Fender reportedly demands boutique builders stop making Stratocaster-style guitars: this is what it means for the industry
Following on from its legal victory regarding the Stratocaster trademark in March, a law firm claiming to represent Fender Musical Instruments Corporation has reportedly sent cease and desist orders to a variety of guitar makers demanding they stop producing instruments that use the Stratocaster design.
In March 2026, Fender scored a default judgement against Chinese-based Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co in the Düsseldorf Regional Court in Germany, that set out that the Strat was no longer a simple trademark, but “a copyrighted work of applied art”.
While this default judgement was made because Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co failed to turn up for the trial in question, and only covers instruments sold or imported into the European Union, it seems Fender may have wasted no time in beginning to use this ruling to attempt to police the use of the Strat body shape more overtly.
Guitar.com understands that in recent weeks, multiple guitar makers have received letters from the law firm Bird & Bird, informing them of the EU ruling, and demanding that as a result, the brands in question cease producing guitars that use the Strat body shape, recall and destroy any existing unsold inventory, provide sales data on how many of these instruments have been sold, and provide financial restitution for damages and legal fees.
What’s been alleged to have been said?
Fender American Ultra II Stratocaster in Texas Tea. Image: Adam Gasson
Guitar.com has seen a redacted version of the letter seemingly sent by Bird & Bird on behalf of Fender to one anonymous guitar company, which has also been shared with other outlets and guitar influencers. The letter appears to lay out Fender’s position on the design of the Stratocaster being a unique, artistic creation developed by Leo Fender in the 1950s, and the various ways in which the guitar’s body shape was more than simply functional practical design.
The letter then appears to lay out Fender’s position thusly:
“It has come to our client’s attention that you are marketing electric guitars under the brand [REDACTED]… instanced by the model [REDACTED]…
“The design of the body of these guitars is nearly identical to the design of the body our [sic] client’s ‘Stratocaster’ guitars. They are in particular not less similar to the Stratocaster guitars than the guitars which were subject of the Düsseldorf judgment.
“You are therefore infringing our client’s copyright in the Stratocaster body shape. As a consequence, our client has claims against you to cease and desist from further marketing such guitars, disclosure of information about your sales and marketing, damages, destruction of the infringing products, recall of the infringing products, and reimbursement of our legal fees.”
The letter then appears to go on to set out Fender’s position on the Stratocaster body shape, and how it has changed in light of the EU ruling:
“We appreciate that copies of our client’s famous ‘Stratocaster’ have been in the market before. However, with the judgment of the Court of Düsseldorf, it is now clear that our client has a copyright to the shape of the ‘Stratocaster’ guitar body, and that copies of these guitar body [sic] constitute copyright infringement.
“Our client is resolved to assert its rights and will enforce them consistently in order to keep the market free of infringing copies of the ‘Stratocaster’ body shape. Your company, as well as any other manufacturer of copies of the ‘Stratocaster’, will of course be able to continue to market electric guitars which are sufficiently distinct from the “Stratocaster”.
“Our client therefore insists that you immediately stop manufacturing, marketing, selling and producing the infringing products and confirm this to us [by] 25 May 2026. If you confirm that you will comply with our client’s claims, our client would in turn be prepared to make concessions in relation to their claims for e.g. damages, and also possibly in relation to phase-out and transition periods.
“However, should you fail to respond accordingly within the deadline, we will advise our client to commence the required further judicial steps against you without further hesitation.”
How is the guitar world reacting?
LSL Saticoy guitars. Credit: LSL Instruments
Notably, even though this is an EU judgement, at least one of the companies that has received these letters is based in the USA. LSL Instruments – a boutique, family-run guitar company based in California – is currently the only brand to have publicly revealed that they’ve received this cease and desist.
The brand launched a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for legal fees over the weekend, and has currently raised over $7,000. Guitar.com reached out directly to LSL about the situation, and they provided a short statement in response, as well as pointing us to a blog laying out the brand’s position.
“We appreciate all the support shown directly to us and to the entire boutique guitar world,” the statement read. “To every builder affected by this, we want them to know that we are thinking about them and support them in spirit.”
LSL’s blog explained the reason for their fundraising efforts, and the potential impact legal action would have on the brand.
“We received demands from Fender Musical Instruments to stop selling, recall and destroy all Saticoy guitars worldwide,” it read. “We make less than 500 guitars a year, while Fender makes 500,000. Our small business poses no threat to them in any way whatsoever yet here we are.”
“If we fight this solely on our own. There is a very good chance we could be bankrupted, out of business quickly, and we are not alone in this position.”
While there has been speculation across the online guitar space about other brands that may have been sent these letters, currently LSL is the only brand who have publicly claimed they have been sent one.
How does this affect the wider guitar industry?
Fender Player II Modified Telecaster. Image: Adam Gasson
Back in 2009, Fender lost a high-profile US case when the brand attempted to file trademarks for the Stratocaster, Telecaster and P-Bass body shapes. At the time the filing was protested by a group of other guitar makers, who ultimately succeeded in having the trademarks cancelled.
In the years since, it was widely assumed that this defeat – following on from Gibson’s 2005 loss in a lawsuit against PRS in 2005 – gave other builders the freedom to use classic body shapes, provided that they didn’t infringe on things like headstock shape.
However, Gibson’s protracted but ultimately successful battle against Dean Guitars over the Flying V body shape showed that the big brands still have the ability to win these cases in the right circumstances.
When the ruling was made, Fender put out a press statement, including quotes from Aarash Darroodi, General Counsel & Chief Administrative Officer Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, stating that the case: “reinforces our commitment to originality, supports fair competition, and helps ensure that when players encounter these iconic Fender guitar shapes, they can trust the craftsmanship, quality, and heritage behind them.”
The Fender ruling, crucially, was NOT a trademark dispute – Fender and Gibson have both lost trademark cases on their body shapes in the EU in years past – but sought to reframe the Strat’s body shape as an artistic work, subject to copyright, instead.
Furthermore, while the Dusseldorf ruling only impacts guitars sold in or imported into the European Union, the global nature of the industry means that Fender is using this ruling to try to enforce their claims on any brands that do business in the EU.
The bigger question is how robust the original ruling will turn out to be. As we explained in our initial analysis of the Dusseldorf case, it’s standard procedure for the court to side with the plaintiff when the defendant does not appear in court.
But the default nature of the judgement means that Fender’s claims – the language of which it is seemingly now using to pursue enforcement against other brands – have not yet faced any legal counterarguments in court. That said, Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co does not appear to have taken any steps to have the judgment set aside.
In that original statement, Fender was keen to stress that, “the ruling does not restrict innovation or healthy competition within the guitar industry but rather that it represents targeted enforcement against clear cases of infringement”.
These alleged legal letters appear to set out exactly what Fender believes is classed as “clear infringement” – it remains to be seen whether LSL or any of the other allegedly impacted brands will be able to test this in court.
Guitar.com has reached out to Fender for comment on the accuracy and authenticity of the legal documents that we’ve seen – but they had not replied by time of publication.
The post Fender reportedly demands boutique builders stop making Stratocaster-style guitars: this is what it means for the industry appeared first on Guitar.com | All Things Guitar.
Source: www.guitar-bass.net
