Fender Says It Is Not Suing Guitar Makers as Stratocaster Design Dispute Draws Industry Backlash

Fender Musical Instruments Corporation is trying to contain backlash from guitar makers, players, and online music commentators after sending cease-and-desist letters to companies it says are making guitars that too closely copy the Stratocaster design.

The dispute, which began after Fender won a copyright ruling in Germany earlier this year, has become a broader fight over whether the Stratocaster body shape remains Fender’s protected creative property or has become part of the shared vocabulary of electric guitar manufacturing after decades of widespread use.

Fender CEO Edward “Bud” Cole recently pushed back on criticism during a dealer event, saying the company is not suing anyone and is not trying to stop all double-cutaway guitars. Cole said Fender has contacted only a “handful” of companies whose guitars, in Fender’s view, come extremely close to replicating the Stratocaster design. He also said the company is not seeking inventory destruction or immediate financial penalties.

“Our preference is practical, reasonable solutions,” Cole said, according to MusicRadar. He described those solutions as possible design modifications and transition periods for selling existing inventory.

Cole’s comments followed reports that Fender’s cease-and-desist letters demanded that certain builders stop making, selling, and marketing Stratocaster-style guitars. The letters reportedly sought broader remedies, including recalls and destruction of inventory, language that helped fuel criticism that Fender was using a European copyright ruling to pressure competitors in a market where “S-style” guitars have long been common.

Fender has since tried to narrow the public understanding of its position. In a statement to Guitar World, the company said it is not targeting every “two-horned or double-cutaway” guitar. Fender said its focus is on products that “closely or completely replicate” the Stratocaster design itself.

That distinction is now central to the dispute. Fender says the campaign is about protecting one of its most important designs. Critics say the company is attempting to control a guitar form that has been made, modified, and sold by other builders for generations.

The legal fight traces back to a March ruling from the Regional Court of Düsseldorf in Germany. Fender’s law firm, Bird & Bird, described the ruling as a landmark decision confirming that the Stratocaster body design is protected under German and European Union copyright law as a work of applied art. The case involved guitars sold by a China-based manufacturer through AliExpress and offered for shipment into Germany.

According to Bird & Bird, the Düsseldorf court found that the challenged guitars unlawfully reproduced the Stratocaster body design and that the body qualifies as original creative expression rather than purely functional design. Fender’s general counsel, Aarash Darroodi, said the decision reinforced the company’s commitment to protecting its iconic designs and supporting fair competition across Europe.

The ruling gave Fender a stronger enforcement position in Germany and potentially other European Union markets. It does not automatically give Fender the same rights in the United States.

The reason is that the legal theories are different. In Germany and the EU, Fender is relying mainly on copyright protection for applied art. That theory treats the Stratocaster body shape as a creative design that can be protected even though it is part of a useful object. Fender’s position is that the particular body shape reflects original design choices, not merely functional features required to make an electric guitar.

In the United States, Fender would face a more difficult path if it tried to rely on trademark or trade dress law. Trade dress can protect the overall look of a product when consumers associate that look with one source. For Fender, the argument would be that the Stratocaster body shape identifies Fender in the minds of buyers.

U.S. law places a high burden on that kind of claim. Product design is not automatically distinctive. A company seeking trade dress protection for a product shape must show that consumers have come to understand the design as identifying one maker, not merely one style of product. Fender has already faced that issue before.

In 2009, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rejected Fender’s attempt to register the body configurations of the Stratocaster, Telecaster, and Precision Bass as trademarks. The Board found that third-party manufacturers had sold guitars with similar body shapes for decades and that the designs had not been shown to identify Fender as the single source. That decision remains a major obstacle to any U.S. effort to claim broad trademark control over the Stratocaster body outline.

The current dispute has already reached beyond small boutique builders. PRS Guitars has confirmed that it received a cease-and-desist letter from Fender, reportedly involving the PRS Silver Sky, the John Mayer signature model introduced in 2018. PRS told The Wall Street Journal that it disagrees with Fender’s assessment and declined to comment further, according to industry reports.

