6 ms·
> According to Fender, the outcome of the case – launched against a Chinese manufacturer – gave the firm the legal right to “protect its designs in global comme
by cassianoleal 5mo ago
> According to Fender, the outcome of the case – launched against a Chinese manufacturer – gave the firm the legal right to “protect its designs in global commerce”.
So they used China scare as a trojan horse to sue other US manufacturers? There's some delicious irony in that.
- criddell 5mo agoPlus the Chinese firm didn't even show up to defend themselves, so it was a default judgement.
- jpfromlondon 5mo agoI suspect because the Chinese firm in question was a fabrication of FMIC for exactly this purpose.
- BJones12 5mo agoThere are a lot of real Chinese firms (factories) that make unapproved copies including body shape, headstock shape, logo, and brand name.
- jpfromlondon 5mo agoThere are, making such a conspiracy all the easier to perpetrate.
- toast0 5mo agoThere certainly could be collusion. But it could just as easily be a Chinese music instrument storefront has little reason to show up in court. Worst case, they setup a new name when shipments start getting confiscated. Losing a few cheap guitars at customs and restarting SEO is probably cheaper than foreign lawyers. The storefront in question [1] (assuming there's not a name collision) lists a lot of stuff, more effort than I would put in on a sockpuppet store; it does have a nice name, but it's only been on Aliexpress for two years, so not a lot of brand legacy to throw away if need be. [1] https://www.aliexpress.com/store/1103599226 https://www.aliexpress.com/store/1103599226
- dkuntz2 5mo agosuing US manufacturers who sell in the EU, because they can't sue someone for selling a strat shaped guitar in the US, the shape was declared public domain in the US twenty years ago