Fender licensed vs not

[marciero00]

Some neck and body makers are licensed by fender, and others not. For the latter, what is typically done to avoid license infringement? My understanding is that for necks, a very slight variation in the headstock shape will do it. What about bodies? Specifically I am considering Guitar Mill for a tele body, and possibly for neck, though I am leaning MK on that.

 

[Sparky2]

Fender guitar necks, as you said, can be licensed for use by other manufacturers to produce replacement necks and bodies.

Fender has trademarked certain headstock shapes, like those of the Stratocaster and Telecaster, and has granted licenses to other companies to use these shapes on replacement necks.

Companies like Mighty Mite, WD, Warmoth, and Allparts manufacture necks under Fender's quality control trademark license, ensuring they meet specific standards of quality and dimension. The licenses bear certain requirements, such as the inclusion of Fender-approved language on the heel of the neck, restrictions on decals or insignias, and adherence to Fender's vintage specifications.

A company called BYOGuitar, never heard of them before quite honestly, also sells Fender-licensed necks.

Now, the necks and bodies that aren't Fender Branded?
Let's say for example, Guitar Fetish necks and bodies.

There's nothing wrong or illegal about using such parts in your build or projects.
There's no legal trouble involved.

It's just considered 'fair play' to declare where you got the parts from when you go to sell the guitar later on.
And though it is very common, it's considered bad form to put a Fender waterslide decal on the headstock, and represent the guitar as a genuine Fender.

Do people do it anyway?
All the time.

 

[24 track]

there are some companies that purchased a licence to produce parts with the licenced spec of the main company , and there are others that will make parts for the main company , eg Godin at one point was contracted to making bodies and necks for other brands , this culminated with the Off brands they make now ,

prior to this Godin made parts for other manufacturers , I own a Godin and OMG they are Fine
some of the Asian companies have made parts for some of the big companies and have been for years, brands like Ibanez, Hondo, Greco, parts were made in the same factories and conversely at some point made under licence.
To the point Fender bought DeArmond they produces a Les Paul type guitar a direct copy of a Les Paul style (M style)called a Guild Blues bird , what a fine guitar, the DeArmond was the M75 , M 65 etc. some of these came out of the Ibanez factory.
By the way these are the best Les Pauls Gibson Never made. this is by no means comprehensive and the ownership details get convoluted very fast but the info is out there for the looking.

 

[marciero00]

Great. This is all informative. I wasnt planning to brand my partscaster with fender decal or any such. I also want to distinguish between aftermarket parts and those made for the company. (I remember hearing that at one time Samick was the biggest manufafturer of guitars, mostly under different brands)

But I am more curious about whether these non licensed after market producers are forced to alter something on bodies; for example if, like the headstock shape, the tele body shape is trademarked.

Re the best Les Pauls- that reminds me of Ibanez produced strats in the late 70's and early 80's that were often better than what Fender was producing.

 

[Ljislink24]

My advice is go with well known sellers & it turns out they produce necks & bodies that are as good and in most cases better than an actual Fender parts. I've used both types licensed/unlicensed and in every case the parts made by the licensed sellers are much better quality. I did 2 different Teles & put them both in the hands of a pro & and a Luthier who a lot the pros use. Both had no idea where the parts came from & both of em said the one that had the licensed parts was a fantastic guitar & the other one looked good but didn't have the magic !

 

[Caffiend]

I've used Fender branded, no name Amazon and 'shop own brand'. The Fender necks could be described as 'reassuringly expensive '. You know what you are getting and there's a solid warranty. 'shop ownbrand' is a crapshoot IMO. My favourite and my biggest disappointment necks were both from the same shop and 'own brand'. Amazon super cheap honest Chinese can be worth a punt if you are confident in your ability to right wrongs but be prepared for the possibility of a lot of work (isn't always the case but you don't know til it's on your bench). There's a Canadian company used to sell on Reverb (I think they still do) who used to represent cheap Chinese necks as their own. There was quite a lot of noise on various forums about them a couple years ago when they were being 'found out'. I have one of theirs and I wish I could reliably get another just the same.

Tl; Dr - you pays your money and takes your choice. More expensive isn't necessarily better but it brings peace of mind and possibly better finish.

 

[stratisfied]

Some neck and body makers are licensed by fender, and others not. For the latter, what is typically done to avoid license infringement? My understanding is that for necks, a very slight variation in the headstock shape will do it. What about bodies? Specifically I am considering Guitar Mill for a tele body, and possibly for neck, though I am leaning MK on that.

Who or what is MK?

 

[gsh1968]

There is no license for Fender body shapes.
Fender lost the exclusivity on their body shapes due to not defending the trademark vigorously enough. Anyone can produce a guitar body identical in every way to a Fender Telecaster, even going as far as copying the dimensions on the blueprint in the Duchossoir Telecaster book. They just cannot legally use the word "Telecaster" in the name of the body. They can advertise "Telecaster compatible replacement body" but not "Telecaster body".
Fender still own the trademark for the name "Telecaster".

The headstock license is just for the shapes. There is a quality control clause in the license (Warmoth used to display their license online so we know this) but there's no spec requirement - e.g. heels don't have to be made to Fender spec. Obviously licensed makers make them compatible with Fender bodies though.

(Interestingly if you look up Fender's trademarks in UK it specifically states that it is the shape with the word Fender "appearing thereon" that is covered. )

 

[marciero00]

Who or what is MK?

Sorry. Its Musikraft. Not to be cryptic but thought I had seen it referred to as such

 

[marciero00]

There is no license for Fender body shapes.
Fender lost the exclusivity on their body shapes due to not defending the trademark vigorously enough. Anyone can produce a guitar body identical in every way to a Fender Telecaster, even going as far as copying the dimensions on the blueprint in the Duchossoir Telecaster book. They just cannot legally use the word "Telecaster" in the name of the body. They can advertise "Telecaster compatible replacement body" but not "Telecaster body".
Fender still own the trademark for the name "Telecaster".

The headstock license is just for the shapes. There is a quality control clause in the license (Warmoth used to display their license online so we know this) but there's no spec requirement - e.g. heels don't have to be made to Fender spec. Obviously licensed makers make them compatible with Fender bodies though.

(Interestingly if you look up Fender's trademarks in UK it specifically states that it is the shape with the word Fender "appearing thereon" that is covered. )

Okay so headstocks but not bodies. Interesting that they did not defend the trademark on bodies.

 

[Shorty Medlock]

I bought a ChiCom neck that was pretty nice.. So I asked the maker if they would make a maple nevk with a v profile and 7 1/4" radius. They said those dimensions are Fender cooyrighted!

 

[stratisfied]

Sorry. Its Musikraft. Not to be cryptic but thought I had seen it referred to as such

No problem, I get it now. Was thinking neck-makers but thought Musicraft was the right spelling.