The PRS dispute could become especially important because the Silver Sky is not a low-cost counterfeit or an anonymous clone. It is a high-profile model sold under PRS’s own name, with visible branding and design differences, including its own contours and proportions. Fender’s decision to contact PRS raises the practical question of how much difference is enough to avoid infringement under Fender’s current theory.

LsL Instruments, a California-based boutique builder, was one of the first companies publicly identified as receiving a Fender letter. LsL launched a fundraising campaign to support its legal defense, warning that Fender’s position threatens not only its own business but also the future of S-style guitars for builders and players in Europe. LsL has argued that Fender’s demands could restrict competition and limit choice for musicians.

At least one recipient has turned to Ronald Bienstock, the attorney who successfully opposed Fender’s 2009 trademark effort. Bienstock has publicly criticized Fender’s current campaign and argued that the German ruling was a default judgment in which the opposing party did not appear. He has also pointed to decades of third-party Stratocaster-style guitar production as evidence that Fender waited too long to assert broad control over the shape.

Functionality is another likely defense if the dispute moves into broader litigation. Copyright and trade dress law do not protect useful features merely because a company made them famous. Guitar makers could argue that portions of the Stratocaster-style body serve practical purposes, including comfort, weight balance, access to higher frets, and compatibility with common parts. Fender would likely respond that competitors can make double-cutaway guitars without copying the specific Stratocaster design.

Consumer confusion would also be disputed. Many Stratocaster-style guitars are sold under their own brand names and marketed as alternatives, tributes, or modern interpretations rather than as Fender instruments. A court considering a trade dress claim would likely examine whether buyers believe the challenged guitars come from Fender, are licensed by Fender, or are simply part of a familiar design category.

Fender’s recent statements suggest the company is trying to draw a narrower line than some critics initially feared. Cole said Fender is focused on the Stratocaster specifically and objected to describing the dispute as merely an “S-style” issue, saying that language diminishes Leo Fender’s contribution to the industry. Fender has also said it is open to practical resolutions with competitors, including design changes and phase-out periods.

The guitar community’s reaction has been sharp. Critics argue that Fender is trying to reassert control over a design that has been part of the market for roughly 70 years. Some players and commentators have accused the company of overreach, and the dispute has led to calls for boycotts. Supporters of Fender’s position argue that copying a famous design too closely should not be treated as fair competition simply because the design has been influential.

The backlash has now moved from public criticism to litigation. Thomann, the Germany-based music retailer whose in-house Harley Benton brand also received a cease-and-desist letter, announced on June 23 that it is suing Fender to have the dispute clarified in court. In a statement published on its company blog, Thomann said the questions raised by Fender’s campaign “go far beyond a mere legal dispute” and affect “the future of diversity, innovation and competition” in the guitar industry.

The retailer said it is acting not only for itself, but also for smaller builders and established brands it believes are at risk, including Tyler, Tom Anderson, Suhr, LsL, Maybach, Pensa, FGN, and PRS. Thomann CEO Hans Thomann said many affected builders lack the financial and legal resources to fight Fender on their own, adding that the company sees “responsibility” in asking a court to resolve the issue. Thomann is expected to argue, as Bienstock has, that the Stratocaster body is not a copyrightable work of art but a successful ergonomic design whose broad use reflects function, competition, and decades of industry development.

The legal outcome may turn on where the fight takes place. Fender appears to have stronger leverage in Germany and potentially the EU after the Düsseldorf ruling. In the United States, the company would have to contend with the 2009 TTAB decision, trade dress rules requiring secondary meaning, functionality defenses, and evidence of long-term third-party use.

The next phase will likely determine whether Fender’s recent enforcement campaign produces negotiated design changes, limits on European sales, or a broader ruling on the legal status of the Stratocaster body shape. Fender says it is protecting the legacy of one of the most recognizable instruments ever made. Thomann and other critics say the shape has been developed, adapted, and sustained by generations of builders and players.

Until a court answers that question in a contested case, the Stratocaster dispute remains both a legal fight and a cultural one, with the music industry watching to see whether a classic design can still be locked down after decades in plain view.