One-sentence answer: Fender holds a German default judgment supporting its copyright claim in the Stratocaster body shape, but the ruling was uncontested, and with Thomann’s Declaration of Non-Infringement and Fender’s answering infringement action both now before the Düsseldorf court, the claim is heading toward its first contested test.

The Fender Stratocaster body-shape dispute is a copyright dispute with market-access implications. The question at its centre is whether Fender can use a December 2025 German court ruling, and the copyright claim behind it, to restrict new S-style guitars. The ruling itself is a German judgment, and Fender’s public position extends the claim to products made, marketed, sold, or distributed into the wider European Union. The dispute began with a default judgment in Düsseldorf, escalated through cease and desist letters to builders and retailers in 2026, and entered a new phase when Thomann announced legal action against Fender.

This reference article explains the dispute in one place: what the Düsseldorf court decided, what it did not decide, why the 2009 United States trademark case still matters, how Fender and Thomann frame the issue, which companies have publicly been drawn in, and what remains unresolved.

Vintage & Rare is not a party to the case. This article serves as a reference for dealers, builders, collectors, and serious players on the legal and market implications of the S-style dispute. It is not legal advice.

Status, as of 14 August 2026: Both parties are in court. Thomann filed a Declaration of Non-Infringement in June, and Fender answered on 16 July with a copyright infringement action against Thomann in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf. No hearing date has been made public, no defence has been reported as filed, and no decision has been made on whether the two actions will be joined. Separately, Yamaha, the world’s largest instrument maker, confirmed in July that it received a Fender notice letter in May and is reviewing how to respond, making it the largest confirmed recipient by corporate scale. No further recipients have been publicly confirmed since.

New since July: the first visible product response. On 12 August 2026, LsL Instruments, a confirmed recipient, showed a reshaped Saticoy 24 with the body geometry changed. LsL has not said the redesign was made for legal reasons. Separately, the response letter written for one recipient has been published, and it asks Fender to state which specific design elements it claims are protected.

Separate matter, July 2026: An Australian vintage and used guitar store has publicly confirmed receiving a cease and desist letter concerning Fender’s trademarks. That matter is reported to concern the use of Fender model names in listings for non-Fender instruments. It is a trademark matter and a separate legal track from the body shape copyright claim covered on this page. Our full report is here.

The short version

Fender obtained a default judgment from the Regional Court of Düsseldorf on 22 December 2025, case 14c O 64/25, against a China-based seller that offered near-identical Stratocaster-style copies for sale in Germany via AliExpress.

In that default judgment, entered on Fender’s pleaded facts after the defendant failed to appear, the Düsseldorf court treated the Stratocaster body shape as a copyright-protected work of applied art under German law applying European principles. Because the claim was not tested against a defence, it was decided on an uncontested record.

According to company statements and trade reporting, Fender then relied on the ruling as the basis for cease and desist letters to builders, distributors, and retailers of S-style guitars.

Fender says the campaign is aimed at close copies and at products made, marketed, or sold in the European Union, not at vintage Fender instruments, collectors, artists, or all double-cutaway guitars.

Publicly confirmed or reported affected names include Harley Benton, LsL Instruments, PRS, and Yamaha, which confirmed in July that it received a notice letter in May.

Thomann filed a Declaration of Non-Infringement against Fender in June, asking the court to declare that the S-style body shape does not infringe, and on 16 July Fender answered with a copyright infringement action against Thomann in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf. Both sides of the question are now before a court.

In August, the dispute produced its first visible product answer. LsL Instruments showed a reshaped S-style with changed body geometry, without saying the change was made for legal reasons. A commercial response is not a legal answer, but it is the first indication of what compliance might look like in practice.

The central legal question is not whether the Stratocaster is famous or historically important. The question is whether the specific body shape qualifies as protected creative expression under German and EU copyright law, or whether its relevant features are too functional, too conventional, or too broadly adopted as general S-style design language. In the United States trademark context, a closely related question has been argued on the basis of genericness, which is a different test from the German copyright originality test.

