fender will lose, forces them to pay the oppositIon’s costs. What a bunch of pricks FMIC’s management are . 1
EliasMooseblaster Posted May 31 Posted May 31 (edited) Has there been a change of management over at Fender? It does seem a very odd move to only now try and inch this stable door closed, so long after the Strat-shaped horse has galloped into the sunset...I've worked at places before where someone new comes in and decides to "make their mark" by "shaking things up," which generally means "pi55ing everyone off by insisting we put a huge amount of effort into changing something which had been working just fine up until now." On the other hand, I can't help but find it a bit odd that John Mayer would ask PRS to make him a signature guitar which looks so much like a Fender (headstock notwithstanding). Given how little it has in common with a 'typical' PRS guitar, I can't help but wonder if he was trying to wind them up.. Edited May 31 by EliasMooseblaster 1
Crusoe Posted June 1 Posted June 1 Apparently part of their case talks about the inspiration for the body shape being based on the fins of a couple of cars of the era. The problem is that one of the cars didn't come out until something like 1956, whereas the Strat came out in 1954 and was based on the Precision bass which came out in 1951. (I think I have those dates right) 1
tauzero Posted June 2 Posted June 2 On 31/05/2026 at 21:39, EliasMooseblaster said: Has there been a change of management over at Fender? Maybe they're all MAGAts, following the example of their cult leader and grasping at every dollar. Fender said they were going after exact replicas and then went after the Silver Sky, which bears a superficial resemblance but anything more than a cursory look would show that it is by no means identical.
EdwardMarlowe Posted June 3 Author Posted June 3 On 31/05/2026 at 21:39, EliasMooseblaster said: Has there been a change of management over at Fender? It does seem a very odd move to only now try and inch this stable door closed, so long after the Strat-shaped horse has galloped into the sunset...I've worked at places before where someone new comes in and decides to "make their mark" by "shaking things up," which generally means "pi55ing everyone off by insisting we put a huge amount of effort into changing something which had been working just fine up until now." As best as I can make out no change of ownership, but could be a new management, or a new legal team (the royals suddenly played a lot more hardball with the press over privacy about twenty years ago when they switched to Harbottle and Lewis representing them, so it does happen). I think it's also quite likely a response to prevailing market conditions. Guitars have simply become much more niche that once they were - even since the 90s. I'd say, roughly, since about 2007ish, around abut the time the White Stripes went on their first hiatus, synth music came up big and guitar bands haven't been the dominant force they were the twenty odd years before that. I suppose we'll see if it cycles round again... Of course, FMIC also finally took ownership of G&L last year. They've killed off the G&L brand, because the sale included what they really wanted: control of Leo Fender's likeness and name (beyond just the "Fender" brand), so this may be an effort to really consolidated control of the Strat and all the details. We're coming up on the 40th anniversary of Leo's death in 2031, and the 80th anniversary of the Strat in 2034; in 2046 there's Fender's centenary, so I wouldn't doubt they're already planning ahead for all sort of branding and promotions for those... On 31/05/2026 at 21:39, EliasMooseblaster said: On the other hand, I can't help but find it a bit odd that John Mayer would ask PRS to make him a signature guitar which looks so much like a Fender (headstock notwithstanding). Given how little it has in common with a 'typical' PRS guitar, I can't help but wonder if he was trying to wind them up.. He has gone on record claiming he wanted certain hardware - a bridge in particular, and Fender were very dogmatic that it had to be all-Fender parts and they didn't make the bits he wanted, so... Who knows? His story seems plausible enough, though. TBh, I kinda liked that PRS took the Strat and did their own thing with it. It's not a million miles away from Leo having taken the Strat and run with it at G&L, imo. I don't credibly see anyone who really wants a Fender suddenly buying a SS instead. Ironically, I'm keen on a SS SE, but I'm looking first to a Player II.... On 29/05/2026 at 19:43, ezbass said: And this will form the basis of the case against Fender’s claims (which are ridiculous after 70 years). If Fender are so desperate for money, they should save money by not entering into litigation in the first