Fender Gets a Response: Builders' Lawyers Fire Back at Cease & Desist Demands

[00:00:00]What's up, guys? What's going on?

[00:00:02]Hopefully you guys can hear me.

[00:00:05]Uh hopefully tech situation is under control here. It's been a little bit dicey the last few days. If you guys have joined any of our any of our live shows, you know, Jay Pitman, you know, it's been a rocky ride, but uh it's all good, man. We're here now. Hopefully, y'all can hear me. Uh give me like give me some kind of acknowledgement.

[00:00:28]Uh Mr. Pitman, if you will, uh, just to make sure make sure we're we're broadcasting loud and clear to all you fine people out there on a Friday night of, uh, of all things here. Let's see.

[00:00:45]Yeah, I see my I see my ugly mug right there on Instagram. Looks like we're good.

[00:00:51]Um, sure about Facebook.

[00:00:56]Hey, I sound handsome. Fantastic.

[00:01:00]Fantastic. All right, man. That's awesome. I love to hear it. Well, happy Friday night.

[00:01:06]Um, hope everybody's doing well. I uh just got home from a a nice date with my wife, so that was nice. Had a little time together. Good. Sweet. We're going to figure out this this comment situation, too. I was telling Ruben, like I hate the fact that every time I want to look at comments, I got to go like this.

[00:01:27]that's just that's not very squared away. So, we're we're working on something trying to figure out a better solution there.

[00:01:34]So, yeah, I got back from a date with my wife uh and lo and behold, I get I get an email and it has to uh has to do with this Fender situation. Of course, that's like I feel like I'm just eathing and sleeping this stuff, but um we'll give it a couple minutes here before we really jump into the meat of it. But basically what I got in front of me right here, I'm looking at it right here, is a brand new letter dated, it's actually I mean it's not brand new, it's dated June the 16th, but I just got it.

[00:02:10]Uh, and it's a it's a response letter from Fox Rothschild, uh, i.e. Ron Beantock, the goat, Ron Ron. Uh he they they responded to Fender's most recent letter. So um I'll set everything up for you guys. Uh basically just kind of let you know what's going on. First off, I got to look at some comments here.

[00:02:39]I'm not sneaking a bite to sandwich, man. I had a nice dinner. I'm full, man.

[00:02:43]I don't want anything to eat. I am I'm full. So no sandwiches here. This is sandwich free zone. Uh but but to set set the stage so we had obviously the first Fender CN D was sent. The cease and desist was sent to we don't know how many but it was a lot of builders making S style guitars. So that happened on May the 11th and uh we covered that and then we had the response letter. So the first response letter from the builders back to Fender that happened uh May the 25th I believe. So it's like two week they gave Fender gave these gave these people two weeks to respond and they basically took the full two weeks sent uh sent the response. Um two weeks later boom uh response I lied. All right, Jerry boys.

[00:03:38]Yeah, I'm not lying about nothing, bro.

[00:03:41]Um so yeah, so basically that was the first letter. Um Fender responded to their response and we read we've read all these letters on on the air. We read the first uh we've read the cease and desist. We read the first response letter from Fox Rothschild back to uh back to Bird and Bird. And then we also read Bird and Bird's response back to Fox Rothschild. Well, not Fox Roth style. Let me let me back up. That was actually that was a response to uh to all these builders. Apparently, it was a it was a to whom it may concern letter. So, it wasn't addressed any one specific builder. And that's going to be important as we read this response letter from Fox Rothschild back to Bird and Bird. That that detail is really important. So Fender sent through their lawyers Burd and Bird a to whom it may concern just kind of blasting it out to everyone with the idea um me reading between the lines the idea is um that that it was going to get out.

[00:04:49]People were going to see the letter and I don't know what what Fender really thought they were going to accomplish with that. I don't know if it was a situation where they were like thought uh wow we're going to put this out there and everybody's just going to going to get it you know everybody's going to see that we are right we're fender and you know we are standing on principle and you know what throw any kind of you know trit uh uh statement you want in there. I mean, I think Bud Cole pretty much covered them all uh in his his speech to Fender Dealers last week. Covered that last night in our live video. If you want to learn learn more about that, you or find out more about that, you can check out our live video from last night. I was posted that like an edited down version of that on the channel today. But that brings us to the current letter, which I'm about to get into now. Um, and this, like I said, is dated June the 16th, 2026. It is it is addressed from Fox Rothschild Ron Ronbeantock to um Richard Dr. Richard Disman Dr. Laura Jones Bird and Bird LP. So he's he's formulating his legal response here and my cat just walked in the room. Hold on.