Key facts at a glance

Fender Stratocaster body-shape dispute, status as of 14 August 2026.

Fact	Status	Source type
Düsseldorf default judgment of 22 December 2025, case 14c O 64/25, treating the Stratocaster body as a protected work of applied art	Confirmed	Primary court record, legal commentary
The judgment was a default judgment; the defendant did not appear and Fender’s pleaded facts were deemed admitted	Confirmed	Primary court record, legal commentary
The judgment carries a full statement of facts and roughly forty paragraphs of reasoning, applying the CJEU’s December 2025 Mio and konektra decisions	Confirmed	Primary court record
The defendant was a China-based AliExpress seller of near-identical copies offered into Germany	Confirmed; named in the judgment as Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co., Ltd in the version published with an English translation, anonymised in the court-database version	Primary court record, company statement
The €250,000 figure is a per-breach coercive-fine ceiling on the named defendant, not damages and not a fine on the wider industry	Confirmed	Primary court record, trade reporting
Fender’s cease and desist campaign is publicly tied to the Düsseldorf ruling	Company-stated and reported	Company statements, trade reporting
Harley Benton, PRS, and LsL Instruments are publicly affected	Publicly confirmed, company-stated, or reported, depending on the name	Company statements, trade reporting
Thomann has announced legal action against Fender	Confirmed	Company statement
Thomann’s public framing: court resolution of the copyright question rather than a damages claim	Confirmed as a Declaration of Non-Infringement	Company statement, news reporting
The exact court, filing, and docket for Thomann’s action	Not yet public	None available
Hearing date, defence filing, or consolidation of the two actions	Not yet public as of 14 August 2026	None available
Whether the German copyright claim survives a contested challenge	Unresolved	None available
Yamaha received a Fender notice letter in May 2026, confirmed by Yamaha to Reuters in July; models not specified	Confirmed	Company statement, news reporting
Fender’s filing states it sells about 500,000 Stratocasters a year, around 34,000 in Germany, and cites Thomann’s estimate of roughly 10,000 Fender Stratocasters sold annually	Reported from the filing	Reported from the filing
LsL Instruments showed a reshaped Saticoy 24 on 12 August 2026, the first S-style from a named recipient with visibly changed geometry	Reported; LsL has not stated a legal motive, and reporting says there was no contact with Fender during development	Trade reporting

What is the Fender Stratocaster shape dispute?

The Fender Stratocaster shape dispute concerns whether Fender can enforce copyright in the Stratocaster body shape against new guitars with S-style bodies sold into Germany or the wider European Union.

Fender’s position is that the Stratocaster body is an original creative design, first introduced in 1954, and that close copies exploit a design Fender originated. Fender has relied on the December 2025 Düsseldorf default judgment as support for that position.

The opposing position, advanced by affected builders and now by Thomann, is that the S-style body shape has become a general design language after decades of widespread use. On that view, the double cutaways, body contours, upper horn, and general proportions are functional, conventional, or widely adopted features that should remain available to electric guitar makers.

The dispute matters because the S-style is not a fringe design. It is one of the central body families in the electric-guitar world. A broad enforceable right could affect builders, distributors, dealers, retailers, and the documentation expected for modern S-style instruments. A narrow or rejected claim would leave the S-style category roughly where the market has treated it for decades, as a widely used design language with many legitimate interpretations.

Timeline: how the dispute reached this point

What did the Düsseldorf court actually decide?

The Düsseldorf court decided, in a default judgment, that Fender was entitled to relief against the named defendant based on the pleaded facts before the court.

On the uncontested record, the court treated the Stratocaster body shape as capable of copyright protection as a work of applied art, finding that the specific body form reflected creative choices rather than mere technical necessity, and it granted injunctive relief against the defendant’s distribution of near-identical guitars into Germany. According to legal commentary on the decision, the court applied recent European Court of Justice principles on when a useful object qualifies as a protected work and was, as far as is known, the first German court to apply them to a case of this kind.

