Just read this today-Fender has lost a five year court battle to copyright three of ite most distinctive body shapes,the TeleStrat and Precision.Fender was aiming to prevent the likes of ESP,Peavey and Schecter-amongst many others-from aping the desighn but the court ruled that the shapes are generic,in the public domain and therefore free for anyone to use.Fender is understandably a little put out by the result and points out that the shapes are only generic because of proliferation of copies.Fender is currently reviewing the decision and seems likely to appeal. The ruling only stands in the US, so other territories should still be very careful not to annoy them. Wow 60 years of getting robbed of your bread and butter I sure as hell would be pissed.

I always thought it was odd that other companies could copy the Fender designs, but I guess a Judge that knows nothing of guitars wouldn't have any idea of how to make an informed decision.

_________________
RoscoeBeckV
USA AshStrat HH HT(X2)
Spalted Maple Custom Tele
60'sReverseStrat
SpruceTele
BigAppleStrat
USAStratHH
USAStratHH HT(X2)
Highway1 Fat
USA P-Bass DeluxeIV(X2)
P-BassLyte
US P-BassDeluxeV
BG29
DG22S
'78 Strat
'79 Strat HT
CS'60 Strat
CS'52Tele HR

I thought this all happend years ago and that it was headstocks and logo's tha counted as copyrighted/patented.

_________________
No no and no

I read about Fender losing it's attempt to trademark the Stratocaster shape (and other shapes too, I believe) a couple months ago. I didn't bring it up, but I wondered why no one else mentioned it.

I've been waiting for more accurate Les Paul copies to hit the American market since Gibson lost its suit against Paul Reed Smith's "Single Cut" guitars. We've had Carvin and Ibanez come out with single cuts, but not exactly Les Paul copies.

_________________
Member #26797
My other guitar is a Strat.

Ruling;
According to the evidence cited in the ruling, the 1960’s and 1970’s saw an explosion of guitar manufacturers issuing their own versions of guitars and basses modeled directly from the Fender Stratocaster and Telecaster body styles. One manufacturer even testified that he obtained Fender guitars in the 1970’s and traced their bodies to create his own template to manufacture identically-shaped guitars. Fender not only failed to object to the imitations, but also acknowledged them in advertising by exhorting consumers to buy “the true Fender sound” instead of one of the many “look-alikes.” Finally, Fender actively pursued companies who used their trademarked names “Stratocaster” and “Telecaster,” and even pursued companies for copying the shape of their headstock (for the unitiated, that would be the opposite end of the instrument), but never pursued any claim of trademark regarding the body shape.

The end result is devastating - though the Board acknowledged that Fender had created iconic designs (one of which even appears as the generic picture of a guitar in the dictionary and in the clipart attached to this post), it determined that Fender could not assert a trademark in those designs because they are now a generic element that cannot be associated with a single manufacturer. The Board said that Fender further compounded this problem by failing to even try to protect its body designs from copying while proving that it knew how by jealously protecting other design elements of the guitar.

_________________
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Thomas Jefferson

Man, I know how hard protection of trademark can be and how important it is for companies to try - having worked for almost-generics such as Photoshop (NOT to be used as a verb) and Kleenex(R) Brand Facial Tissues (never, ever to appear without the (R) symbol and the word "brand). The minute these words make it into the dictionary, that's the day Puffs can start making "Puffs brand Kleenex!"

I feel bad for Fender, but will definitely be buying all my Strats and Teles from the source.

_________________
2008 MIM Strat w 3-tone sunburst
2002 LP Special Ebony Faded
2008 G-Dec
'59 Reissue Bassman 4x10 combo
TS 808
DS 1
Gretsch 6120DS (on loan)

Well lets face the facts here Fender and Gibson have been ripped off more than a strippers clothes from the start, but what boggles the mind is how these multi million dollar companies did not have there lawyers go for the jugular years ago instead of compromising or negotiating deals. I cant think of any other major corporations allowing this to happen. First off all these smaller companies did there major damage years ago as that is how they got there foot in the door to begin with and why Fender and Gibson are not the two super powers they once were. Lets face it all these companies today have distinguished desighns of there own today so Orville I guess they dont want to really cheapen there brand by making an exact Les Paul copy because that would cheapen there name though new and lesser companies have nothing holding them back.But then again in the same mag I read this is an ad for an ESP viper which is a total rip off of an SG so let me take that back about not having no shame.By the way the mag I took this from Guitar& Bass Magazine you should know Niki as it is a UK publication. In fact I buy all UK guitar magazines as they blow ours out of the water though they cost a small fortune here.Guitarist-Guitar Technique-and Total Guitar are just top shelf.I buy 2 and my friend buys 2 and then we switch off.

Cheapen their brand? Maybe, but if Ibanez came out with more exact Les Paul copies, they could call it a return to their roots. Those old Ibanez copies from the '70s are fairly hot items, no?

