Introduction
In a default judgment dated December 22, 2025, the District Court in Düsseldorf ruled that the body of the Fender Stratocaster guitar qualifies as a copyright-protected work. Fender is now actively relying on this judgment in cease and desist letters to guitar manufacturers throughout Europe, demanding the destruction of stocks and threatening hefty fines. At the same time, the question arises as to how solid this decision actually is and to what extent it can truly hold a monopoly on the shape of the Stratocaster.
The Facts and the Judgment
A Chinese company sold electric guitars via AliExpress with a body virtually identical to that of the Stratocaster. Fender subsequently initiated proceedings in Germany. The defendant failed to appear, after which the court issued a default judgment. The German court classifies the Stratocaster body as a copyright-protected work. In doing so, the court identifies a number of elements as an expression of Leo Fender’s free creative choices, such as the absence of sharp edges, the soft, flowing lines which, according to the court, are reminiscent of a female upper body, with hips, a waist, and arms, and the asymmetrical S-shapes and extended upper horn, which create the impression that the guitar is reaching towards something in the distance.
According to the court, the body thus not only has an asymmetrical shape but also creates the impression of a dancer leaning slightly to one side. This impression of a body in a stretching motion is reinforced by the specific three-dimensional design.
Subsequently, the court rules that such a futuristic, elegant, and timeless design of a guitar body constituted something fundamentally new at the time of the development and introduction of the Stratocaster. Within the design heritage existing at the time, as set out by the plaintiff, there was nothing comparable to it. Comments on the judgment
The most striking weakness is that this is a default judgment. The decision was rendered without any adversarial debate regarding technical or functional limitations, the existing design heritage for guitars in the 1950s, or Fender’s long-standing tolerance of lookalikes. In assessing originality, the court had to rely on the design heritage presented by Fender, whereas older guitar bodies may exist that cast doubt on the originality of the Stratocaster. It is by no means certain that a contested procedure—possibly involving evidence regarding functional limitations and common design standards—would have led to the same outcome.
In particular, the functional, technically determined character of the Stratocaster body design is a point of discussion that could have led to a different outcome in a contested procedure. Various elements that the court classifies as creative choices turn out in practice to be primarily functional and ergonomic in nature. Musical instrument retailer Thomann explains that “the upper horn provides perfect balance, the cutaways make it easier to play in the higher registers, and the contours of the body increase playing comfort. The shape of the Stratocaster was created to offer musicians the most functional and ergonomic tool.”[1]
Rounded edges and curved contours are therefore less the result of free creative choice and more a logical response to the requirements of comfortably holding and playing an electric guitar, and thus technically or functionally determined.
Fender’s enforcement strategy and the implications
The Stratocaster was designed in 1954, now more than seventy years ago. For decades, Fender has taken little serious action against the countless guitars that approximate the Stratocaster shape. Previous attempts to obtain protection through trademark and patent law have failed. Against this background, the recent change of course in enforcement—relying on a single favorable national default judgment as a springboard for far-reaching cease and desist letters—is striking. Fine claims of EUR 250,000 per infringement, combined with demands for the destruction of stock, are based on a decision with limited persuasive power.
The judgment of the District Court of Düsseldorf may well elevate the Stratocaster body to a copyright-protected work, but it forms a shaky basis for a broad monopolization of the guitar shape. The combination of default judgments, design choices possibly determined by function, and Fender’s long period of inactivity regarding lookalikes means that other courts are immediately obliged to follow this line. Fender’s recent wave of cease and desist letters shows how a single favorable judgment can be used to claim de facto exclusivity; the