The comparison the court drew is more specific than the phrase body shape suggests. In the commentary available, the court found that the copy reproduced the body’s shape, the shape and attachment of the pickguard, and the position of the cable outlet, not only in proportion but also with close-to-exact dimensions, including the flattening at the rear. The absence of the Fender name on the pickguard and the different colour were held to be irrelevant, because copyright protects the design rather than the brand.

The defendant did not appear and did not present arguments. That matters. A default judgment can be enforceable and legally significant, but it is not the same as a claim tested through opposing evidence, expert submissions, and argument from a defendant with a direct commercial interest in resisting the claim. The defendant let the court-set deadline pass without responding, and a German default judgment of this kind can, in principle, still be challenged. Legal commentary has noted that whether the judgment will ultimately stand remains to be seen, and no contested decision replacing it has been identified at the time of writing.

One detail is easy to misread, and it is misread in both directions. The judgment is not a bare order with no reasoning behind it, as some summaries imply. It carries a full statement of facts and roughly forty paragraphs of reasons, holding the body to be a protected work of applied art under section 2(1) no. 4 of the German Copyright Act, working through the 1907 Art Copyright Act as the law in force when the design was created, the 1892 copyright treaty between Germany and the United States, and the Court of Justice of the European Union’s December 2025 decisions in Mio (C-580/23) and konektra (C-795/23). Nor is that reasoning the product of a hard-fought contest, as its detail might suggest. What the judgment lacks is not reasons. It is an opponent. Authorship, the chain of title, and the specific design elements said to found protectability were all taken as admitted, because nobody appeared to dispute them.

The pleaded case has since been challenged in public, though not yet in court. Ronald Bienstock, the attorney who led the successful 2009 opposition, has argued in a response letter for one recipient that the ruling rests on a misrepresentation of the Stratocaster’s history: that Fender told the court the design was Leo Fender’s alone, when Fender’s own materials credit Rex Gallion and Freddy Tavares as well, and that Fender did not put the adverse 2009 United States decision before the German court. The same letter, dated 16 June and published on 17 July, asks Fender to identify which specific design elements it claims are protected. These are arguments made in correspondence, not findings, but they point to the kind of scrutiny the claim has not yet faced. Our report on the definition question is here.

What was the China-based seller offering?

The defendant in the Düsseldorf case was a China-based seller offering near-identical Stratocaster copies for sale in Germany via AliExpress.

This matters for reading the rest of the dispute. The instrument the court examined was a close replica of the Stratocaster, not a visibly distinct S-style guitar from an established builder. A ruling about a near-identical copy does not automatically decide how the same copyright claim applies to a guitar that changes the proportions, pickguard, contours, headstock, electronics, and hardware while using the broad double-cutaway outline. That gap between a near-identical copy and a legitimate interpretation is one of the central unresolved questions in the wider campaign.

Two versions of the judgment are publicly available, and they differ in one respect worth knowing. The North Rhine-Westphalia courts database publishes it with the parties anonymised and the guitar model redacted throughout. A fully named copy, with a complete English translation alongside the German, is hosted by the Institute for Information, Telecommunications and Media Law at the University of Münster. That version names the defendant as Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co., Ltd, and identifies the product as an “IRIN 22 Bünde ST E-Gitarre” sold through the AliExpress storefront SHUFFLE Musical Instruments Store. Readers who want to judge the reasoning for themselves rather than read summaries of it can do so there, in English. It is a copy of a primary document hosted by an academic legal institute, not a government publication.

Why did the case happen in Germany?

The case happened in Germany because the seller offered and delivered the guitars into the German market, which gave a German court a basis to hear the claim under German copyright law.