[00:06:08]>> Okay, so that's where we're at. That's bringing us up to current day. It's uh get out.

[00:06:20]Sorry guys. Life life with a cat is tough. So that's where we're at today.

[00:06:24]We are um we are uh at the current this response number two from Beantock back to uh Bird and Bird. And I'm excited about this one. I get excited anytime Ron Beantock writes a letter.

[00:06:40]man has a way with words. He's like a modern day Alexander Hamilton.

[00:06:45]But here we go. Let's just You don't want to hear what I have to say about it. Let's just see what the letter says.

[00:06:51]Okay. Um Dr. Disman and Dr. Jones in your correspondence of May 26th, 2026, your reply which will be here on referred to. On behalf of Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, FMIC, your client, you state that you have sent essentially the same letter to various manufacturers and relevant retailers.

[00:07:13]While it may seem convenient to submit your response to the public as a whole with a to whom it may concern reply, its issuance in this manner suggests that you did not individually review each of the letters we sent you on behalf of our client. So, that's kind of the first uh the first kind of not I guess it's not super surprising, but uh Fox Rothschild is clearly representing more than one um more than one client here. So, um but but basically, yeah, Fender did not review the the insinuation is that Fender did not individually review each of the letters that Fox Rothschild sent to them on behalf of their clients. In fact, it's never been made clear who your reply has been sent to, despite your inclusion of our confidential communication to you on behalf of one of our clients, which has apparently been disseminated to an unknown number of recipients, despite the fact that you did not substantively respond to our last letter. We write on behalf of redacted, so we're not going to be sharing the name here.

[00:08:17]um in response to your reply note that this response is issued after consultation and in conjunction with German and EU legal counsel. So basically one of the that that is uh a reply to the first letter that that Fender sent back to Rothschild and Fox Rothschild in response basically said you know what you guys you guys are in the US you don't understand German and EU courts clearly you don't understand so that was like kind of the thing so this this last sentence is nice because it's like we have issued this response after consultation in conjunction with German and EU legal council. So basically saying like we know what we're talking about.

[00:09:02]We're not just ignorant about German EU law.

[00:09:06]See Jerry boy is going going crazy in the comments.

[00:09:12]Uh bro, you just don't know what you're talking about. Like I don't I don't know what else to say to you, man. So have a nice life. Uh okay. Let's see. Next next paragraph. We must first highlight that our letters in response to your May 11th, 2026 warning letter to which your reply was in response were not identical as each such response was specific to each client indicating the differences between each of our clients respective guitars and your client's guitars as well as specific facts unique to each respective client.

[00:09:46]Uh oh, hold on. All right.

[00:09:51]Uh this is precisely why each letter was sent on behalf of each specific client rather than a universal response. Unlike your reply, each of the letters, including our May 21st, 2026 letter on behalf of our client, our letter clearly stated that specific differences between our clients guitars and the guitar you claimed to be a Fender Stratacastaster in your warning letter, which as we know was not actually a Fender Stratacastaster. And that's so that's in response in in reference to uh Fender sent a picture in in their cease and desist to this company that basically was like hey this is this is a Stratacastaster. All right and your guitar looks like this guitar. Only problem was this picture they sent was the Chinese knockoff of the Stratacaster wasn't the actual actual Stratacastaster. So, uh, just, you know, Fox Rothschild is making that very clear.

[00:10:48]Um, let's see. For reference, we once again state that there are differences between our clients products versus the Strat copy body referenced in your warning letter. The and it's redacted.

[00:10:59]It's the name of this company's guitar is overall more compact than the guitar body shape depicted in your letter. and therefore the entire perimeter of the redacted name of the guitar does not match what you supplied for comparison as a stratacastaster body in your warning letter. Moreover, the redacted has a thinner upper bout and the arm bevel has a clearly more pronounced angle with a more distinct roundover.

