Fender suing everyone .
Discussion
If you are not aware On the back of winning a case in Germany against what I think was a Chinese company who did not turn up at the trial (fender therefore winning by default) , fender have issued letters to most guitar companies threatening them to stop producing s type guitars , and asking them to pay fender a fee and asking the said makers to destroy all their s type guitars .
Quite interesting and obviously subject to the courts decision being contested elsewhere but what would this do to the guitar industry and why has fender decided to act now after decades of doing nothing ?
Quite interesting and obviously subject to the courts decision being contested elsewhere but what would this do to the guitar industry and why has fender decided to act now after decades of doing nothing ?
They're owned by an investment firm, if you want to understand why they did it. It's not about protecting their artistic legacy or heritage, they are doing it because they can. They took a Chinese company to court in Europe, the Chinese firm didn't show up in court (because the Chinese don't give a f
k what the EU courts say) and Fender were granted a 'win' on the basis that there was no opposition to their legal claim.
That gave them all the legitimacy they felt they needed to do this. They can't do it in America as the US courts ruled that they'd failed to make attempts to enforce their copyrights for so long they the S-style body had become a public domain item.
k what the EU courts say) and Fender were granted a 'win' on the basis that there was no opposition to their legal claim.That gave them all the legitimacy they felt they needed to do this. They can't do it in America as the US courts ruled that they'd failed to make attempts to enforce their copyrights for so long they the S-style body had become a public domain item.
Mastodon2 said:
They're owned by an investment firm, if you want to understand why they did it. It's not about protecting their artistic legacy or heritage, they are doing it because they can. They took a Chinese company to court in Europe, the Chinese firm didn't show up in court (because the Chinese don't give a fk what the EU courts say) and Fender were granted a 'win' on the basis that there was no opposition to their legal claim.
That gave them all the legitimacy they felt they needed to do this. They can't do it in America as the US courts ruled that they'd failed to make attempts to enforce their copyrights for so long they the S-style body had become a public domain item.
So, in short, they are doing it because they expect to make lots of money.k what the EU courts say) and Fender were granted a 'win' on the basis that there was no opposition to their legal claim.That gave them all the legitimacy they felt they needed to do this. They can't do it in America as the US courts ruled that they'd failed to make attempts to enforce their copyrights for so long they the S-style body had become a public domain item.
Mastodon2 said:
They're owned by an investment firm, if you want to understand why they did it. It's not about protecting their artistic legacy or heritage, they are doing it because they can. They took a Chinese company to court in Europe, the Chinese firm didn't show up in court (because the Chinese don't give a fk what the EU courts say) and Fender were granted a 'win' on the basis that there was no opposition to their legal claim.
That gave them all the legitimacy they felt they needed to do this. They can't do it in America as the US courts ruled that they'd failed to make attempts to enforce their copyrights for so long they the S-style body had become a public domain item.
As a businessman I can see they are probably being affected sales wise by things like the prs silver sky , and across their entire price range (suhrs to Yamaha pacificas etc) but this is going to be challenged in court and the PR damage they have done is immeasurable . They bully their retailers and now try to bully their competition . Obviously if it’s challenged in court and they win it will be game changing for the industry , if they lose they will have inflicted serious self harm .k what the EU courts say) and Fender were granted a 'win' on the basis that there was no opposition to their legal claim.That gave them all the legitimacy they felt they needed to do this. They can't do it in America as the US courts ruled that they'd failed to make attempts to enforce their copyrights for so long they the S-style body had become a public domain item.
mac96 said:
So, in short, they are doing it because they expect to make lots of money.
Yep, investment firms cannot bear to see their ROI being smaller or slower than anticipated. They do not care about Fender's reputation whatsoever. The plan is always roughly the same no matter what the industry, 'maximise value' in the short term and sell off when ripe, or asset strip and leave the husk. Fender seem to be doing the former at the moment.I've seen a lot of quite stupid commentary online about how it's great that Fender are protecting their IP (better late than never, I guess) but that kind of myopic take fails to take into account that Fender are trying to impose a monopoly on what is effectively an entire genre of guitars. Companies who run monopolies don't need to innovate, complete on price or lead in quality. The slavering dogs are lining up to say how great this is, without understanding that it will not benefit them as customers whatsoever, quite the opposite.
