The online guitar community is in an uproar—and presumably the offline community is too, though we have less insight into that. Fender (Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, FMIC), one of the world’s leading guitar manufacturers, has secured a recent, final court ruling prohibiting one of its competitors from manufacturing and distributing the Stratocaster guitar body shape. This shape became a classic decades ago and is produced by hundreds of manufacturers worldwide.

(Image source: By Auge=mit – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=149350503)

Since this case brings together two worlds that are dear to me—intellectual property law and guitar playing—I would like to address it in a series of articles. It illustrates perfectly just how complex this area of law is, how significant its market impact is, and, last but not least, what strong emotions it can evoke.

The Düsseldorf Ruling: Not Just a Guitar, but a Work of Art?

Let’s look at the facts first! Fender filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Düsseldorf Regional Court against a Chinese manufacturer (Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co.). The Chinese company imported and sold exact copies of the Stratocaster directly into the European Union—including through AliExpress.

The court ruled in Fender's favor and stated the following:

• Work of applied art: The body shape of the Fender Stratocaster is not merely a functional industrial design, but qualifies asa work of applied art under German and European Union law.

• Just like a novel or a software program: as a unique and original form of creative expression, body art enjoys full copyright protection—just like a book, a musical composition, or a software program.

• The "magical" 70 years: copyright protection lasts much longer than the design patent protection that might seem obvious in similar cases, and it is independent of whether the design was previously registered as a trademark (in the case of the Stratocaster, the latter did not even occur). Copyright protection lasts for the author’s lifetime and for 70 years after their death.

The Stratocaster body shape was introduced to the market in 1954, and its creation is attributed to Leo Fender (1909–1991), the company’s founder. Although he has passed away, 70 years have not yet elapsed since his death, so Fender Inc. continues to hold the copyright to the body shape as his legal successor.

The procedural twist: the opponent lost without playing

However, there is a significant procedural twist in the story that greatly complicates the case from a legal standpoint: the court’s decision was a so-called judgmentin absentia (known as a “court order” in Hungarian legal terminology).

The Chinese defendant did not appear at the hearing at all and did not present a defense. This allowed the court to rule in favor of the plaintiff without a substantive hearing (such a procedure also exists under Hungarian procedural law).

What does this mean in practice? The court was not compelled to weigh, in a bilateral, in-depth proceeding involving experts, the customary practices of the guitar industry over the past 70 years, the prevalence of the designs, or the economic consequences of the decision. It simply accepted Fender’s argument and issued the ruling, barring the Chinese company from distributing its products in the EU and imposing fines of up to 250,000 euros per infringement.

The “cease and desist” campaign has begun

Although the ruling was formally issued against a specific Chinese company, Fender immediately began using it as a reference point and precedent. According to reports, the company’s lawyers launched a majorcease-and-desist letter campaign in the EU—and in the U.S. as well—using the European court victory as ammunition. Smaller, boutique guitar builders and parts manufacturers who produce so-called “S-style” models (which fully or predominantly correspond to the Stratocaster shape) have been targeted.

Fender’s goal is likely not to completely drive all competitors out of business (since a significant portion of the market is based on this body style), but rather to enforce a licensing structure that would allow them to collect royalties on every single “Strat-style” body manufactured.

Brand suicide or self-defense?

The online guitar community reacted to Fender’s moves with shock and bewilderment. Well-known figures in the scene posted strongly negative critiques, such as Rhett Shull (“I’m About To Burn a Bridge With Fender”), Phillip McKnight (“Fender Declares War On the Guitar Industry”), and Tyler Larson (“The Fender Lawsuit Just Broke the Guitar Internet”). Many didn’t stop at elegant sarcasm: Tim Pierce put it bluntly, saying that “Fender Commits Brand SUICIDE, ” while Danny Sapko expressed his outrage even more bluntly (“Fender are f****d”).

The comments all point to the fact that Fender is trying to “undermine” its competitors in a petty way. What’s more, the market is far from being limited to cheap Chinese knockoffs: high-end premium brands that respectfully carry on the Fender legacy (such as Suhr or Xotic), and even industry giants like Ibanez and PRS, are building guitars based on this body shape.

Many people point out that Fender lacked the courage to take on a well-capitalized American or Japanese competitor on its home turf. After all, those competitors certainly would not have failed to mount a substantive defense and would have brought in the best legal experts in the field to fight back. It seems that Fender chose instead to “fly under the radar” in handling the situation so that a court ruling in its favor could be secured cheaply and quickly, without any substantial opposition.

What can we expect next?

In any case, the Düsseldorf court case demonstrated that, even 70 years later, the concept of “applied art” can still be used to create an entirely new legal situation in a market at the intersection of industrial design and copyright law.

I'll continue this topic shortly with the background of the case, and later on I'll also write about the potential real-world impact this court ruling could have on the global guitar industry.