place. No one is getting rich here except the lawyers. I hope that who ever eventually presides over the case, where Fender will lose, forces them to pay the oppositIon’s costs. What a bunch of pricks FMIC’s management are . I think ultimately it comes back to guitar being a shrinking market, and Fender looking to shore up their position in that shrinking market. My selfish interest in this is that the primary reason I go elsewhere than Fender for a Fender-inspired design is Fender's own pisspoor provision for left handed players, which I don't see improving. On 01/06/2026 at 11:48, Crusoe said: Apparently part of their case talks about the inspiration for the body shape being based on the fins of a couple of cars of the era. The problem is that one of the cars didn't come out until something like 1956, whereas the Strat came out in 1954 and was based on the Precision bass which came out in 1951. (I think I have those dates right) Yeah, the P bass debuted in 1951, based off the Telecaster (and with a very Tele headstock). The body was a slab, like the tele, with the upper horn added to balance the full-scale bass neck. ('Precision' because the frets could allow guitar players to double on bass and be more precise about their notes than a fretless double bass neck.) In 54, the body was given the comfort curves we also see on the Strat, then in, if memory serves, 57 the split coil p bass pickup arrived. From my cursory reading of the details, the claims Fender are making in this case are wild enough that it wouldn't surprise me if it came out somebody in the legal offices had chat GPt'ed their briefs. 22 hours ago, tauzero said: Maybe they're all MAGAts, following the example of their cult leader and grasping at every dollar. Fender said they were going after exact replicas and then went after the Silver Sky, which bears a superficial resemblance but anything more than a cursory look would show that it is by no means identical. Ha, who knows. Yeah, there's been a lot of backpedalling with Fender. They also now claim they didn't threaten anyone with a demand to destroy stock or face legal consequences, though many of the recipients of the C&D letters seem to believe otherwise. I suspect Fender's biggest mistake has been to go for PRS. If they'd stuck to gonig after smaller brands that can't afford to take the risk of defending themselves in court, they might have been able to play the chilling effect to their advantage. PRS has however already shown they're unafraid not only of going to court, but ifghting back at the appellate stage if needsbe. I expect Fender feel thedy can't create a worse situation than now with no control over bodies, but I bet the current board are fuming Leo and the rest of them weren't as vigilant as Rickenbacker back in the day! 1
Kiwi Posted June 7 Posted June 7 On 03/06/2026 at 23:34, ezbass said: It seems there is a new CEO at FMIC. Yes and he's lacking the grass roots support of the previous CEO who was pushed rather than left of his own accord. On 29/05/2026 at 18:51, EdwardMarlowe said: This all kicked off over a default judgment in a regional German court. Fender had sued a Chinese brand selling Strat copies (*not* counterfeits) on AliExpress. It's a well established legal fact now that Fender left it too long to protect the Stratocaster and Telecaster body shapes in trade mark, so here they turned to a (franklyh spurious) argument based on copyright. The defendant didn't turn up for the court case, so Fender were awarded the win by default, and have now proceeded to try and claim this as a confirmation they can claim an artistic copyright in the body design of the Stratocaster. Leo died in 1991, so this would give then several decades yet of ownership of the Strat design if that were legally accepted. They started sending out all sort of cease and desist letters to a lot of smaller builders. Fender must know their argument here is shaky. It should also be noted that the default judgment they are trying to base this on has no precedential value, even within the limited jurisdiction of the regional court that granted it. Really, it seems to me to be a classic example of Lawfare - basically big company with lost of money threatens smaller company that can't afford to take the risk of losing a court case; smaller company complies with big company's demands as path of least resistance to avoid risk. Now, however, they've taken on PRS, who won't be afraid to fight it. PRS already won on Appeal against Gibson some years ago when Gibson tried to claim the PRS single cut was too like a Les Paul in an argument based on trade mark. Fender can't reopen the trademark issue, so this will all hinge on their copyright claims. If Fender did win this would be huge, though my instinct is they're not going