[00:11:26]This arm bevel creates a thinner overall dimensional difference as to the aspect of these of this redacted guitar name's body. Your reply did not address any of these comparisons, nor any of the other thousands of examples of the worldwide usage we provided of the Stratacaster Strat body design.

[00:11:48]Good lord. All right, let's see. Uh, instead your reply stated that there are many double cutaway electric guitars in the market that are different from the Stratacastaster.

[00:11:57]We agree that there are innumerable innumerable double cutaway electric guitars made by various manufacturers in the marketplace. However, such rhetoric does not meaningfully respond to our letter. And that was kind of the thing for me and we mentioned it on the show last night. Uh, you know, Bud Cole made it a point to say, "Hey, we're not coming after every double cutaway guitar." And their letter even stated that. And but my point is, I don't think anybody's confused about that. We we're pretty clear on what they're going after here. It's anything that's going to be in that S style kind of world. We know you're not trying to come after every double cutaway guitar. There's no misconception there.

[00:12:39]Um so going on instead your reply stated there are many double cutaway electric guitars in the market that are different from the Stratacastaster. We agree that there are innumerable innumerable I just read this sentence, sorry. Innumerable double cutaway electric guitars made by various manufacturers in the marketplace. However, such rhetoric does not mean if you respond to our letter, I just read that. Moreover, such vague description provides little context to your position. As we note, FMIC continues its reluctance to acknowledge what it believes to be copies of the Fender Stratacastaster. Instead, your reply leaves many questions open. What double cutaway guitars are guitars that your client does not have a problem with?

[00:13:21]What does your client believe constitutes a difference? Are the horns of an infringing product to have specific dimensions?

[00:13:29]Is your client basing those dimensions on a 1954 Stratacaster or any other year? And as we mentioned, the the first Beantock letter mentioned, you know, they they appealed to in their their first response letter the the shape and the dimensions of the Strat, but the problem is that's a moving target because the dimensions of the Strat evolved over time. And they changed over time from the 50s to the 60s into the modern day. They weren't all the same. So to say, hey, we got this this baseline of comparison.

[00:14:01]There's really not a baseline because they're all different.

[00:14:05]Uh let's see here. Horns and Free Project. Let's see. What are the acceptable dimensions of the alleged copyright of a Stratacastaster? What are the acceptable angles of the horns, shape of cutaways, or radius of the cutaways? These appear to be primarily functional decisions. And we talked about that. Leo Fender said it himself.

[00:14:25]If he had $100 to build a guitar, he'd spend $99 making it functional, making it work, and a dollar making it pretty.

[00:14:32]So, these were ergonomic choices, and that kind of flies in the face of Fender's argument that it's this work of applied art. Um, hopefully you guys are keeping up with that. Let's see. Since the body shape shown in your warning letter solely shows a bolt-on design, then any neck through design or set neck design therefore must be exempt from the demands of FMIC. When broken down by each feature, it only highlights the purely functional nature of these design design decisions. The Stratacastaster guitar body has become generic because it's the epitome of functional form to make the body shape fit the player rather than a decorative or non-functional design. Indeed, the body of the Stratacastaster was intentionally and solely designed with contours for comfort in mind as Fender itself advertised. And we talked about this too. Um, you know, their their whole marketing, I mean, the whole story on the Fender's website was that this this was an ergonomic design. It was built in conj Leo Fender worked with guitar players because remember he was not a guitar player to figure out how does this guitar sit the most comfortable on the body? What's the most ergonomic position where basically you don't feel this guitar against your body?

[00:15:46]So, uh, so yeah, that that's kind of the idea. Fender advertised that the idea was ergonomics, idea was comfort. So, moving on. Moreover, recently your client has made a vast number of variations on guitars called a stratacastaster. And I think this is important. So, they do provide a few examples here. So, by way of example, the acoustaic Stratacastaster has a center sound hole, no pick guard, an entirely different pickup configuration with minimal forearm bevel at a different angle and little back contour.

