If someone asked you to draw an electric guitar right now, you would almost certainly draw a Fender Stratocaster. You might not even realize you were drawing a Fender product. The guitar emoji on your phone is, more or less, a Fender Stratocaster. The design has become so ubiquitous that it embodies what we think of when we picture an electric guitar. Fender’s impact on guitar design is undeniable. But it may also be the reason its new IP campaign faces an uphill battle in court.
In March, Fender won a judgment in Germany’s Regional Court of Düsseldorf against Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co., a Chinese company that was selling cheap Stratocaster copies online. The court determined that Yiwu was unlawfully reproducing the Stratocaster guitar design and deemed the Stratocaster body shape a “work of applied art” protected under German and EU copyright law. Since that ruling became public, Fender has launched an aggressive enforcement campaign, sending cease-and-desist letters to some of the largest guitar manufacturers and retailers in the world, including Yamaha and Thomann. As Fender continues to aggressively protect its Stratocaster design, the question remains: does intellectual property law support the campaign?
Trademarks and the Trade Dress Problem
Fender holds registered trademarks on the name “Stratocaster” and on its distinctive headstock shapes. But the body shape of the Stratocaster itself has never been trademarked. In 2009, Fender applied to register the body configurations of the Stratocaster and other guitars as trademarks, but the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) denied its applications. The TTAB found that third-party manufacturers had been selling guitars with similar shapes for so long that the Fender designs never acquired the secondary meaning necessary for trademark registration.[1] It further noted that the Stratocaster shape is “so common that it is depicted as the generic electric guitar in a dictionary.”[2] Fender did not appeal the TTAB’s denial.
Trade dress is arguably the best available theory for Fender’s position. Under trademark law, trade dress is a form of protection that covers the design and shape of a product or its packaging when that appearance functions as a source identifier. The Lanham Act provides that a company can protect trade dress without registration if the design serves the same source-identifying function as a traditional trademark.[3] For Fender, that means it must prove that consumers associate the Stratocaster body shape with Fender manufacturing, rather than simply seeing a generic electric guitar shape that could have been made by anyone.
One major complication to a trade dress theory is the functionality doctrine. Trade dress does not extend to features that are essential to a product’s use or that would put competitors at a significant disadvantage if controlled by one company. Guitar shapes inherently incorporate both aesthetics and utility. For example, the Stratocaster’s double cutaway allows access to higher frets, the body contours improve playing comfort, and the internal design provides the space needed for an electronics layout that has become an industry standard. If even one of these iconic features were removed, the functionality of the instrument would be diminished. The genius of the Stratocaster design is the seamless integration of functional elements into the aesthetics of the guitar. Yet this very functionality makes a trade dress claim difficult for Fender to sustain.
Patents: A Double-Edged Sword
Fender obtained several patents for the design and shape of its Stratocaster in the 1950s and ‘60s. U.S. Patent No. 2,960,900, for example, protected the Stratocaster’s unique forearm and belly cuts described above, which allowed for easier and more comfortable playing. But Fender’s patents expired decades ago, and the rights afforded by them are no longer applicable. Further, the expiration of these patents may raise questions about whether additional IP protection for the same design elements is appropriate.
The goal of U.S. patent law is to promote the progress of science and useful arts, and this goal is premised on a simple trade-off. Patents protect an invention from competition for twenty years, and in exchange for that temporary monopoly, inventors agree not to keep their secrets forever. Once a patent expires, others are free to use that design. Fender has already received years of patent protection for its Stratocaster design. Now that the design has entered the public domain, should Fender be permitted to seek indefinite protection under a trade dress or other theory? Courts seem hesitant.
Copyright Protection and the Düsseldorf Ruling
Copyright might seem like an alternative solution to trade dress, but U.S. law is particularly harsh toward musical instruments like guitars, which are treated as “useful articles” under the Copyright Act of 1976 due to their intrinsic internal function of making music.[4] Guitars therefore receive copyright protection only to the extent their artistic features can be separated from their functional ones. But separating the Stratocaster’s functional designs from its aesthetics is incredibly difficult. The shape of any guitar determines where the player’s hand rests, how the instrument balances, and the difficulty of reaching different parts of the neck. Thus, U.S. copyright protection alone does not offer Fender a viable path to protect its Stratocaster design.