to. Especially not once a judge actually reviews the accuracy and otherwise of some of the claims they made in their submission to the German court that kicked this all off. This is a really good summary of the situation. I'd also add that the default judgement is limited to guitars sold in the court's jurisdiction. So what the hell Fender think they are doing by claiming rights outside that jurisdiction, including the USA, beats me. They could use the decision to justify filng claims in other EU jurisdictions but there won't be weight to the Dusseldorf decision. It's increasingly turning into shameless corporate bullying based on misrepresentation. Paul Reed Smith will probably toy with them in court under cross examination, maybe use the trial as a platform to humiliate them a bit before his team fire off a few legal exocets and emerge as the moral as well as legal victor. It'll be a magnificent boost for the PRS brand. 1
EliasMooseblaster Posted June 7 Posted June 7 7 hours ago, Kiwi said: Paul Reed Smith will probably toy with them in court under cross examination, maybe use the trial as a platform to humiliate them a bit before his team fire off a few legal exocets and emerge as the moral as well as legal victor. It'll be a magnificent boost for the PRS brand. Yeah, it really does make me wonder whether anybody over at Fender is looking at the damage this is doing to their brand and reputation - I don't know of any ordinary customers cheering them on to win these petty battles! 1
EdwardMarlowe Posted June 8 Author Posted June 8 On 07/06/2026 at 05:11, Kiwi said: Yes and he's lacking the grass roots support of the previous CEO who was pushed rather than left of his own accord. This is a really good summary of the situation. I'd also add that the default judgement is limited to guitars sold in the court's jurisdiction. So what the hell Fender think they are doing by claiming rights outside that jurisdiction, including the USA, beats me. They could use the decision to justify filng claims in other EU jurisdictions but there won't be weight to the Dusseldorf decision. It's increasingly turning into shameless corporate bullying based on misrepresentation. They're obviously playing the "persuasive precedent" game, though my point really was as a default win it doesn't even carry any clout within its own jurisdiction. Total smoke and mirrors on Fender's part here. On 07/06/2026 at 05:11, Kiwi said: Paul Reed Smith will probably toy with them in court under cross examination, maybe use the trial as a platform to humiliate them a bit before his team fire off a few legal exocets and emerge as the moral as well as legal victor. It'll be a magnificent boost for the PRS brand. Yes, likely. It's got to be a much easier case to defend for him than the Gibson case which revolved around TM. Fender's only real strategy is to scare those who can't afford to fight court case into backing off; PRS won't. I can't abide PRS's main line - humbuckers, fancy wood tops, yuck. The Silver Sky, though, feels like a refinement of the EG series from the 90s (PRS's first attempt at an "affordable" line - they were c£900 when a Custom 10 Top was £2K). I'd never mistake one for a Strat, it's very much someone else's take on a Strat, which is why I like it. I do hope that after PRS wins the case, they stick two fingers up at FMIC by putting out a version with dots on the board instead of birds. The one thing putting me off buying a maple board silver Sky is the birds, never liked the look of them. I kinda wish that Fender losing this in dues course would also give the current owners of Burns the kick up the ass they need to get their guitars out and sorted, but given they were supposed to be out in 2020, then the holding page was updated to 2021, then 2022 (title only - they left 2021 in the text), I think we have to consider that project well dead. A shame.... I was hoping they'd finally do a mid-price range that were closer a 'real' Burns and not just a bit of a Strat knock-off (ironic in this context, I know, but...). On 07/06/2026 at 13:08, EliasMooseblaster said: Yeah, it really does make me wonder whether anybody over at Fender is looking at the damage this is doing to their brand and reputation - I don't know of any ordinary customers cheering them on to win these petty battles! They've certainly been hit with a lot of backlash. In my case, it won't stop med buying a Player II Strat when I have the money, though it's very much a compromise choice. Fender's refusal or inability to do anything other than the merest, pathetic token gesture of a left handed range is the reason I've not bought somewhere around a dozen Squier CV / Paranormal / Fender MiM guitars I really wanted in the last couple of decades.
.thumb.jpg.2f0f241a63381e5644f287abacd76760.jpg)