this post was submitted on 28 May 2026
85 points (100.0% liked)

guitars

5781 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to /c/guitars! Let's show off our new guitar pics, ask questions about playing, theory, luthier-ship, and more!

Please bring all positive vibes to the community and leave the toxic stuff elsewhere.

Banner credit

Rules:


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The company is framing its legal efforts to target Stratocaster copies as supporting creativity and innovation in the guitar industry, while protecting the designs with which it made its name.

“Fender has tremendous respect for the guitar community, independent builders, and the creativity that continues to shape this industry,” says Fender CEO Edward “Bud” Cole. “At the same time, Fender has a responsibility to protect the iconic designs and brand identity associated with its instruments around the world.

“Protecting these iconic designs is part of Fender’s obligation as a steward of the brand, its legacy, and the authenticity musicians associate with Fender instruments.

“We remain open to engaging constructively with partners and companies across the industry as we navigate this process. Our goal is to protect that legacy while supporting a vibrant future for guitar makers, builders, and musicians alike.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kobra@lemmy.zip 48 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This made me feel 0% better about the situation.

Fender had an iconic name on the headstock that people did care about and now they're losing that as they grasp for more control of body shape which is already public domain in the US 🤯

[–] baronvonj@piefed.social 15 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The fact that Fender already lost an attempt to secure IP rights in US court is what makes this whole thing so crazy. And my understanding is that the German and EU courts are such that the default summary judgement isn't even binding anywhere else. I have to assume that a company like Fender would retain a competent law firm. So who decided this was going to be a profitable course of action? And who is going to prove to be so horribly wrong about how it will turn out?

[–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I'm guessing that competent lawyers are good at convincing dumb fuck MBA's to spend shit tons of money on billable hours

[–] baronvonj@piefed.social 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It would seem saner to me if the MBAs pushed for the legal action and the lawyers determined they can't lose their licenses over this. And I would be astounded if FMIC is paying by the hour and not keeping a firm on retainer.

[–] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Your interpretation of these kind of things seems based on actual knowledge but I'm pretty good at pulling things out of my asshole

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Specific things, or just random things? There are some things I've lost that I'd love to replace.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Anything Fender did expired into the public domain decades ago. They are trying to secure a copyright, which lasts 70 years, for a SHAPE.

[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Shapes can be trademarked and copyrighted. Coca cola have trademarked the shape of their plastic bottles.

[–] FreddiesLantern@leminal.space 2 points 1 week ago

Maybe they think of it as free marketing. How did Kanye stay in the news for as long as he did? Being the absolute worst person he could muster up.

Maybe they know damn well this isn’t gonna go anywhere, but holy shit are people gonna talk about it.

(Source: my tinfoil hat, which doesn’t get enough credit for it’s stylish design)