[00:16:16]So, again, what is a Stratacastaster? I think that's kind of what this letter is is kind of building the argument for is like, well, you're saying the guitar can't look like this. What exactly is this thing? The aerodyine stratacastaster has a flat or slab body with no contours whatsoever back or front and the body is bound therefore making therefore making the radi of the top edge significantly sharper. Even more traditional style stratacasters such as the Cory Wong and Mike McCriedi Stratacastaster have pronounced differences. The mccreati having very little forearm bevel and a less significant belly carve while the Cory Wong Stratacastaster has wholly different proportions with substantial variations in dimensional sizing.

[00:17:01]Uh the Sona Fo Su NA Sona Fo Stratacastaster has no arm bevel at all with a bound sharp edge with a notably wider body. The Prestige Custom Shop line has had a multitude of differences with many models. Notably, the Prestige Custom Thin Line Stratacastaster has an entirely beveled body with a scoop in the treble side cutaway. The electronics configuration is vastly different than other Stratacasters as well, having just two knobs and a toggle switch with a jack on the side of the guitar and no pick guard. So, if you if you think back to the the original um cease and desist, there was four things they mentioned. It was the contours of the body, the dimensions of the body, the placement of the output jack, and the pickard. Those are kind of like what they kind of threw out there generically speaking was like the Stratacastaster shape or the Stratacastaster, you know, I guess body or whatever.

[00:17:58]And what basically the, you know, Fox and Rothschild are lining out here is that we have a bevy of other guitars that have the Fender logo on them that are Fender guitars that are called Stratacasters, but they don't adhere to any of the things that they outlined in their letter. So, that's problematic. Um, the last one, the Custom Shop HSD line of Stratacasters have flat tops with no forearm bevel and no radius to the edges. And again, a sidemounted jack with only two control knobs. So again, very different than your three control knob uh you know, front mounted input jack that your traditional Stratacastaster has.

[00:18:35]There's no shortage of other Stratacastaster models over FMIC's history with different configurations, frequently having no contours on the front and back, such as the Squire Bullet or uh or at at tops such as the Power Strat. In the '9s, FMIC sold Stratacasters that imitated its competitors with an arch top. is a violin violin carve with binding and a sidemounted jack. All of these guitars called a stratacastaster do not match the council's fanciful description of the Strat body shape in its court filing.

[00:19:08]All these references beg the question, what is a stratacastaster?

[00:19:12]Council must delineate the exact reproduction of your client's alleged protectable design elements and the corresponding features of our client's instruments. Furthermore, by way of example, does the Apple Strat emoji, and I've heard this a lot in comments, seen this a lot in comments. It's like, well, better get ready to sue Apple because they're using the the Strat body shape for their generic, you know, guitar design in their in their messaging uh platform.

[00:19:38]Um, does so the question is, does the Apple Strat emoji constitute an acceptably distinct acceptable distinctly different shape? Billions of users of Apple products have had access to and used that emoji since 2016.

[00:19:52]Billions of usages of your clients allegedly copyright protected design by the public on their iPhones and iPads are not different from millions of guitars sold and advertised around the world for over 60 years by competitors of your client. And the 60 years thing, if you recall, um, in the previous Fox Rothschild letter, they outlined that kind of the history of like when these copies started and, uh, and how they've, you know, continued to this day with Fender not challenging anything until 2009, which they lost the trademark, uh, case in 2009 for that. Uh, as early as 1959, other companies were making this guitar shape. So, you know, um it's it's at this point and people have said this too, not to regurgitate an old argument.

[00:20:35]You know, Fender like the the time for them to argue this was 60 years ago.

[00:20:40]It's it's not 2026.

[00:20:43]The recent May 29, 2026 Wall Street Journal article referencing PRS Guitars, who we do not represent. So, that's another bit of, you know, breaking news.

[00:20:52]I guess not really surprising. PRS is a big enough company to where uh you know we're not super surprised, right, that they're they probably have their own council. So Beantock is not representing PRS Guitars.

[00:21:06]Um let's see. So let's see. The May 29th Wall Street Journal article referencing Paris guitars who we do not represent regarding Paris guitars receipt of your warning letter makes it even more clear that your client does not have an established criterion for what constitutes an infringing Strat guitar.

