1) Fender got someone in Germany to buy a Strat type guitar from a Chinese vendor on Aliexpress and ship it to Germany (I assume this part)

2) Fender sued said small Chinese Aliexpress vendor in a regional German court for selling a "copied" design in Germany

3) The small Chinese guitar vendor didn't turn up, obviously

4) Fender got a default judgement that the S-type (Stratocaster etc.) guitar body shape (which has indisputably been in the public domain in the USA since 2009) is a "functional work of art" in which they have copyright.

5) Fender's weird law firm went on a rampage, in the EU and USA, using said default judgement as if it represents some kind of precedent, warning guitar firms (PRS included) and music retailers to stop selling them, recall and destroy their inventory on sale in the EU, and confirm they had done so, or be sued

6) guitar people, especially luthiers working in the USA who have solid reason to believe the S shape is public domain, took that about as well as you'd expect

7) Fender tried to walk it back, especially the bit about smashing perfectly good guitars

8) Thomann, based in Germany, certainly Fender's largest retailer outside the USA and one of the biggest music retailers in the world, have decided not to take it lying down.

▲

lompad 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This really reads like some american lawyer used an llm and never questioned whether legal precedent is even a thing in germany aside from the highest courts.

Have seen several like this in the last months, though in much more niche areas and with barely any publicity.

	▲	dofm 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The law firm is Bird and Bird, and they are not that small. So the whole thing really looks like legal bullying. The S-type body shape has been in the public domain in the USA since 2009. One of the luthiers that Fender sent a C&D has hired the lawyer who secured that 2009 judgement against Fender, and he has been quite withering. Fender have a huge uphill struggle here, and they clearly do not understand just how much time hobby guitarists with money spend watching Youtube. Big mistake.

▲

lokar 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For (1), not a fender style, a straight up counterfeit

	▲	dofm 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Quite likely, I have not seen the specific detail. But the thing is, if the counterfeit had a Fender logo and a Fender Strat style headstock, they could simply have used trademarks to deal with that — because they do have internationally recognised trademarks and the specific headstock shape is one. They instead claimed something rather more broad and contentious that has not been tested in court in the EU but is fully at odds with 17 years of guitar industry business built on a legal finding in the USA. A cynic would say that FMIC knew the vendor would not turn up and fight.

▲

eigenspace 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is extra bizarre to me, because for most purposes German law doesnt operate on a system of "legal precedent" the way countries which adopted the UK model do.

Am I missing something about Germany following a precedent system for patent/copyright or something, or is this even dumber than it sounds?

▲

12_throw_away 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As a legal theory, "this default judgement against an anonymous AliExpress seller is binding on literally everyone in the world" kinda reminds me of the Dune nft bros' "we bought a book about Dune and therefore now own the intellectual property rights to Dune."

Except this one is apparently coming from actual accredited lawyers? (Who knows, I'm not a lawyer, maybe it really does work that way and Fender is the first company to figure out how to exploit this)

	▲	dofm 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If it does work that way then this is going to get very funny, isn't it? https://gettrumpguitars.com Because the only way Trump Guitars can sell an LP-type guitar to US customers is that Gibson also lost a body-shape case like this (to Washburn, if I remember right?)

▲

dofm 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's that dumb.

Sorry, I rushed through my comment and perhaps didn't make it clear.

They have a default judgement only. But they used it to demand US-based manufacturers recall European-bound inventory, destroy it and certify it destroyed.

Even though they know full well that inventory can legally be sold in the USA — which is part of the near-comical gaslighting walkback the FMIC CEO attempted the other day. They are already admitting it's not a USA thing.

	▲	eigenspace 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yikes. I guess we'll find out in a couple months that Fender had replaced their legal department with ChatGPT 3 or something.

▲

_def 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

aliexpress? Thomann themselves are big in manufacturing guitars in china.

▲

ahofmann 8 hours ago | parent [-]

They didn't sued Thomann and they didn't show up. They sued some Chinese guy who didn't show up and used that default judgement against everyone including Thomann.

	▲	dofm 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fascinating isn't it, considering Thomann, a major seller of Chinese-manufactured S-type guitars, was right there