According to reporting on the case, Fender established that the product was being delivered into Germany, including through a test purchase, and the Düsseldorf court assessed protection under German law. The German forum is part of why the result is, at its core, a German judgment, even though Fender has framed the underlying copyright position as relevant across the European Union.

Does the Düsseldorf ruling apply across the whole European Union?

The Düsseldorf ruling is a German judgment, and its injunction binds the named defendant; it is not, by itself, an EU-wide ban on S-style guitars.

The picture has two layers that are easy to blur. The first is the judgment: a German court, applying German copyright law that is shaped by European copyright harmonisation, enjoined one named seller. The second is Fender’s enforcement position: Fender has framed the result as relevant to products made, marketed, sold, or distributed into the European Union, and its letters have reached makers and retailers beyond Germany, including United States builders whose products are sold in Europe. Whether and how far that broader position holds, against an opponent who contests it, is part of the unresolved enforcement question rather than something the Düsseldorf default judgment has settled.

What did the Düsseldorf court not decide?

The Düsseldorf court did not decide that every S-style guitar infringes Fender’s copyright.

The Düsseldorf court did not decide a contested claim against PRS, LsL, Harley Benton, Thomann, or the wider boutique-guitar market.

The Düsseldorf court did not award Fender damages against the guitar industry.

The Düsseldorf court did not create a United States trademark right in the Stratocaster body shape.

The Düsseldorf court did not resolve whether a visibly distinct S-style guitar sold under another maker’s name crosses the line from legitimate design language into infringement.

Those are the questions that a contested case would have to test.

Copyright, trademark, and function: why the legal framework matters

The dispute is easily muddled because three distinct legal ideas get folded into one argument.

Trademark protects signs that identify a commercial source. Fender tried this route in the United States, applying to register the body outlines of the Stratocaster, Telecaster, and Precision Bass as trademarks. The applications failed in 2009, partly on genericness, the test of whether a shape has become a general product category rather than a badge of origin.

Copyright protects original creative expression. In Germany and the European Union it can extend to useful objects, including works of applied art, where the particular form reflects free and creative choices rather than technical necessity. The question under copyright is therefore originality and the scope of protection, not genericness. These are different tests, and a result in one does not decide the other.

Functionality is the limit. A feature dictated solely by technical function is not protected as creative expression, and a useful object is not excluded from copyright simply because it is useful. What matters is whether the specific form leaves room for creative choice beyond pure function. German courts do not extend protection automatically: in a separate case the Federal Court of Justice declined copyright protection for the Birkenstock sandal, finding that the design did not reach the level of individual creative achievement required for a work of applied art. That contrast sits at the centre of the applied-art question, and it is why the Stratocaster claim is genuinely contestable rather than settled.

This is where the form-follows-function argument bites. On that view the Stratocaster body succeeded because it worked: the double cutaways improve access to the upper frets, the contours make the guitar more comfortable to hold, and the upper horn balances it on a strap. Features that became part of the electric guitar’s functional vocabulary, the argument runs, should not be locked up by one maker through copyright.

Fender’s answer is that function does not account for every curve, proportion, and asymmetry in the shape, that those choices are creative rather than purely engineered, and that close copies take the choices rather than only the principles. Where that line falls, between functional vocabulary and protected expression, is what a contested case would have to decide, and what the Düsseldorf default judgment did not.

Why the 2009 United States trademark case still matters

The 2009 United States trademark case is important because it is the most significant earlier public record of Fender’s attempt to protect its body shapes.

The case does not control German copyright law. It was decided under United States trademark principles, and it concerned whether the shapes functioned as source identifiers. The present German and EU dispute is framed as a copyright dispute over a work of applied art.

Even so, the 2009 case matters for three reasons. First, it contains a developed record of third-party use, and the more widely S-style shapes have been used by many makers over decades, the harder it becomes to treat the shape as Fender’s private design language alone. Second, it shows that Fender has already faced serious legal resistance when trying to protect body outlines as exclusive rights. Third, some of the same themes return, including market recognition, functional design, delay, and the difference between a counterfeit and a legitimate variation.