[00:21:24]There are no specifics, no benchmark, no unqualifying measurements and that's the whole thing right is super vague. The differences between the Fender Stratacastaster referenced in your warning letter and the Pier Silver Sky are well established uh and have been discussed by numerous third parties in their reviews since the release of the Silver Sky, notably given John Mayer's connection with the design and endorsement of PS guitars and the Silver Sky in contrast with his previous history endorsing Fender products.

[00:21:51]And yeah, I mean I have a Silver Sky sitting right over there that we unboxed yesterday, which is pretty sick guitar.

[00:21:57]Uh, but I can tell you at first glance it's like, oh yeah, it's a Strat style guitar, but a lot of the the modifications made on this guitar were something were things that John Mayer wanted to collaborate with Fender on, but they weren't willing to get down with them. So, that's why he went to PRS and and came up with the Silver Sky. So, very very different. Um, let's see where are we at here.

[00:22:23]Okay, your reply. So going back to Fender's reply to Fox Rothschild on May 26th mentions that there are continued misconceptions regarding the nature and scope of your client's demands. But such misconceptions are not attributable to our client. Rather, if there have been misconceptions, they are entirely the product of your client's own actions.

[00:22:45]Indeed, your client is engaged in an amorphous attempt to make demands upon the entire guitar industry worldwide, but then backtrack and claim your client is misunderstood. And that was like the whole to me uh the whole like the whole like vibe of the that first letter, the Fox the the first bird and bird response letter to Fox Rothschild was them trying to do damage control and walk it back.

[00:23:10]You know, first they were like, "It was never our intention for everyone to destroy all their guitars." And Bud even echoed the same thing in his speech defender dealers like, "Oh, we don't want anybody to destroy guitars."

[00:23:23]I mean, that's what you said in your your letter, your legal counsel's letter. So, number one, either like the like Fender's leadership has no clue what's in this legal letter, which I find super hard to believe, or number two, they're like realizing this thing is blown up in their face and they're trying to backpedal. And I I tend to think it's number two.

[00:23:45]Uh, let's see.

[00:23:47]Uh, where are we at?

[00:23:50]Backtrack. Your client cannot adequately describe what is and what is not functional or ergonomic and what is or what is not infringing. Your reply mentions a myriad of monikers which could or cannot be infringing, maybe close copies sufficiently different, more or less identical, more likely most likely constitute essentially similar, distinctly different clones look more or less identical and stop copying the product of the competitor. All these are euphemisms for what your client seeks.

[00:24:19]And this get really gets to the root of it right here. What Fender wants is the uh the sessation of manufacturing guitars that may compete with Fender.

[00:24:28]That's really the bottom line. And I think none of us that's not really breaking news. We kind of know that's what's going on. The words fair or fairness are mentioned several times in your reply. Was it fair when your client threatened the livelihoods of so many manufacturers by demanding legal fees and €250,000 through your war? Though your warning letter demanded our client destroy all of its guitars worldwide, it appears that your client has now sought to limit the scope of the enforcement of its claims to Germany and the EU. However, we cannot confirm that from your reply.

[00:25:00]So basically what we're saying here is uh the the Fender legal letter is saying one thing, but then Fender leadership is saying something different, right? I mean, we heard we heard what Buds clearly say. He did not want to have anybody destroy any guitars. They it was a thoughtful and respectful, you know, uh like I don't know, collaboration with these brands, whatever you want to call it. Uh whatever you call it seems to sound collaboration sounds ridiculous based on the tone of the letter, but but yeah. So, the idea is like, okay, your legal letter is saying one thing, but you're saying something else. So, what is it like? like Fox Rothsowl is asking what is what are we actually asking for here? And so um he says the letter goes on please provide definitive clarity on the scope so that there will no longer be any continued misconceptions.

[00:25:58]Uh man you guys are having fun in the comments.

[00:26:04]Gosh. Okay. Uh let's keep going on with the letter. let's stick to to facts grounded in reality, which I think some of the people in the chat are struggling with the idea of of facts grounded in reality, but you know, I I'll let you guys hash that out. Uh, so going on, your reply states that Fender wants the guitar industry to stop copying a product of a competitor. However, through your client's own history, it has repeatedly copied or followed designs of its competitors. And I think this is really interesting. And this is so this is one of the things too that a lot of people have have argued. It's like well it's kind of hypocritical isn't it if Fender is going after this generic body shape that people have used for 60 plus years.