I'm surprised the "lesser companies," like Tokai or ESP, don't bring their copies into the American market. They'd only have to not use the exact headstocks, since that's what Fender and Gibson have trademarked.

_________________
Member #26797
My other guitar is a Strat.

interesting, wonder why fender didnt pursue infringement way back in the 60s when copies of the strat and tele really got going. if the original designs were patented as they were you'd think fender could have done something at the time. i havent read the judgment but based on the extract above it sounds right. amazing tho when you think of how utterly different the strat design was when it first appeared, it may be generic now but it sure as hell wasnt back then

Tokai are becoming a real minefield. I've been looking at their Loverock series lately, trying to get a decent looking greeny guitar. Some are jaw dropping good, i mean better than gibson vos's. Some are worse than a rubber band on a broomhandle. It does seem the bad ones are mainly in the korean guitars.

What i do find very funny about that company is that their gibson copies are near identical


Their modern strats bare only a passing resemblance by comparison though.


Still look at that beautifull lemondrop, customshop quality for £1k. Only 40miles from me and very tempting. (yes i've already been to try it )

_________________
No no and no

Someone did post a thread on it here when the judgement came out. Old news, anyhow: it was in Guitarist four issues ago.

The PRS/Gibson case was on a different point. Gibson sued PRS for "passing off". The (ludicrous) claim was that we'd buy PRS Singlecuts by accident, mistaking them for Gibson LPs. The judgement was that most guitar buyers could tell the two things apart (d'uh).

Nobody in that case was claiming that the PRS was a direct replica, so the outcome doesn't have that sort of effect. Anyhow, the world's already full of LP copies that differ only in the tip of the headstock (the trademarked bit). Niki's Tokai pictures are just the tip of a huge iceberg in that department. There must be a licensing agreement to explain the uncontested existance of those.

Cheers - C

Its Fenders fault, they waited 50 years before doing anything about it, like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. What worries me now is that China has commenced to make one piece neck Les Pauls and I saw one, and before too long the Les Paul market will become a minefield of fake guitars masquerading as real Les Pauls, nice bodies but crap electronics and pic ups.
After 50 years did they really expect to win, imagine all the jobs lost world wide thats a factor too the judge obviously took into consideration and in these tough times the world doesnt need any more unemployment. Fender makes nice guitars and people who can afford them will always buy them. Fender you have nothing to worry about but Gibson does.

Kind of like a guitar player who knows nothing of trademark law.

Your concept of "an informed decision" is mightily uninfomred. Fender's attempt to TM the body shapes is a case of trying to close the barn door after the horse got out, moved to New York, spent 3/4 of a lifetime pulling a carriage around Central Park before retiring upstate and kicking the bucket.

Fender recognized the trademark value of the headstock shapes early on, using them as logo and design elements throughout the brand's history. I suspect they thought nothing of the body designs simply because they didn't expect the guitars to become icons, or the body shapes to last far into the future: Leo himself thought the Strat would "obsolete"the Tele, and expected to stop making Telecasters shortly after the Stratocaster was introduced.

But let's not drag out the crying towels: Fender had to know this was a long shot, a stunt, and the proliferation of T-n-S shaped guitars has not proved catastrophic for them. This isn't a devastating decision. I'm sure it's exactly what Fender expected. And I would guess that Fender hoped (if they'd won) not to squash production of clones, but to charge licensing fee for the shapes.

This is why Disney goes after every Korean guy who prints ball caps featuring a badly-drawn cartoon mouse who even vaguely reminds you of MIckey... because if you don't defend your trademarks, they won't be yours. That's how the law works.

I think Fender and Gibson should merge and create the ultimate guitar and call it a Fenson. Then they could copyright/patent the whole thing and do great things against the other competition. I could see it now a Strat body with a Tele neck with the electronics of a Gibson. Then name it "The Icon".

On a more serious note and only my opinion Fender and Gibson has alot to do with the copies being made because the other companies or brands are now employing some of the same people that made them who they are. And the fact that both companies make guitars for some of these "knockoff" brands anyhow. It's all under one big roof so to speak.

Hi Ellen: that's very interesting indeed. Does Adobe actually take action to stop people using photoshop as a verb? If so, what action - against whom? Presumably, if the activity in question was actually performed using Photoshop itself then it's OK to use the word as a verb - is it?

I know for sure I and millions of others "hoover" our carpets. Even though I nowadays do it using a Dyson vacuum cleaner. (Not sure if the verb "to hoover" is used in America or not?)

And regarding what you say about words making it into the dictionary, is that a legal formula? Once it's in the dictionary it's officially generic - can that be right? How could a company stop the editors of a dictionary including a verb such as "to photoshop" in their next edition? Can they?

Much tantalised by your post and glad of anything you feel like adding.

Cheers - C