Bob411
thrumming with potential
I have no data to back it up but, it seams to me Dean's heyday was over in 2019 so, maybe they couldn't afford to hire excellent lawyers in 2019.
Fender’s lawyers go to war!
- Thread starter jp_nyc
- Start date
I have no data to back it up but, it seams to me Dean's heyday was over in 2019 so, maybe they couldn't afford to hire excellent lawyers in 2019.
jrockbridge
Stealing Your Riffs
There were actually 2 cases. In the first case (2022) the jury found that Dean infringed Gibson trademarks on the Flying V, Explorer, ES, and SG body shapes, as well as headstocks and names. However, Dean had been doing this since the 70’s. Because of the long delay in Gibson bringing the case, the jury awarded Gibson $4000 instead of millions. Dean appealed and won a retrial.
In the 2025 retrial, Gibson won again on the same major issues. The delayed enforcement by Gibson again went in Dean’s favor. The jury awarded Gibson $1 in damages. But, a judge raised it to $168,000. Fuckin’ judge!
Gibson succeeded in protecting Flying V, Explorer, and SG shapes. However, the delay in bringing suit to protect the shapes exposed a weakness in Gibson’s position.
Fender was hampered by delay in a similar way when trying to trademark the Strat body in 2003. The US patent office ruled against Fender in 2009, essentially, declaring the Strat body as a generic electric guitar shape.
The case that Fender won in a German court is based on copyright, not trademark. I don’t understand how that works. Apparently, copyright law can be applied to artistic elements of a guitar, artwork, decorative carving, sculptured elements, non-functional parts of the guitar.
(edit) Apparently, I missed the crux of the German case that Fender won. They defended the Strat body shape, based on copyright, the artistic sculpture aspect of that design. I still don't see how that works against PRS when the Silver Sky is a different body shape. It seems Fender lawyers won a default judgement when the other side was a no-show and got pumped up about the victory. It's bound to be more difficult when the other side actually shows up and fights back.
The Silver Sky has a different body shape and a different headstock. So, what is left for Fender to build their case upon against PRS, the carved elements of the neck, the sculptured elements of the pickguard?
Last edited:
TomcatMF
Vetteless
I just saw a video that kind of explained the case a bit. The Stratocaster body was patented, but that patent expired in 1977. After that it entered public domain according t0 U.S. law. In fact the body shape of the Strat is so generically tied to the electric guitar, that it is found in the dictionary when you look up "Electric Guitar".
However I guess in Germany there is a copyright law that says a copyright can be enforced for 50 years after the death of the creator of the item under copyright, which would put it in force for Fender until 2041. Apparently it's a case of Fender venue shopping to get a ruling in their favor. U.S. courts will not accept this judgement from the German court to enforce any protections for Fender. And apparently this whole things was a ploy for Fender to go after PRS specifically.
This whole thing is going to blow up in Fender's face I think. Whatever business they thought they were losing to PRS and other boutique guitar manufacturers using the strat body shape will get even worse.
If they win, it will likely open up a can of worms where everybody is suing everyone else the in the guitar making business.
It's a real clusterfuck IMO
However I guess in Germany there is a copyright law that says a copyright can be enforced for 50 years after the death of the creator of the item under copyright, which would put it in force for Fender until 2041. Apparently it's a case of Fender venue shopping to get a ruling in their favor. U.S. courts will not accept this judgement from the German court to enforce any protections for Fender. And apparently this whole things was a ploy for Fender to go after PRS specifically.
This whole thing is going to blow up in Fender's face I think. Whatever business they thought they were losing to PRS and other boutique guitar manufacturers using the strat body shape will get even worse.
If they win, it will likely open up a can of worms where everybody is suing everyone else the in the guitar making business.
