Fender Copyright Question…?

[slinger]

With Fenders ever popular classic Tele and Strat design being copied endlessly by high and low end builders world wide in staggering numbers…how can guitar copy companies
not have to pay royalties for use..?..just curious

 

[somebodyelseuk]

They're trademarks, not copyrights and they only apply to the headstock shapes. They tried, and failed, to trademark the body shapes in the '90s.

I'm not certain that trademarks are universally applied, hence Tokai producing models with trademarked heads that are not (officially) imported in to the USA.

 

[AAT65]

I don’t think there is any truly multinational Intellectual Property protection: copyright is the nearest AFAIK. As @somebodyelseuk says that doesn’t apply here as the protection that’s applied is trademarking rather than copyright. [Edited to add: there are international trademark agreements also.]
Specific court cases have established that the protection that guitar companies have extends to their headstock shapes and product names only.
IANAL but I believe the key legal test is whether these people trying “pass off” their products as Fenders or Gibsons. And for the mainstream T-types, S-types, LP-types and SG-types the answer is no so they are good to go.

 

[Blrfl]

They tried, and failed, to trademark the body shapes in the '90s.

Fender failed because a raft of competitors successfully appealed their application on the grounds that the shapes had been in use long- and widely-enough that the public no longer associated them exclusively with Fender.

What's interesting is that Fender does have (U.S.) trademark protection for the Strat(ocaster) and Tele(caster) names and headstock shapes, but they weren't registered until they'd been in use for 20+ years and the registrations were staggered over time. It's as if nobody in the legal department paused to wonder what other trademarks should be registered when they did the first ones.

I'm not certain that trademarks are universally applied, hence Tokai producing models with trademarked heads that are not (officially) imported in to the USA.

They aren't. Japan doesn't have the same kind of design protections offered by western governments, so Tokai can produce guitars with Fender's headstock shapes but can't export them to countries that do. Nobody's importing them into the U.S. in large-enough quantities for Customs to notice or for pursuing it to be worth Fender's while.

 

[stormsedge]

 

[radiocaster]

They aren't. Japan doesn't have the same kind of design protections offered by western governments, so Tokai can produce guitars with Fender's headstock shapes but can't export them to countries that do. Nobody's importing them into the U.S. in large-enough quantities for Customs to notice or for pursuing it to be worth Fender's while.

Fender is also not pursuing this because it's not worth it, and could bring about a backlash from players, giving Fender a bad image.

Rickenbacker does not care about this, and they stop people from selling 40 year old copies, or copies of guitars they made in the past but have no intention of making now. They don't actually go to court, they have their lawyers or para-legals write threatening letters. They also do it out of their national jurisdiction.

Gibson is more complicated. They actually go after companies that make accurate Explorers, the body shape included, so most copies now feature some modified body shape.

They also don't use the Gibson open book on Epiphones in the West, but make them for the Japanese and Chinese markets. They have the open book on Maestros and Baldwins, but I guess they don't think serious players would want them because of the bolt-on necks. They do make the higher end Orvilles in Japan for the local market. This doesn't seem to be for legal reasons.

 

[NoTeleBob]

Fender is also not pursuing this because it's not worth it, and could bring about a backlash from players, giving Fender a bad image.

Rickenbacker does not care about this, and they stop people from selling 40 year old copies, or copies of guitars they made in the past but have no intention of making now. They don't actually go to court, they have their lawyers or para-legals write threatening letters. They also do it out of their national jurisdiction.

Gibson is more complicated. They actually go after companies that make accurate Explorers, the body shape included, so most copies now feature some modified body shape.

They also don't use the Gibson open book on Epiphones in the West, but make them for the Japanese and Chinese markets. They have the open book on Maestros and Baldwins, but I guess they don't think serious players would want them because of the bolt-on necks. They do make the higher end Orvilles in Japan for the local market. This doesn't seem to be for legal reasons.

Many of the latest Epiphones have the open book now... or at least one of Gibson's many variations.

Players complained endlessly about the Epi headstock. I don't know why... it's not a Gibson, it's an Epi. It should look different. But you know how players like to whine about meaningless differences.

 

[radiocaster]

Many of the latest Epiphones have the open book now... or at least one of Gibson's many variations.

Players complained endlessly about the Epi headstock. I don't know why... it's not a Gibson, it's an Epi. It should look different. But you know how players like to whine about meaningless differences.

The current ones are using an old version of an Epiphone headstock. Personally I preferred the fancier Epiphone headstock, but it seems 90% of people on forums hate it.

 

[Dan German]

What I find fascinating is how Fender’s headstocks seem to have been carefully designed so that slight variations on them almost always look ugly. Intent, or happy accident?

As for myself, I feel like Fender waited too long to worry about it. And as long as a company clearly marks their name on the headstock, and doesn’t call it (officially) a Telecaster or Stratocaster, I’m OK with it.

 

[Reedo]

 

[slinger]

I can’t believe that the whole guitar Tele and Strat and everything about it’s iconic design wasn’t Trademarked at the time..wow..just history now I guess….this post was not intended to rustle feathers but to pay homage to Leo Fenders work no less than any other artist…Peace

 

[Swirling Snow]

Most of the men in the '50s had fought in the war together. There was a sense of comradery and chivalry. It was unthinkable that anyone would blatantly copy a guitar's design, so patents or copyrights weren't needed.

 

[Killing Floor]

Yeah a lot of the Fender sitch is they didn’t protect some of their designs early enough.

 

[loudboy]

Rickenbacker does not care about this, and they stop people from selling 40 year old copies, or copies of guitars they made in the past but have no intention of making now. They don't actually go to court, they have their lawyers or para-legals write threatening letters. They also do it out of their national jurisdiction.

They went after Godin, for the original PU design (looked like a Rick Toaster.) Godin changed the PU covers.

V1:

 

[somebodyelseuk]

Fender failed because a raft of competitors successfully appealed their application on the grounds that the shapes had been in use long- and widely-enough that the public no longer associated them exclusively with Fender.

What's interesting is that Fender does have (U.S.) trademark protection for the Strat(ocaster) and Tele(caster) names and headstock shapes, but they weren't registered until they'd been in use for 20+ years and the registrations were staggered over time. It's as if nobody in the legal department paused to wonder what other trademarks should be registered when they did the first ones.



They aren't. Japan doesn't have the same kind of design protections offered by western governments, so Tokai can produce guitars with Fender's headstock shapes but can't export them to countries that do. Nobody's importing them into the U.S. in large-enough quantities for Customs to notice or for pursuing it to be worth Fender's while.

I think, CBS registered the Fender logo when they bought Fender, but the shapes etc... FMIC were the ones who filed that one, 40+ years in.
They didn't have a 'legal department' in the early days - they could barely afford to pay the employees they had. I don't suppose Leo was confident it was going to last, early on. Nobody was making copies for the first 20 years or so, anyway.
As is said on many, many occasions, Fender used what made economic sense in manufacturing. They didn't spend a single cent over what they needed to.

 

[Dave W]

I can’t believe that the whole guitar Tele and Strat and everything about it’s iconic design wasn’t Trademarked at the time..wow..just history now I guess….this post was not intended to rustle feathers but to pay homage to Leo Fenders work no less than any other artist…Peace

Trademarks on the shapes of objects did not exist back then. That didn't officially become part of US trademark law until 1988, although a few were issued before then.