The 2009 case is not the answer to the German copyright question, but it is part of the background any serious reader should understand.

Why the Gibson ES body-shape case is relevant, but not identical

The Gibson ES body-shape dispute is relevant because it shows that guitar body-shape claims can fail when courts or juries examine how a shape functions in the market.

In the United States, a jury found Gibson’s ES body-shape trademark generic and therefore subject to cancellation, and in February 2026 a federal court denied Gibson’s request for a new trial or to amend that finding. That was a trademark case, not a German copyright case.

The comparison is useful but limited. It does not prove Fender will lose in Germany. It does show that a widely recognised guitar outline can become too commonly used, or too category-like, to operate as an exclusive source-identifying shape under trademark law. For the Fender dispute, the broader lesson is simple: a claim asserted against silence is not the same as a claim defended against argument.

Who has publicly been drawn into the Fender S-style dispute?

The list of affected companies should be read carefully, as public confirmation varies widely from one name to the next.

Companies publicly drawn into the dispute, status as of 14 August 2026.

Company	Status	Basis
Harley Benton	Affected, per Thomann’s statement	Thomann’s own brand; central to Thomann’s legal action
PRS	Confirmed recipient	PRS publicly confirmed a letter concerning the Silver Sky and said it disagrees
LsL Instruments	Confirmed recipient	Publicly confirmed; response reported as involving Ronald Bienstock. Showed a reshaped Saticoy 24 in August 2026
Yamaha	Confirmed recipient	Confirmed to Reuters in July that it received a notice letter in May; models not specified
Tyler, Tom Anderson, Suhr, Maybach, Pensa, FGN	Named in reporting as potentially at risk	Identified in trade reporting, including names cited by Thomann, not confirmed as recipients
Other names in community discussion	Unverified	Circulated in forums and commentary without confirmation

For an evergreen reference, the distinction in that table is the point. Confirmed recipients have said so themselves. Names reported as potentially at risk are not the same as confirmed recipients, and names circulating only in community discussion should be treated as unverified until a primary statement or solid report supports them. A figure of seventeen affected brands has circulated in some coverage; we have not seen the underlying list and do not repeat it.

Fender’s position

Fender’s position is that it is entitled to protect enforceable rights in the Stratocaster body shape where the law recognises those rights.

Fender says the campaign is not aimed at vintage Fender instruments, players, collectors, artists, or all double-cutaway guitars. Fender’s public framing is that it is targeting a small number of close copies and products made, marketed, or sold in the European Union.

Edward “Bud” Cole’s June remarks softened the public picture around the letters. Cole said Fender was not suing anyone at that time and preferred practical solutions, such as design changes and transition periods, and that Fender was not seeking the destruction of inventory or immediate financial demands.

The strongest fair version of Fender’s argument is this: the Stratocaster body shape was an original design contribution, Fender faces a real problem with close copies and counterfeits, and the company should be able to protect its design against products that come too close. The unresolved question is how far that right can reach without capturing legitimate S-style design language developed by the wider guitar industry over seven decades.

Thomann’s position

Thomann’s position is that Fender’s cease and desist campaign should not rest on an uncontested default judgment.

Thomann says its own Harley Benton brand is affected and that smaller makers may not have the financial or legal resources to defend themselves individually. Hans Thomann has framed the issue as one of responsibility to the wider trade.

The strongest fair version of Thomann’s argument is this: the S-style shape has become a broadly used instrument form, many of its features are functional, and a claim this significant should be tested in a contested court proceeding rather than enforced through letters sent to companies with unequal resources. Thomann’s action matters because it may move the dispute from enforcement by letter to adjudication on a developed record.

What is confirmed, and what is not yet confirmed?

