For the full background on the Fender shape dispute, including the dated timeline and the legal questions, see our reference article, Fender, Thomann, and the Stratocaster shape dispute.
The Stratocaster shape dispute has reached the stage the whole story has been building toward. Fender has filed a copyright infringement action against Thomann in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, as reported by Reuters on 16 July, in response to the lawsuit Thomann brought in June. The validity of Fender’s claimed copyright and whether the challenged Harley Benton designs infringe it are now before a court with fully resourced parties on each side. That creates the first publicly identified, fully resourced vehicle for the contested test the dispute has lacked from the start.
What has happened
Fender’s filing, made this week in Düsseldorf, alleges that Harley Benton-brand guitars developed and sold by Thomann copy the Stratocaster shape. In a statement, Fender described the action as “the expected next step in the legal process”, framing it as the procedural consequence of the case Thomann started. Fender’s statement also argues that Thomann is no small independent builder but one of the world’s largest instrument retailers, one of Fender’s own largest retail partners, and the owner of Harley Benton, one of Europe’s largest guitar brands. The statement also discloses that Fender’s engagement after the Düsseldorf ruling extended to online marketplaces across Europe, alongside manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, and says that in many instances companies have chosen collaborative solutions, including design modifications.
Reuters’ report and Fender’s statement also identify, for the first time in the public record, the legal vehicle used by Thomann in June. It is described as a Declaration of Non-Infringement. Reuters reports that Thomann disputes the validity of Fender’s claimed copyright, arguing in part that it rests on a default judgment that was never tested against a defence, while Fender says Thomann is seeking a determination that it may continue selling the challenged Harley Benton designs. Until now, the legal form of Thomann’s action had not been publicly identified.
Reuters’ account of the filing carries market figures the dispute has not had before. Fender says it sells about 500,000 Stratocasters a year, with around 34,000 of those sold in Germany, and cites Thomann’s own estimate that the retailer sells roughly 10,000 Fender Stratocasters a year.
The sequence, stated fairly
In June, Fender’s chief executive said the company was not suing anyone at that time and preferred practical solutions. Days later, Thomann filed its declaration action. Fender now characterises its infringement filing as a response to proceedings Thomann began, and its statement says the company’s preference was dialogue rather than litigation. Read in sequence, both positions can be accurate. Fender did not bring the first court action between the parties, and it has now filed an infringement action of its own. Thomann, for its part, framed its filing as standing in for manufacturers and dealers without the resources to defend themselves, and has urged Fender to withdraw the cease and desist campaign and return to a cooperative relationship. Readers can weigh the framings. The filings are what now matter.
Why this changes the dispute
Every stage of this story until now has rested on a claim considered only on an uncontested record. The Düsseldorf default judgment of 22 December 2025 was entered against a seller who never appeared. The cease and desist campaign was built on that record, and the central question our reference article has tracked from the start is how the copyright claim fares against an opponent who contests it. That question now has a vehicle. An infringement action and a declaration of non-infringement concerning the same claimed shape are now before the court, creating the first opportunity for both sides to present evidence and argument on a contested record.
Any substantive outcome will matter far beyond the two parties. A ruling that the Stratocaster shape is protected and that the challenged Harley Benton designs infringe would strengthen Fender’s position across the European market. A ruling that the shape does not clear the copyright threshold would undercut the foundation of the letter campaign. A narrower ruling that particular Harley Benton designs do not infringe could weaken Fender’s wider position, though its effect on other recipients would depend on the court’s reasoning and the designs concerned. If the proceedings reach a judgment on the merits, the core copyright questions would, for the first time, be considered on a contested record rather than through a default judgment.
What is and is not known
Confirmed, per Reuters and the parties’ statements, Fender has filed an infringement action against Thomann in Düsseldorf, Thomann’s June action has been identified as a Declaration of Non-Infringement, and the market figures above come from Fender’s filing as reported. No case numbers have been made public, and it is not known which Harley Benton models are at issue, what specific relief Fender seeks beyond the infringement allegation, whether the two actions will be joined, when any hearing might take place, or how long a contested proceeding of this kind will take. Neither pleading has been made publicly available in the sources we have reviewed, so accounts of the filings currently rest on the parties’ statements and press reporting. Much of the procedure will unfold through written submissions, so public developments may continue to arrive intermittently.
Where it goes next
Further responses, any consolidation of the actions, and other procedural steps are likely to unfold over months, although no public timetable or hearing date is currently available. Settlement remains possible at any point, and both companies’ statements leave room for it, Fender’s by stressing dialogue, Thomann’s by urging a return to cooperation. If the case runs to judgment on the merits, it could produce the first publicly identified contested ruling in this campaign on whether the Stratocaster body shape is Fender’s protected work. We will keep our reference article updated at each step.
Disclosure: Vintage & Rare operates an online marketplace for vintage, boutique, and rare instruments, including sales into Europe. Vintage & Rare has not been contacted in connection with this campaign.
Sources and further reading
News reporting: Reuters’ report of 16 July 2026 on Fender’s filing against Thomann.
Company statements: Fender’s full statement, as published by Guitar World on 17 July 2026, and Thomann’s June 2026 statement on its legal action.
Primary court record, background: Regional Court of Düsseldorf, default judgment of 22 December 2025, case 14c O 64/25.
Vintage & Rare coverage:
Fender, Thomann, and the Stratocaster shape dispute: the full timeline and legal questions (our reference article, updated as the case develops)
Fender’s body shape campaign reaches Yamaha, the largest recipient yet
Fender’s letter to an Australian vintage dealer is about listing language, not selling used Fenders (the separate trademark matter)
Thomann takes legal action against Fender over the Stratocaster body shape
When a shape becomes a battleground: Fender, the S-style, and what it means for the builders we love