Thanks for posting. It’s good to see a lawyer’s argument.
A strat is Fender, all others are just fakes.
It’s sad to see that the current management of Fender is so far removed of the legacy of Leo himself.
Why do they even bother. They should be glad that they made something that will stand the test of time.
I forget the tribe, but a Native American tribe said that gold is the yellow rock that makes the white man crazy. 
Thanks for post, and interesting read.
IMHO Fender needed to protect their Strat design and others many years ago if they wanted to have copyright(s) on them. Much the same as Gibson would have done with some of their specific model types, ES335, SG, Les Paul etc. At the end of the day it’s directors wanting to increase market share and profitabilty and get rid of competition. IMO they need to be competitive and persuade the buying public that their gear is better than the rest for all sorts of reasons, which is probably quite a hard thing to do considering that some of the alternatives on offer from other manufactures in a lot of cases are pretty good.
And in many cases, apparently much better, according to Tim Pierce for one.
Does that include G&L?
Just being a devils advocate.
I agree, they waited like 60 years too long. Possibly because it was never an issue until now. I personally think this CEO is going to be gone soon.
I didn’t know this…
To make matters more interesting, the Silver Sky has become a key player in the S-style market, wrestling over a huge portion of players into its ranks over the past few years. It is the Stratocaster’s closest competitor, the SE variant a direct rival to the Player range, the US model a rival to Fender’s more premium American-made Strats.
I always assumed Fender had the bulk of the market share.
Fender own several brands, squier, gretsch, charvel, jackson, evh and others. Don’t know the percentage market share but it is a goliath.
Yes, they talk about the Silver Sky challenging the Fender premium models, but of course Fender have a much, much wider range. And, as you point out, a lot of different brand names.
I don’t think there is any risk of them going out of business any time soon. 
I don’t think you have to do anything to have copyright over a creative work. You are not even compelled to use the copyright symbol ©. Depending on the jurisdiction, copyright lasts about 70 years after the death of the creator. Maybe Leo Fender never sold it and it remained with his estate. Maybe it was assigned to G&L, and that’s why Fender the company now think they can use it for themselves.
Whatever the case, copyright is their last resort, because the patent would have expired sometime in the 1970’s, and the trademark claim was dismissed about 20 years ago.
Yes, I was wondering about the G&L connection too. Interesting timing, with all this legal stuff starting shortly after the demise of G&L.
My gut reaction is that the Silver Sky is one of Fender’s primary targets, regardless of the public spin (i.e. “just the outright clones”) they’re putting on the overall effort. I’ve no proof of that, at all. Like I said, it’s just a gut reaction.
My Dean Zelinsky Tagliare is clearly a Strat type. I wonder if he’s gotten a letter.
I think this whole case is a bad move by Fender.
I do agree that the biggest target is likely on the Silver Sky, but Fender has been allowing clones of various levels to exist uncontested for how long without trying to defend itself?
I agree with an assessment I read that the obvious targets that attempt to outright counterfeit the Strat with fake decals and everything are low-hanging fruit that Fender doesn’t need new caselaw to go after. But the production of actual counterfeits is very much cloak-and-dagger and it takes real work to go after the makers to bring them off the market.
Going after a major manufacturer who isn’t trying to hide anything, but they make one that looks nearly the same (but also aren’t trying to pretend they’re making a Fender) is something new. It’s certainly easier for Fender to identify who to go after. If they manage to win more of these cases outside of the German case, they can claw back some intellectual property, if you want to call it that. What Fender is most likely to build is a LOT of ill will among consumers and vendors. I’ve seen it happen in other similar sorts of cases in other industries. Consumers get especially angry if a giant goes after the little guy.
People are pretty pissed right now about Patagonia the outdoor clothing brand going after a drag queen. PRS is hardly a “little guy” but compared to the conglomerate that Fender belongs to, they’re pretty small.
It would be crazy if all the templates for most every fender stratocaster body and neck were avaliable to anyone with a link
Edit, oh there maybe a double neck of a different company template mistakenly added. 
My guess is someone in the Fender finance dept has made a reward/risk assessment that the case is worth pursuing. Best case (for Fender) is they make a huge windfall. Worst case is they lose a relatively small amount in legal costs. They probably know the likelihood of winning is low but it’s worth taking a shot at it. The reputational damage of every youtube influencer making negative videos is harder to quantify but given Fender’s brand name they can weather the storm.