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.
For two months, the public dispute has centred on manufacturers and sellers of new S-style guitars. Cease and desist letters over the Stratocaster body shape reached builders in May, Thomann announced legal action in June, and the question hanging over the industry has been who can make and sell a new S-style guitar. This week, a different kind of letter surfaced, aimed at a different part of the trade. An Australian used and vintage guitar store has publicly confirmed receiving a cease and desist from Fender’s legal representatives, and the publicly reported target this time is a dealer in second-hand instruments rather than a manufacturer. The complaint centres not on a guitar’s shape but on the words used to sell it, though the instruments’ appearance still figures in Fender’s allegation of buyer confusion.
What has happened
Cool Old Guitars, a used and vintage store with shops in Sydney and Brisbane, revealed on Instagram that it had received a cease and desist letter from Fender’s legal representatives. Excerpts of the letter circulated via the YouTube channel KDH. The story was reported by Guitar Bomb on 9 July and by Guitar World on 13 July.
The store’s stock leans heavily on the brands collectors call the lawsuit era, names including Fernandes, Greco, Tokai, and ESP, each associated with Fender-influenced Japanese instruments during parts of the 1970s and 1980s. The letter takes issue with how those instruments are described. In its site categories and product listings, the store used Fender’s model names for non-Fender instruments, phrasing such as “Fernandes Stratocaster”. Fender’s position, as set out in the letter, is that this use of its registered word marks, combined with genuine Fender instruments being presented alongside close copies, is likely to “mislead, deceive or otherwise confuse Australian guitarists” about what they are buying. The letter also states that the store is not an authorised Fender distributor, and it alleges that the naming practice was deliberate and intended to leverage Fender’s reputation. Those characterisations are Fender’s allegations in the letter, not established findings.
Guitar World said it had approached the store for comment and that Fender declined to comment to the publication. The store has since responded publicly, saying it has made changes. Its listing terminology has also been revised, replacing Fender model names with descriptive labels including the tongue-in-cheek “Twang-Style”. Guitar Bomb, reporting on 9 July, quoted the store’s own policy notice. “If it’s a Fender Telecaster, we will call it a Telecaster. If it’s a misleading and deceitful knockoff, we will call it a Twang-Style guitar.”
This is a different legal track, and the difference matters
It would be easy to read the Australian letter as the next round of the shape dispute. It is not, and keeping the two apart is the single most useful thing a reader can do, because the muddled version is already spreading.
The dispute we have covered since May is a copyright matter. It relies on a default judgment issued by the Regional Court of Düsseldorf on 22 December 2025 against a Chinese seller, Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co., in which the court treated the Stratocaster body design as a protected work of applied art. Fender says the decision supports claims against close copies offered into Germany and elsewhere in the European Union, a broader proposition that is contested and that Thomann says it is challenging through legal action.
The Australian letter is a trademark matter. Fender relies here on its registered Stratocaster and Telecaster word marks, and the 2009 United States decision concerning the body outlines did not determine the validity of those separate word marks. The protected subject matter in this letter is not the guitar’s body outline but rather Fender’s registered names, though the instruments’ appearance still forms part of Fender’s allegation about their overall presentation. At its core, the objection concerns the use of Fender’s protected names on instruments that Fender did not make. Nothing in the published excerpts suggests that Fender’s complaint is directed at the mere resale of a 1979 Greco. Its stated objection concerns the names and presentation used in offering it.
The two tracks share a rights holder and have emerged during the same period, and Fender is currently pursuing distinct copyright and trademark enforcement measures in different markets. But the legal theories, the markets affected, and the defences available are different, and coverage that blends them into one story will misinform on both.
There is a tension in Fender’s public messaging here, rhetorical rather than legal. In June, chief executive Edward “Bud” Cole said that describing the design simply as S-style or S-shape attempts to “diminish and whitewash” the contribution of Leo Fender and his team. The company wants the trade to credit the Stratocaster as Fender’s creation, while its trademark position limits how third parties may use that name in product naming and commercial presentation. Both positions can be held at once, the name as history and the name as property, but dealers are the ones left navigating the space between them.
