Fender bullying the little guys

Wolfetone

An interesting case of a one man boutique guitar maker being sued by Fender over headstock design.

https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/general_music_news/fender_facing_public_backlash_after_legally_threatening_small-scale_guitar_manufacturer.html

Apologies if this has been posted previously...

ICBM

Doesn't look like a Tele headstock to me. But the rest of the guitar is clearly a Tele copy... and since Fender lost their trademark on the body shape due to lack of positive action to defend it, I understand why they're doing it.

If builders were more original in the first place this kind of thing wouldn't happen.

thegummy

It's so strange that they're suing over the headstock which isn't even that similar when half the guitars on the market are identical to fenders in every other way. The cheapos even tend to have the same headstock.

Doesn't seem fair that they weren't able to copyright the body, how could there be justification for that?

ICBM

thegummy said:

Doesn't seem fair that they weren't able to copyright the body, how could there be justification for that?

Retaining a trademark requires actively defending it against infringement. If you 'let it go' in some cases, you lose the right to keep it. Fender failed to defend its body shapes all through the 70s - according to something I read from one of the team who took over after CBS, because they didn't think the 'inferior' far-east copies were any threat to them, and if anything increased demand for the 'real thing' - and hence when the copyists increased their quality and overtook CBS-Fender, they got a very nasty surprise... they could no longer legally stop them. That's why they take action against headstock copyists, because it's the one thing they still retain. (Likewise why Rickenbacker are so legalistic - they retain all their original trademarks.)

This case is obviously one where the headstock is almost certainly not close enough for there to be a real case, but it's showing that Fender are actively defending their one. They may have picked on this builder because the assumption will be that a small operation won't have the legal resources to fight it so it will be an easy win.

JD50

Suhr and loads of others copy Fender bodies....... I guess Fender will let them keep their headstock design though

GoldenEraGuitars

The only case they might have is the use of “tele” in his original name. 

The headstock is so different it’s laughable that fender are doing this. I’d love to hear an in depth analysis from their legal team. 

Corvus

I don't think that article & pics tells the whole story. He made changes after being contacted by Fender. He also says on FB that it was all but resolved and didn't want the article to go out but the site released it anyway. Theres chat inc from the guy himself in the Telecaster FB group.

chrisj1602

If you have the skills to build guitars, surely you’d want to build your own designs. I would anyway...

ICBM

JD50 said:

Suhr and loads of others copy Fender bodies....... I guess Fender will let them keep their headstock design though

Surely no-one else would want it? Although Anderson might be peeved that they actually improved theirs slightly...

Iamnobody

I think this will end up being a nice bit of exposure for the guy and he’ll see more demand for his guitars from people who weren’t aware of his brand before.

Fender have shot themselves in the foot...

As for the headstock it’s one of the better looking attempts at a subtle deviation from Fender’s trademark. I like it.

Gimlet

ICBM said:

thegummy said:

Doesn't seem fair that they weren't able to copyright the body, how could there be justification for that?

Retaining a trademark requires actively defending it against infringement. If you 'let it go' in some cases, you lose the right to keep it. Fender failed to defend its body shapes all through the 70s - according to something I read from one of the team who took over after CBS, because they didn't think the 'inferior' far-east copies were any threat to them, and if anything increased demand for the 'real thing' - and hence when the copyists increased their quality and overtook CBS-Fender, they got a very nasty surprise... they could no longer legally stop them. That's why they take action against headstock copyists, because it's the one thing they still retain. (Likewise why Rickenbacker are so legalistic - they retain all their original trademarks.)

This case is obviously one where the headstock is almost certainly not close enough for there to be a real case, but it's showing that Fender are actively defending their one. They may have picked on this builder because the assumption will be that a small operation won't have the legal resources to fight it so it will be an easy win.

Precisely! There is a gamble with bad PR in order to enforce the mark, but this seldom has any real impact on future sales given their prominance. In this case it might solely be about the vague outline of the headstock, or it could also include the 6-in-line tuner placement — I recall there being a case involving Fender and Gibson over the Firebird. However unpalletable and irrespective of it being an easy win over a smaller company, there will be a record of Fender's denfence of their mark, something CBS owned-Fender failed to establish.

ICBM

Iamnobody said:

I think this will end up being a nice bit of exposure for the guy and he’ll see more demand for his guitars from people who weren’t aware of his brand before.

Yes, probably.

Iamnobody said:

Fender have shot themselves in the foot...

Do you think this will have any measurable impact on Fender whatsoever? It might annoy a few tens of potential buyers, but beyond that I very much doubt it.

Win-win, really - as long as neither of them wastes money trying to take it to court, in which case the lawyers win.

Bellycaster

So, if the Headstock is not the same (and it isn't) how can they sue when so many other Guitar companies copy both the Tele and Strat body shapes?

BeardyAndy

On that basis, pretty much all 6 in line headstocks are Fender copies.

Voxman

Fender are just flexing their financial muscle. They have so much money they can intimidate and sue anyone they want for anything they want ....but that doesn't mean they are right or that they'll win. 

But that's not the point...for Fender, spending £50k or £100k on a top law firm is nothing...their lawyers are on retainers anyway. For a small and even medium business, trying to fight them is like throwing money into a black hole and they are simply priced out as the legal fees would break them. 

Its not fair, but that's life unfortunately. 

chrisj1602

BeardyAndy said:

On that basis, pretty much all 6 in line headstocks are Fender copies.

And that was first seen on a Bigsby guitar...

CasperCaster

chrisj1602 said:

BeardyAndy said:

On that basis, pretty much all 6 in line headstocks are Fender copies.

And that was first seen on a Bigsby guitar...

.....which copied Eastern European instruments if I remember correctly. 

GoldenEraGuitars

Oh....

https://i.imgur.com/6fBblqU.jpg

FelineGuitars

CasperCaster said:

chrisj1602 said:

BeardyAndy said:

On that basis, pretty much all 6 in line headstocks are Fender copies.

And that was first seen on a Bigsby guitar...

.....which copied Eastern European instruments if I remember correctly. 

GoldenEraGuitars said:

Oh....

It was a side view of a violin peghead/scroll and Bigsby weren't the first

Early Martin headstock


all took influence from classical instruments

Sassafras

To be fair, he looks and sounds like he's been bullied from an early age. I wanted to bully him the moment he opened his mouth.

Iamnobody

ICBM said:

Iamnobody said:

I think this will end up being a nice bit of exposure for the guy and he’ll see more demand for his guitars from people who weren’t aware of his brand before.

Yes, probably.

Iamnobody said:

Fender have shot themselves in the foot...

Do you think this will have any measurable impact on Fender whatsoever? It might annoy a few tens of potential buyers, but beyond that I very much doubt it.

Win-win, really - as long as neither of them wastes money trying to take it to court, in which case the lawyers win.

It probably won’t have any measurable impact on Fender - you’re right. My bad choice of idiom!