It's a real clusterfuck IMO
Gorgon90
Harmonic Dive Bomber
My initial, potentially niave, understanding of this, was that Fender is now run by non musical investment wankers, sorry, bankers, who don't understand that the way to win this one, like in so many engineering disciplines, is not to litigate but to work out how to make the best quality product at any given price point. Joe Public will buy the best he can get for his x hundred dollars, so make sure it's your product. Now it appears even simpler, and it's just that they're butt hurt that John Mayer left them, and got PRS to make him a better quality guitar that is now outselling Strats. Possibly a combination of both, who knows.
jp_nyc
Kick Henry Jackassowski
It’s not bankers. Fender is owned by a holding company that owns a bunch of car related businesses in Hawaii and Australia. For some reason they’ve started investing in music companies. If it was bankers the CEO would be a quality control guy like the one over at Gibson instead of a lifestyle brands guy.
jrockbridge
Stealing Your Riffs
The first company that made a wheel for an automobile (Mercedes) should file a lawsuit against the holding company based on artistic elements of the round, carved shape of car wheels.
jrockbridge
Stealing Your Riffs
I don’t think Fender could win a case against PRS even in a German court of law. In the case that FMIC won a default judgment against YPMI Co (no show), Fender made a lot of inaccurate statements. There was nobody to point out those falsehoods to the court. They misrepresented the history of the Strat. And, of course, they left out a lot of Fender’s history with the Strat that PRS would certainly point out to a court of law.
Example: From Guitar World…
“According to attorney Ronald Bienstock, who has been publicly challenging Fender’s recent enforcement campaign, Fender told the German court that the Stratocaster was designed exclusively by Leo Fender. Bienstock argues that this omitted other individuals whom Fender itself has historically credited with contributing to the instrument’s development, including Freddy Tavares and Rex Gallion, among others. He claims that portraying Leo Fender as the sole author helped satisfy European copyright requirements that focus on human authorship of an original creative work.”
GW Article Link
Example: From Guitar World…
“According to attorney Ronald Bienstock, who has been publicly challenging Fender’s recent enforcement campaign, Fender told the German court that the Stratocaster was designed exclusively by Leo Fender. Bienstock argues that this omitted other individuals whom Fender itself has historically credited with contributing to the instrument’s development, including Freddy Tavares and Rex Gallion, among others. He claims that portraying Leo Fender as the sole author helped satisfy European copyright requirements that focus on human authorship of an original creative work.”
GW Article Link
jrockbridge
Stealing Your Riffs
shoeless
Riffin'
... and good people unload their Fenders for pennies on the dollar to help the Fender-challenged.
jrockbridge
Stealing Your Riffs
TGP is working through these issues. The C&D topic is the top trending thread and has gone past 50 pages.
The debate shifted from the legal case in the EU to the morality of building a guitar with an S-style body anywhere in the world. The Fender fanboys there think that companies should get explicit permission from the current owners of the Fender brand name before copying a Strat guitar shape.
Maybe, in another 50 pages, they will solve this thing for Fender and PRS. Then, we can have world guitar peace.
The debate shifted from the legal case in the EU to the morality of building a guitar with an S-style body anywhere in the world. The Fender fanboys there think that companies should get explicit permission from the current owners of the Fender brand name before copying a Strat guitar shape.
Maybe, in another 50 pages, they will solve this thing for Fender and PRS. Then, we can have world guitar peace.
jrockbridge
Stealing Your Riffs
Most of the people sticking up for Fender using morality arguments can't see the bigger picture. They claim copying is unethical. When you point out all the examples of products they already own, which are essentially copies of original designs by a different company (not the original), they hedge and make excuses why that's different.
I think most people can understand that IP laws serve a purpose to encourage creations of unique products (including art). Patents and copyrights help protect the creation of unique ideas for a period of time. But, if the period of time is extremely long, it tends to support monopolies. Monopolies are good for big corporations, and bad for consumers (fewer options).
For a person to create something, the first step is copying. Eventually, when they've copied from multiple sources, they can begin to combine these copied ideas in new ways. It is through combinations that truly transformative concepts emerge. If copying were halted entirely, nothing new could be created.
Try to imagine what food would be like without copying. Recipes have evolved over time through the process of copying, combining concepts, and transforming food in a huge variety of ways. Without copying, food would be very bland.
I think most people can understand that IP laws serve a purpose to encourage creations of unique products (including art). Patents and copyrights help protect the creation of unique ideas for a period of time. But, if the period of time is extremely long, it tends to support monopolies. Monopolies are good for big corporations, and bad for consumers (fewer options).
For a person to create something, the first step is copying. Eventually, when they've copied from multiple sources, they can begin to combine these copied ideas in new ways. It is through combinations that truly transformative concepts emerge. If copying were halted entirely, nothing new could be created.
Try to imagine what food would be like without copying. Recipes have evolved over time through the process of copying, combining concepts, and transforming food in a huge variety of ways. Without copying, food would be very bland.