[00:26:48]But on the other hand Fender is like building guitars and the common example is a dreadnot shape. I was like okay well does Fender need to does Martin need to send a cease and desist to Fender for the dreadnot dreadnot shape?

[00:26:59]Like where does this all stop? Right.

[00:27:02]So that that's kind of um what he's getting into here in this letter. So your client through your client's own history, it has repeatedly copied or followed designs of competitors. For example, in 1950, the Fender Electric Instrument Company had to change the name of the Broadcaster to the Telecaster. Um that's a pretty well-known story in, you know, Fender lore. You had the Broadcaster, then you had the Nocaster for a while, then you had the Telecaster.

[00:27:28]uh after receiving a cease and desist letter from Gretch. Later, FMIC released the Showmaster in an attempt to make Fender make a Fender appear more similar to competitors so-called super strat style guitars. Sharper edges, curved top, set neck, and no pick guard. The Starcaster and Coronado models were attempt to make were an attempt to make the 335 style guitars and the Meteora is more or less to look like a Firebird.

[00:27:55]The LTD and Montego along with the entire Diiaquistto line of guitars were released to compete with similar Gibson, Gretch, and Gil guitars of the time.

[00:28:04]Febic never made Humbucker pickups, but FMIC did. In fact, hiring the designer of Gibson's Humbucker pickups, Seth Lover, with a purpose of making copies of Gibson's products. And it has a footnote here. Notably, Mr. Lover refused to copy his Gibson design, which led to what is now known as the wide range humbucker. a product which had little success in the market. So basically Fender was like, "Hey, just make what you made at Gibson." And Seth Glover was like, "No, I'm not going to do that." And he didn't. He made the wide range. And apparently, I don't know a lot about wide range humbuckers, but apparently they haven't been super successful.

[00:28:42]Uh even more recently, the more modern twopoint tremolo system, which is also uh present on the Silver Sky that I have here. There's a two-point tremolo system uh which has been a fixture on modern spec Fender guitars was designed by Leo Fender but it was several years after his departure from Fender. So he wasn't with Fender when he de with Fender when he developed this. It was later implemented though by FMIC despite having copied it copied it from its competitors. So again I mean that that's the thing right there's just so much hypocrisy here.

[00:29:18]FMIC did so to compete with the rest of the guitar industry, which is that that's what you do. If you're in an industry, you compete and makes sense.

[00:29:26]Nearly every company that received a letter from your client has its origins in building guitars, which either your client was not at the time, or they perceived they could make a better overall guitar, or was specs that were not offered by Fender. So, some of these companies got their start before the Fender Custom Shop. So they they were making, you know, variations of this guitar that Fender was not willing or or did not have any any desire to make.

[00:29:55]So that's how this whole market started.

[00:29:57]And we've talked about that. That's why there's all these different companies.

[00:30:00]Either they can make it better than you or they can make a variation that you're not currently making. And that is the very def the letter. This is the letters words. That is the very definition of innovation and at its core represents competition in the marketplace.

[00:30:16]going on. FMIC bought Jackson Charal in 2002 because Fender needed to compete with other companies that had made inroads in the metal and heavier music scene music scene's increasing popularity at the time. FMIC needed to compete, so it purchased a company which sold products similar to the other popular guitars at the time. Your client must understand that fair competition is what created the marketplace for this type of guitar. All of these companies making competitive guitars have helped sustain the industry when FMIC faltered.

[00:30:49]They lost touch with the guitar consuming public or they were simply making poor quality guitars at any point in Fender's history.

[00:30:57]Uh let's see, moving on here, man.

[00:31:11]Man. Yeah, these comments are wild, guys. I can't keep up. I'm going to keep going on. You guys You guys keep going at it.

[00:31:18]All right. Uh, let's see. Where are we at?