This is where, at least outside the United States, the Düsseldorf ruling enters the picture. German and EU copyright law take a significantly broader view of protectable subject matter than U.S. law, particularly when it comes to “works of applied art.” Under this framework, everyday objects like furniture, shoes, and even guitars can receive copyright protection if their design reflects “original creative expression” rather than purely functional choice. The Düsseldorf court held that the Stratocaster was a work of applied art bearing the unmistakable imprint of Leo Fender’s original creativity, making it protectable under both German and EU copyright law. That is a far more favorable outcome than what the useful articles doctrine offers in the United States, and it gives Fender enforceable rights across the European market.
However, one issue is that, because the Chinese defendant Yiwu never appeared in court, Fender’s Düsseldorf ruling was only a default judgment. That means the German court was required to treat Fender’s factual submissions as undisputed and base its legal assessment solely on Fender’s version of events. The ruling has not been tested against actual arguments such as the functionality doctrine, evidence of industry-wide adoption of the Stratocaster shape, or the decades of third-party use that led U.S. authorities to call the design generic. It remains unclear whether Fender’s copyright protection in Europe will survive if/once a defendant appears in court to challenge it.
Fender’s Expanding Campaign
Fender appears undeterred by these legal uncertainties. In Germany, where the Düsseldorf ruling gives it a foothold, Fender recently filed suit against Thomann, Europe’s largest music retailer and one of Fender’s own retail partners.[5] Thomann owns Harley Benton, one of Europe’s largest guitar brands and now a subject of the litigation. In July, Reuters reported that Fender also sent a notice letter to Yamaha, the world’s largest musical instrument maker, specifically targeting its Pacifica line of guitars.[6]
The coming months will likely determine whether the Düsseldorf copyright theory can survive further proceedings. Thomann has made clear that it intends to contest the ruling, countersuing and arguing that this dispute affects the future of diversity and competition in the guitar industry. For now, the guitar world is watching to see whether Fender can secure exclusive rights to its iconic design, more than seven decades after the Stratocaster’s release.
Zachary O’Connor, a Summer Associate based in the Minneapolis office, contributed to this blog post.
Sources:
Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd. v. Fender Musical Instruments Corp., Opposition Nos. 91161403 et al. (TTAB Mar. 25, 2009), https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91161403&pty=OPP&eno=246
Albers de Leon, M., Garhart, N., & McDavit, J. (2026, June 16). Guitar shape controversy highlights nuances of IP protection – law360. https://www.law360.com/intellectual-property-uk/articles/2486598
Nellis, S. (2026, July 16). Fender sues German retailer Thomann in copyright dispute over Stratocaster. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/fender-sues-german-retailer-thomann-copyright-dispute-over-stratocaster-2026-07-16/
Gomez, N., Mandayam, N., & Nellis, S. (2026, July 14). Fender escalates Stratocaster copyright fight, taking aim at Yamaha. https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/fender-escalates-stratocaster-copyright-fight-taking-aim-yamaha-2026-07-14/
[1] Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd. v. Fender Musical Instruments Corp., Opposition Nos. 91161403 et al. (TTAB Mar. 25, 2009), https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91161403&pty=OPP&eno=246
[2] Id. at 45
[3] 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
[4] 17 U.S.C. § 101
[5] Nellis, S. (2026, July 16). Fender sues German retailer Thomann in copyright dispute over Stratocaster. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/fender-sues-german-retailer-thomann-copyright-dispute-over-stratocaster-2026-07-16/
[6] Gomez, N., Mandayam, N., & Nellis, S. (2026, July 14). Fender escalates Stratocaster copyright fight, taking aim at Yamaha. https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/fender-escalates-stratocaster-copyright-fight-taking-aim-yamaha-2026-07-14/