The confirmed facts are set out in the table near the top of this article: the Düsseldorf default judgment and its date and case number, the nature of the defendant, the presence and content of the court’s reasoning, the meaning of the €250,000 figure, Fender’s reliance on the ruling in its letters, the publicly affected names, Cole’s June remarks, Thomann’s Declaration of Non-Infringement, and Fender’s answering infringement action.

The unresolved or not-yet-public points will decide where this goes. The exact court file, the docket, and the formal relief sought in Thomann’s action are not yet public. No hearing date has been announced, no defence has been reported as filed, and whether the two actions will be joined is undecided. Beyond that, it is unresolved whether Fender will amend its approach, negotiate, settle, or pursue further enforcement, and, most importantly, how a court will treat Fender’s copyright claim when a fully resourced opponent challenges it.

Are vintage Fender guitars affected?

The resale of genuine vintage Fender instruments is not the target of this dispute.

The dispute concerns new-build S-style guitars and the boundary between close copying and legitimate design language. Collectors of original vintage Fender instruments should not read the dispute as a challenge to the authenticity, legality, or resale of genuine Fender guitars.

That said, the broader lesson for the market is that documentation matters. For modern S-style instruments, especially boutique builds and dealer stock, clear provenance, maker identification, production date, model information, and sales documentation may become more important if legal uncertainty continues.

What could happen next?

The dispute could develop in several directions, and the honest position is that none of them is settled.

A court could hear Thomann’s claim and rule on the scope or validity of Fender’s asserted copyright position. Fender and affected parties could settle privately, possibly through design changes, transition periods, or carve-outs for certain models. Fender could narrow its enforcement to near-identical copies and step back from established S-style makers. Other affected companies could bring their own challenges or join the public argument. A contested decision could be appealed, further extending the uncertainty. A ruling in Thomann’s favour could weaken Fender’s campaign and make future cease and desist letters harder to sustain, while a ruling in Fender’s favour could strengthen Fender’s position in Germany and influence enforcement discussions across the European Union.

A fourth path is already visible and does not require a court at all. Builders can redesign. LsL’s reshaped Saticoy 24 is the first S-style from a named recipient to reach the public with the geometry visibly altered, and whatever prompted it, it demonstrates that the commercial question and the legal question can move independently. If enough builders adjust their designs before the copyright claim is ever tested, the dispute could be settled in the market without being resolved in law, leaving the underlying question about the S-style open for whoever asks it next.

At this stage, documentation is more useful than prediction. The important question is not which side the wider guitar community expects to win, but what a court does when the claim is tested with both sides present.

What should builders, dealers, and collectors watch?

Builders should watch for the precise wording of any court filing, the exact relief sought, and whether Fender’s claim is tested against arguments about function, genericness, acquiescence, third-party use, and design variation.

Dealers should watch for how distributors and retailers respond, especially where stock is sold into Germany or the European Union.

Collectors should distinguish between genuine vintage Fender instruments and modern S-style guitars from other makers. The former are not the legal target. The latter may be affected by uncertainty around marketability, documentation, and dealer risk.

Everyone should watch the source quality. In this dispute, there is a real difference between a court record, a company statement, a trade-media report, and social-media repetition.

Common misunderstandings

Can Fender stop S-style guitars in Europe?

Not automatically. Fender holds a German default judgment against one named seller, and it has framed its enforcement position around products made, marketed, sold, or distributed into the European Union. Whether that claim can stop an established maker of S-style guitars would depend on how a court treats Fender’s copyright claim once it is contested, which has not yet happened.

Was the Fender Stratocaster ruling a default judgment?

Yes. The Düsseldorf ruling was a default judgment against one named defendant. Fender’s pleaded facts were deemed admitted because the defendant did not appear, so the ruling was not tested against a developed defence.

Does that mean the judgment has no reasoning?