[00:31:22]You guys are You guys are feeling a little frisky on a Friday night. I love it. I love it. Okay, moving on. You cla You claimed to have performed in-depth research of the history of the Fender Stratacastaster. Yet the shifting position set forth in your reply is is an admission that you did not inform the court as to the correct history of FMIC or the Stratacaster. And this was one of the things we called out immediately and a lot of people called out, but u I'm going to let the letter speak on this instead of adding my own editorial rather when confronted with a more complete history as detailed in our prior letter and carefully described by the very collaborators themselves in their books and interviews. That's Freddy Tvaris at all. um as well as your client on its own website. Your claim has now moved to a joint authorship theory. Now remember this is the the whole original uh original Fender letter, you know, painted this this picture of of Leo Fender in this workshop, you know, like just slaving over building this guitar and like, you know, brought this this vision to life. And it was like this this incredible feat by Leo Fender, which in reality that's not the way it worked at all. Leo Fender didn't play guitar. He was like, "Hey, Freddy. Hey, you know, whoever I I'm trying to George Fullerton. I can't remember the other guys involved, but look at this. Give me your feedback. Let me know what works for you guys as guitar players." So now that was Fender's original story was Leo Fender like did this thing by himself.

[00:32:53]And that's why it's an applied work of art because it's this artistic accomplishment by this author and blah blah blah. Uh but then now like and even Bud Cole even I noticed this when he was speaking to the dealers he said he he mentioned you Leo Fender and I don't remember the exact words he said but he basically alluded to the people that he also collaborated to build this guitar with. So they're already backpedaling on that point as well. This is not this was not a Leo Fender creation uh all on his own. This was a collaboration uh and what Fox Rothschild refers to as a joint authorship theory. So that's and that lines up more with what we've talked about. That lines up with actual reality. It's not revisionist history like the first uh you know version that Fender tried to spin in the courts and then in the cease and desist letter.

[00:33:45]These are US-based facts that are incontrovertible. The novel joint authorship theory was not presented to the court nor discussed in the court's judgment you have forwarded to our clients. So your position that the court was presented sufficient US-based facts is simply untrue. I mean they they just of course they're going to spin this thing and tell the story that they want to tell especially in the case of the German uh default judgment. There was no defense there. So Fender gets to tell whatever story they want whether it's tethered in reality or not. So, and that's what they did. So, this this letter is kind of setting the record straight. Um, let's see. More importantly, there was no acknowledgement in either your warning letter or your reply as to the two US design patents for the PBASE, which was by your client's own admission the precursor to the strap body shape. And this is something I've not heard talked about. we have not talked about but um you know like basically what this is saying is the there was US design patents for the pbase and the pbase by Fender's own admission was the precursor of the strap body shape. Um so that's there's already there's obviously already a patent intellectual property that was claimed on that back in the day and with the way patents work that would have run out long ago probably in the 70s maybe maybe the 80s. Um, so that's, you know, that's uh that does not bode well for Fender. That's that's not a good thing for them. Uh, it appears you have also failed to inform the court that the shape of the Pbase with contours and co and curves shown in the design patents had been in the public domain in the US and perhaps other territories for over 50 years.

[00:35:29]Next paragraph. Most glaringly omitted from your reply was the proof of chain of title. This gets a little bit eyeglazer here. Uh, but it's it has to do with like the chain of title when FIC was purchased by CBS and and FMIC and so forth. But supposedly with those types of transactions, there is a proof of chain of title.

[00:35:52]Let's see what we got here. Uh, Bill Carson. Yes. All right. Bill Carson.

[00:35:57]That's that's the guy. Yep. I think there's one other one, too.

[00:36:04]Matt Sanders is coming in hot here.

[00:36:10]There's a high heel line with matching stickings with lines up the back to match the necks of the guitars. Get that Teimu Steven Seagal to model the stockings, purses, and high heels.

[00:36:23]Good lord. Uh, let's see. All right.

[00:36:27]Your bud needs destroy the stuff. Let's go. I'm down for it. I'm here for it. Uh maybe that'll be like their last ditch effort to get everyone on their side. I don't know.

[00:36:38]The pony Yeah, the ponytail. He's killing it with a ponytail, dude.

[00:36:43]Someone with a wrench.

[00:36:46]Wait, we need we need a You know, I think it uh what was it last night Ruben brought up? I don't even I don't think I was quite following a story. I think some of you guys were following a story better than me. uh something about the redheaded people in Wales after 900 PM or something. Somebody helped me out with that. Who was here for that? That was one of the most wheels off stories I've heard. And uh I I wasn't quite following, but Ruben's not here to give us any context.