Why this one lands close to the vintage trade
The publicly reported letters in the recent body-shape campaign have centred on manufacturers and sellers of new guitars. This is the first report we have identified in that period involving a specialist used and vintage store, and the practice at issue is widespread in second-hand guitar listings and informal trade vocabulary.
Lawsuit-era Japanese guitars are commonly described by reference to the instruments they copy, reflecting both buyers’ search habits and long-standing trade vocabulary. Phrases of the “Tokai Strat” and “Greco Les Paul” kind appear across dealer sites, auction listings, and marketplace categories. The Australian letter signals that Fender considers at least some versions of that habit an infringement, and dealers using comparable titles, categories, or presentation may want to review those practices in light of the letter, with advice appropriate to their own jurisdiction.
There is a useful distinction visible in the published excerpts, though it is a compass rather than a legal test. Describing an instrument clearly as a Fernandes, and referring separately to the Fender design it copies, may be more readily understood as a descriptive comparison. “Fernandes Stratocaster” as a product title may be read as using Stratocaster as the name of a Fernandes product, which is the kind of source-identification issue that Fender’s allegation raises. Australian trademark law asks, among other things, whether a name is being used as a badge of origin for the goods, and it recognises defences for certain good-faith descriptive uses relating to the kind, quality, intended purpose, or other characteristics of goods. Where a listing falls may depend on the complete presentation, the title, the categories, the imagery, and the surrounding stock, rather than on any single phrase.
None of this is legal advice, and any dealer who receives such a letter should take proper advice on the actual document in their own jurisdiction. But as a conservative editorial practice, a listing that leads with the actual maker, makes any design comparison clearly descriptive, and avoids presenting another company’s protected model name as the instrument’s own product name gives a buyer an accurate picture and reduces the risk of suggesting an incorrect source or commercial affiliation.
What this does not change
One version circulating in social groups has Fender going after the store for selling used Fender guitars. The published excerpts describe the opposite concern. The letter does not challenge the ordinary resale of authentic vintage Fender instruments under their genuine model names, provided the listing is accurate and does not misrepresent the instrument or the seller’s relationship with Fender. Collectors and dealers of genuine vintage Fenders are not the subject of the complaint described in the excerpts.
Nor do the published excerpts allege that the age or second-hand status of the Japanese instruments makes their possession or resale unlawful. The stated issue is how they are identified and presented at the point of sale.
Where it goes next
As of 15 July 2026, Cool Old Guitars has publicly indicated that it made changes to its listing terminology following the letter, but it has not published a detailed legal response, and Fender declined to comment to Guitar World. Whether the letter is isolated or followed by similar demands to other used and vintage dealers remains unknown, and no equivalent letter to another dealer has been publicly identified in the sources we have reviewed. We will keep our reference article updated as the position develops, and if the trademark track produces further letters or a filed case, we will cover it as we have covered the copyright track, with dates, documents, and both sides presented fairly.
Disclosure: Vintage & Rare operates a marketplace for vintage and used instruments, so questions about listing language also concern our own trade. That interest is one reason we follow this development closely, and it is why this piece confines itself to what the published material shows.
Sources and further reading
News reporting: Guitar Bomb’s report of 9 July 2026 and Guitar World’s report of 13 July 2026 on the Cool Old Guitars letter, and the letter excerpts circulated via KDH. Edward “Bud” Cole’s June remarks are drawn from trade reporting of his comments at a June dealer event.
Store statements: Cool Old Guitars’ Instagram statements and website, including its subsequent public statement on its revised listing terminology. This report is based on the publicly available excerpts and public statements.
Legal framework: Australia’s Trade Marks Act 1995, in particular the provisions on general infringement and good-faith descriptive use in sections 120 and 122.
Primary court record, background (copyright track): Regional Court of Düsseldorf, default judgment of 22 December 2025, case 14c O 64/25, against Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co.
Vintage & Rare coverage:
Fender, Thomann, and the Stratocaster shape dispute: the full timeline and legal questions (our reference article on the separate copyright track, updated as the case develops)
Fender sues Thomann over Stratocaster body shape copyright (the latest development on the copyright track)
Fender’s body shape campaign reaches Yamaha, the largest recipient yet
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