Ist die Stratocaster jetzt urheberrechtlich geschützt? Fender eskaliert | WBS - Die Experten

Summary of the video’s main points (copyright protection of the Fender Stratocaster)

• Fender is using legal action to stop Stratocaster “copies.” The video frames Fender’s approach as a form of “declaring war” on competing Strat-style models—pursuing copyright-based exclusivity rather than relying only on traditional trademark/logo protection.

• Key trigger: a Düsseldorf regional court ruling (end of 2025). The presenter explains that the Düsseldorf Regional Court held that the Stratocaster guitar body (“corpus,” especially the double-cutaway shape) is not merely a functional, utilitarian object, but “applied art” protected by copyright. If that reasoning stands, Fender (as rights holder) may be able to prohibit others from producing or selling designs that are substantially identical.

• Cease-and-desist letters are already being sent. After the ruling became public, Fender (allegedly) began issuing warning letters to competing manufacturers and also to major online retailers (e.g., Thomann). These letters reportedly seek:

  • stopping sales of unlicensed Strat-style models,
  • providing information about sales and sources,
  • paying damages/costs, and
  • destroying remaining stock.

• Why this ruling could expand beyond the headstock/trademark area.

  • The video notes that Fender’s protection has long been more straightforward regarding brand identifiers (e.g., “Fender,” “Stratocaster”) and trademark protection for certain visual elements (including references to 3D/shape marks for the headstock).
  • The controversial “new” aspect is that the court’s reasoning extends protection to the body curves, which were previously not assumed to receive the same level of exclusive copyright coverage.

• How the court justified “applied art” and originality. The presenter cites the court’s description that the Stratocaster body reflects personal intellectual creation by Leo Fender (inventor of the Stratocaster shape in 1954). The judgment uses expressive descriptions of curves and asymmetries to support the legal standard for the author’s personal contribution/originality.

• Rights-chain and duration implications.

  • The video emphasizes that the copyright is treated as arising with the creator, and that rights were transferred through Fender’s corporate succession chain.
  • It also highlights transition rules and suggests that copyright duration could, in principle, extend decades after Leo Fender’s death, with an end point around 2041 if the approach holds.

• Why the Düsseldorf decision was issued as a default judgment—and why that matters.

  • The Chinese supplier reportedly did not defend itself or attend, leading to a default judgment.
  • The presenter stresses that courts still must check internal consistency, but argues that key defenses may not have been considered (e.g., industry tolerance, public-domain-type reasoning, or waiver/forfeiture due to longstanding copying).
  • He also notes that other courts could reach different results because this is first-instance and based on limited contestation.

• Scope limits of the judgment. Even if the ruling is binding for the defendant involved, it does not automatically create universal effect against all other companies. Future cases would still require fact-specific analysis and could differ by defendant, venue, and evidence.

• Practical legal mechanics discussed. The presenter distinguishes between:

  • warning letters (which may include demands tied to later claims, such as reimbursement of attorneys’ fees and requests for information), and
  • lawsuits (which may follow if the recipient does not issue a cease-and-desist declaration). He also describes typical damages calculations (e.g., disgorgement of infringer profits / release of profits) and explains that litigation may proceed if the recipient refuses to confirm cessation.

• Numbers and misconceptions addressed.

  • The dispute value in the Düsseldorf case (about €100,000) is described as not money Fender automatically receives; it’s mainly relevant to fee/cost calculations.
  • The presenter corrects viral misunderstandings about €250,000 fines, explaining that fines are sanctions imposed by the court/state and are not a direct demand amount from the rights holder.
  • He also notes that damages exposure can still be significant for large retailers with many units.

• Economic/tactical concerns about stock destruction demands. The video criticizes the aggressive impact of demands for destruction of remaining inventory, especially for retailers who may have purchased in good faith or paid in advance. Fender’s strategy is described as economically intense and potentially contentious for resellers.

• Overall outlook and risk assessment.

  • The presenter calls Fender’s strategy risky because it depends heavily on a single venue and ruling; higher courts (or the Federal Court of Justice) could narrow or overturn the reasoning.
  • He also raises a possible “backfire” scenario: if Fender’s approach is later found unjustified, the targeted companies could pursue claims against Fender.

Presenters / contributors

• Kilian Kost (Lawyer; Managing Director; guitarist; WBS Legal; expert for trademark/competition law and intellectual property law)