Can someone explain what the actual legal basis for this is? The shape of the guitar is very old (75+ years) and has been extensively copied before, so one would assume that patents and trademarks would not cover it.
Fender escalates legal campaign against S-style guitars
21–30 of 137 posts
Re: Fender escalates legal campaign against S-style guitars
#22Can someone explain what the actual legal basis for this is? The shape of the guitar is very old (75+ years) and has been extensively copied before, so one would assume that patents and trademarks would not cover it.
Trademarks are infinite though. Which makes sense, since otherwise anyone could produce "Coca Cola".
Re: Fender escalates legal campaign against S-style guitars
#23Can someone explain what the actual legal basis for this is? The shape of the guitar is very old (75+ years) and has been extensively copied before, so one would assume that patents and trademarks would not cover it.
Trademarks are infinite though. Which makes sense, since otherwise anyone could produce "Coca Cola".
how is guitar shape a trademark?
edit: thanks for the responses!
Re: Fender escalates legal campaign against S-style guitars
#24on the one hand this sucks on the other hand let a thousand schools of steinberger/strandberg-style weirdness bloom
I guess Steinberger guitars are protected by some branding too, also Steinberger seems to own some patents (maybe the headless/bridge combo?). No idea if they are still valid.
Re: Fender escalates legal campaign against S-style guitars
#25Can someone explain what the actual legal basis for this is? The shape of the guitar is very old (75+ years) and has been extensively copied before, so one would assume that patents and trademarks would not cover it.
Trademarks are infinite though. Which makes sense, since otherwise anyone could produce "Coca Cola".
They have to be actively fought for the entire time you own the rights to the trademark though, that doesn't seem to the be the case.
Re: Fender escalates legal campaign against S-style guitars
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this captures the most important points. I was just thinking about this: Would it kill guitar makers to stop copying the Strat and [P|J] bass? It is wild that the earliest guitar designs are still ubiquitous / the most popular types. For anyone not familiar: The matter is not about iterating on these original designs; there's lots of that too, including by the same companies! It's about instruments that are e…
Because two things look the same, even identical, does not mean one copied the other. These are useful, practical, objects. A honda and a toyota me be virtually identical (same size, weight, door, number of wheels etc) but nobody would call them copies. And if they did, they are both copies of an ancient, out-of-copyright, merc rather than each other.
I am with you. I believe this is a matter of degree vs kind. Can you see how there are truly many instruments which deliberately mimic details of the Fender designs, and not the broad solid-body guitar design principles? I brought this up in the earlier post: I think the difference is most clear when looking at companies that have both their own designs, and Fender-style designs. Cosmetic and arbitrary features are mimicked, like pick guard design, precise pickup style and position, control layout etc.
Re: Fender escalates legal campaign against S-style guitars
#27Can someone explain what the actual legal basis for this is? The shape of the guitar is very old (75+ years) and has been extensively copied before, so one would assume that patents and trademarks would not cover it.
Trademarks are infinite though. Which makes sense, since otherwise anyone could produce "Coca Cola".
Trademarks only apply if the thing isn't generic. I can legally copy the recipe for coca cola (if I can figure it out) and sell that as 'bluGill cola', but I can't sell it as coca cola even though it would be identical. There is ample evidence that the shape is generic - it has been copied by far too many to claim it isn't generic.
I doubt they can show a properly registered copyright, which would have been required before 1978. I doubt the copyright laws back then would have even allowed copyrighting the shape like that (but I'm not a lawyer). If they can show they registered the copyright correctly under the old laws they would have a copyright case since copyright applies even if they are generic.
Also, since the shape has functional aspects (see others), patents would be the correct protection, but the important patents (if any) have expired long ago. You can still patent something today if you make a variation of the shape - but it would be trivial for anyone to work around that patent since the main design is free of patents and a very specific minor change from the common shape it patentable.
Re: Fender escalates legal campaign against S-style guitars
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trademarks are infinite though. Which makes sense, since otherwise anyone could produce "Coca Cola".
how is guitar shape a trademark? edit: thanks for the responses!
You can trademark any shape. However by not protecting their trademark over the years (if they every had one - which I doubt) they lost it.
Re: Fender escalates legal campaign against S-style guitars
#29> According to Fender, the outcome of the case – launched against a Chinese manufacturer – gave the firm the legal right to “protect its designs in global commerce”. So they used China scare as a trojan horse to sue other US manufacturers? There's some delicious irony in that.
Plus the Chinese firm didn't even show up to defend themselves, so it was a default judgement.
I suspect because the Chinese firm in question was a fabrication of FMIC for exactly this purpose.
Re: Fender escalates legal campaign against S-style guitars
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trademarks are infinite though. Which makes sense, since otherwise anyone could produce "Coca Cola".
how is guitar shape a trademark? edit: thanks for the responses!
Design rights[1] are a thing. However they need to be continuously defended. You can't let competitors make your designs (without license) for decades and then suddenly turn around and try to enforce the right, as seems to be the case here. Plus in the EU there are overall limits, apparently 25 years.
This is why I'm asking what the legal basis is for this case. It seems unlikely to be legally sound. Probably the German court made a mistake, and the company being sued should ignore Fender. (Not legal advice!)
Edit: Someone else just posted that Fender is now owned by private equity, so it's the usual PE playbook. A sad end to a famous brand.
Edit#2: Seems like the German court ruling was a default judgement because the other party failed to show up. So nothing to see here. Fender has no realistic case.
[1] In the EU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_design