Gibson have struggled with their reputation after the 'Play Authentic' campaign that made most sensible people be sick in their mouthes. They seem to be doing ok financially after some restructuring, getting some of their brands working again - Mesa Boogie are finally up to speed and able to supply the world beyond America, and by leaning into the lifestyle brand part, but they're not really attracting younger players. Gibson just don't really have any artists that younger players really care about now and their designs look and feel archaic to try younger crowd.
Fender on the other hand, have been quite successful in marketing to younger players, giving the Strat something of a timeless appeal in a way that Gibson products just don't have, not to mention being priced more competitively. You can get a really nice American Fender at a price point similar to some Epiphones and where other brands are pricing Indonesian and Korean guitars.
I think Fender have been more successful than most heritage / nostalgia brands in convincing the younger crowd to pick up their instruments, but the market is in trouble. Second hand sales are slow and in particular high-end stuff isn't shifting well. I suppose the rising cost of living and continual doom cycle since 2020 have probably tempered spending on luxury purchases or frivolities like guitars and Fender's investment fund owners are probably seeing that.
This will cause reputational damage, but in the short term if sales go up because there are fewer options aside from Fender, in Europe at least, then the owners will not care. Taking the long view, I can't help but think this will do more harm than good to Fender. They can only enforce this judgement in one market but the whole world can see what a bad look this is.
The legal letters that were sent to the guitar companies are online now, I would suggest you have a read. The requests from Fender's appointed law firm would be laughable if they were not so sincere and appallingly heavy-handed.
Gibson are notoriously litigious but people still make single cut copies not sure if that’s done under a license or some device .
Fender should maybe look inward and improve their qc and products I stopped buying fenders years ago as I just don’t gel with any of them and I still try them when I go into stores but the reality is there are competitors out there who just do it better
I get it if you want fender on the headstock then there can be no substitute but objectively there are many out there doing it better .
Fender should maybe look inward and improve their qc and products I stopped buying fenders years ago as I just don’t gel with any of them and I still try them when I go into stores but the reality is there are competitors out there who just do it better
I get it if you want fender on the headstock then there can be no substitute but objectively there are many out there doing it better .
I do think this will do a fair bit of damage to Fender, especially in this online world. Only saving grace for them is they've already monopolised things to a reasonable extent with jackson, evh, charvel etc.
I think Gibson might have set a bit of a precedent with this after going for Armadillo/Dean and unfortunately folk have basically forgotten about that already.
I've got one Jackson and have been eyeing up a regular single coil strat & EVH amps recently, whilst I'm merely a drop in the ocean to a company like this, I personally won't be in a rush to buy any new products from them for the foreseeable. Will either be from competitors or second hand.
Will be interesting to see if they go after Harley Benton as Thomann must be one of their biggest distributors in Europe? Can't imagine Thomann being too happy about it's sister company being sued and continuing to sell Fender stuff.
I think Gibson might have set a bit of a precedent with this after going for Armadillo/Dean and unfortunately folk have basically forgotten about that already.
I've got one Jackson and have been eyeing up a regular single coil strat & EVH amps recently, whilst I'm merely a drop in the ocean to a company like this, I personally won't be in a rush to buy any new products from them for the foreseeable. Will either be from competitors or second hand.
Will be interesting to see if they go after Harley Benton as Thomann must be one of their biggest distributors in Europe? Can't imagine Thomann being too happy about it's sister company being sued and continuing to sell Fender stuff.
languagetimothy said:
I recall Rickenbacker used to be quite harsh on copies like Rockinbetter but Harley Benton seem to still be selling something similar.
They are still are very litigious, or at least they were very active in serving legal notices to the point where pretty much everyone in first world countries stopped making copies. Many were visually almost identical to a Rickenbacker except they'd have a name like 'Rockenbetter'. There are still copies out there, obviously based on a Rickenbacker but not quite 'see it on a dark stage and you wouldn't know the difference' level.Ironically, many of the Rickenbacker copies fixed some of the inherent design flaws in the original Rickenbacker designs. You really would be 'Rockenbetter' by playing a copy.
It's a good example of how enforcing copyright over time gives you the rights to keep your IP. Fender lost their claim to copyright on the S body in the US but Rickenbacker kept their copyrights because they had a huge record of serving notices to companies copying their designs. It even reached the point where a number of prominent bass guitar websites blocked sales of Rickenbackers and Rickenbacker-alikes. I recall Talkbass even banning threads discussing copies, so worried were they about being drawn into a legal mess.
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff