but you know, in a way that judge is right. how many simple guitar designs can you possibly think of anyhow?

If you want a Chinese-made guitar that you'll never be able to find replacement parts for and that was assembled with lead-based paint by a worker who gets a bowl of rice for his salary every day, go for it.

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.