No, and this is the most common error in both directions. The judgment carries a full statement of facts and roughly forty paragraphs of reasons, applying German copyright law and the Court of Justice of the European Union’s December 2025 decisions in Mio and konektra. What it lacks is not reasons but an opponent: authorship, the chain of title, and the design elements said to found protectability were all taken as admitted because nobody appeared to contest them. A reader who wants to judge the reasoning can read the judgment in English, in the translated copy hosted by the University of Münster.

Did Fender win copyright in the Stratocaster body shape across the whole world?

No. Fender obtained a German default judgment against a specific defendant. The ruling may support Fender’s enforcement position in Germany and the European Union, but it is not a worldwide ruling, and it was not a contested decision against the entire S-style market.

Did the Düsseldorf court fine S-style makers €250,000?

No. The €250,000 figure is the statutory ceiling for a coercive fine, per breach of the injunction, against the named defendant, with imprisonment of up to six months as the fallback if the fine cannot be enforced. It is not a damages award and not a general fine against all S-style makers.

Is every S-style guitar now illegal in Europe?

No. That has not been decided. Fender’s claim concerns the Stratocaster body shape and alleged close copies, and whether a particular S-style guitar infringes would depend on the legal scope of protection and the facts of that instrument.

Can a builder just change the shape and be safe?

Nobody knows, and that is the practical problem. Fender’s public position refers to design changes, and at least one recipient has now brought a reshaped S-style to market. But no court has ruled on how much change is enough, Fender has not published a specification of the elements it claims are protected, and the response letter written for one recipient asks Fender to do exactly that. Until either the court or Fender answers, a redesign is a commercial judgement made without a legal standard to measure it against.

Is Thomann suing Fender for damages?

No. Thomann’s action has been identified as a Declaration of Non-Infringement, a request that the court declare the S-style body shape does not infringe Fender’s claimed copyright, rather than a damages claim. This was confirmed in Reuters’ reporting and Fender’s statement of July 2026.

Has Fender responded to Thomann’s lawsuit?

Yes. On 16 July 2026, Fender filed a copyright infringement action against Thomann in the Regional Court of Düsseldorf, describing it as the expected next step in the legal process after Thomann’s Declaration of Non-Infringement. Our full report is here.

Is this the same as Fender’s 2009 United States trademark loss?

No. The 2009 case was a United States trademark matter, and the current dispute is framed around German and EU copyright law. The 2009 case is relevant background, but it does not decide the present legal question.

Is Fender’s letter to an Australian vintage guitar store part of this dispute?

No. That letter is reported to concern Fender’s registered word marks, Stratocaster and Telecaster, being used in listings for non-Fender instruments. It is a trademark matter, not the German copyright claim in the body shape covered on this page. The two share a client and a moment in time, but the legal theories, the markets affected, and the defences available are different. Our full report is here.

Is the PRS Silver Sky a counterfeit?

No public reporting establishes that the PRS Silver Sky is a counterfeit. PRS sells the Silver Sky under its own name and has said it disagrees with Fender’s assessment. The legal issue is whether a Stratocaster-inspired model crosses the line into infringement under Fender’s asserted copyright claim.

Vintage & Rare’s position

Vintage & Rare is not a party to the Fender and Thomann dispute, and we are not predicting how a court will rule.

Our view is narrow. A legal claim this significant should be tested openly, on evidence, with both sides heard. A cease and desist letter is one side asserting a claim. A contested case is that claim being examined.

For a market built on makers, dealers, and collectors, that distinction matters. The S-style has become part of the shared language of electric-guitar design. Whether Fender can draw a legal boundary around that shared language is a question that should be tested on the basis of a developed record, with both sides heard.

Update log

Last updated: 14 August 2026.

14 August 2026: Read the judgment itself rather than summaries of it, and corrected the record in both directions: the judgment is not reason-free, carrying a full statement of facts and roughly forty paragraphs applying section 2(1) no. 4 UrhG and the CJEU’s Mio and konektra decisions, but what it lacks is an opponent rather than reasons. Added the fully named copy of the judgment, with an English translation, hosted by the Institute for Information, Telecommunications and Media Law at the University of Münster, which names the defendant and identifies the listing. Added LsL Instruments’ reshaped Saticoy 24 of 12 August, the first S-style from a named recipient with visibly changed geometry, with the caveat that LsL has not stated a legal motive. Added the 16 June response letter’s demand that Fender identify the protected elements, published 17 July. Confirmed that no hearing date has been announced, no defence has been reported filed, and no consolidation decision has been made. Added Yamaha to the companies table as a confirmed recipient. Added a note that the circulating “seventeen brands” figure is unverified. New FAQ entries on the reasoning question and on whether redesign is a safe harbour.

18 July 2026: Both parties are now in court. Added Fender’s 16 July infringement filing against Thomann and the confirmation that Thomann’s June action is a Declaration of Non-Infringement. Added Yamaha as a confirmed notice recipient (received May, confirmed to Reuters in July). Added the market figures from Fender’s filing as reported, and Fender’s statement that its engagement extended to online marketplaces across Europe. Published and linked our reports on the Yamaha letter and the Fender filing. Timeline, key facts, companies table, and FAQ updated accordingly.

14 July 2026: Added a clarifying note and FAQ entry on the separate Australian trademark matter involving a used and vintage guitar store. No new developments on the copyright track, the Thomann filing details remain non-public and Fender has not responded to the lawsuit.

Current status, 14 August 2026: Thomann’s Declaration of Non-Infringement and Fender’s answering infringement action are both before the Regional Court of Düsseldorf. Case numbers, hearing dates, the Harley Benton models at issue, and any consolidation decision are not yet public.

This article will be updated when any of the following becomes available: a court filing or docket number for Thomann’s action, the formal relief sought, a Fender response, a Thomann response, a settlement, a new or contested ruling, an appeal, a published copy of a cease and desist letter, or confirmation of additional affected recipients.

Sources and further reading

Primary court record: Regional Court of Düsseldorf, default judgment of 22 December 2025, case 14c O 64/25, ECLI:DE:LGD:2025:1222.14C.O64.25.00, published in anonymised form by the North Rhine-Westphalia courts database. A fully named copy including a complete English translation is hosted by the Institute for Information, Telecommunications and Media Law (ITM), University of Münster.

Primary record, United States: Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd. et al. v. Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, 94 USPQ2d 1549 (TTAB 2009), Opposition Nos. 91161403 et al.

Legal commentary: Bardehle Pagenberg, KPW, and other German IP-law commentary on the Düsseldorf Stratocaster decision and the work-of-applied-art question, including analysis of the first German application of the CJEU’s Mio and konektra principles.

Company statement, Fender side: Bird & Bird’s announcement of the original ruling on behalf of Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, Fender newsroom material on the German ruling, and Fender’s full statement on its infringement filing against Thomann, as published by Guitar World on 17 July 2026.

Company statement, Thomann: Thomann’s public statement on its legal action against Fender.

Trade and news reporting: Reuters’ reports of 14 July 2026 (the Yamaha notice letter, including Yamaha’s confirmation) and 16 July 2026 (Fender’s filing against Thomann); MusicRadar on Edward “Bud” Cole’s June remarks; Guitar World and Guitar.com on the cease and desist letters, PRS, LsL, and Ronald Bienstock; Guitar World of 12 August 2026 on LsL Instruments’ reshaped Saticoy 24; Guitar.com on the Gibson ES body-shape trademark genericness issue in the United States.

Vintage & Rare coverage:

• When a shape becomes a battleground: Fender, the S-style, and the builders caught in between
• Thomann takes legal action against Fender over the Stratocaster body shape
• Fender’s letter to an Australian vintage dealer is about listing language, not selling used Fenders (the separate trademark matter)
• Fender’s body shape campaign reaches Yamaha, the largest recipient yet
• Fender sues Thomann over Stratocaster body shape copyright
• What is a Stratocaster? Fender has now been asked to define it