[00:37:12]Okay, let's get back into this letter, shall we? Um okay, let's see. Chain of title. Okay. Yeah, so we're in getting into the chain of title thing here. If you're positive that FMIC is the owner of the relevant copyright exploitation rights based on the chain of title, why have you not provided such proof in reply? You provided the incorrect acquisition company to the court, which only raises additional red flags that such chain of title cannot be proven. To our knowledge, no such rights have passed on to FMIC via Columbia Records Distribution Corp. In fact, the TTAB case, which is a trademark case in 2009, uh Steuart Spectre Designs at all be Fender Musical Instruments, FMIC failed to provide a complete unredacted copy of the alleged chain of title documents.

[00:37:59]Now, FMIC has had another opportunity to prove the chain of title and has not done so. Certainly, a balance sheet showing intangible assets will at least evidence the alleged transfer from CBS entity to the FMIC acquisition company, but does not defeat the sessation of the chain of title prior to 85. Like I said, this is pretty eye glazing, but it it's obviously important context.

[00:38:22]Your reply does not discuss evidence showing chain of title to purported copyright rights, which FMIC now claims to have. Rather, you asked a rhetorical question in your reply, who else would be the owner of such rights? And that was that was raised in Fender's first reply letter. This is precisely the question that the court may have asked if it had the ability to review the facts rather than simply accept accept FMIC's claim of chain of title without documentation.

[00:38:50]The correct answer to your question is that no one owns the rights to a copyright in the strap body shape. It's whole idea of public domain, right? The strap body shape is functional and generic. Our client along with what appears to be a significant majority of the musical instrument industry, including the undersigned, takes umbrage as to the contention that everyone seems to agree that the Stratacastaster is an iconic piece of industrial design.

[00:39:16]Moreover, we made no such concession that the Stratacastaster is iconic.

[00:39:21]Rather, we said that the Stratacastaster is generic as proven in the only proceeding to review all of the evidence. The difference between such terms is key. So, they're saying generic versus iconic. Um, so yeah. All right, let's see. Uh, how are we doing in the comments? All right, Matt Sanders coming in hot, dude.

[00:39:43]Uh, okay. Neck, beard, libs. I don't think I have a neck beard. I have a neck beard. I don't think it goes all the way down to my neck. I think it stops in my chin, but I don't really see why I I think I think what happens is when you start losing an argument, you just start insulting people. I think that's what's happening here.

[00:40:02]Good times. Good times. If you guys are not in the chat, you should check it out. It's like World War II in there right now. It's pretty fun.

[00:40:10]Uh, okay. Let's see. Moving on. Our client is unpersuaded that FMIC has received communications from many of the addresses of that initial communication who have entered into reasonable settlement discussion. So if you recall the first response letter from Fender back to Fox Rothschild, they were like, I don't see what the problem is. A lot of these companies are have approached us and are looking to negotiate and settle on this thing because they understand, you know, that we have a really good point here and they're doing the right thing.

[00:40:43]But Fox Rothschild contends that this contention is belied by the overwhelming negative worldwide re reaction by the musical instruments industry and it is pretty overwhelming. I would say I mean you know we have some people I mean you see it in the comments you you have some people that are that are kind of fender apologists on this thing and I mean that that really does fascinate me. I I think if you look at it on the surface uh maybe without understanding some of the the historical context and and some of the past legal action maybe that would make sense but um you know I think most people and it's about I think it's about 8515 or 9010 about 90% are like what is Fender doing the other 10 are like Fender's doing the right thing you know so um but I think the general contention is like there has definitely been over overwhelming negative worldwide reaction when you when you you know look at at the whole of it. I mean if you look at YouTube videos when you have people like Tim Pierce and Rhett Schaw and um and Phil Mcnite coming out and talking about this thing you know uh and those are people that have had relationship with Fender at least. I mean I know Rhett Schaw and Tim Pierce have in the past. I don't know about Phil but when they come out and have the reaction they did about it I mean you know something is something stinky. So, uh, I I would say I mean I don't think it's really debatable that there's been an overwhelming negative worldwide reaction by the musical instrument industry. Um, going on the letter though, perhaps one or two small companies will find themselves in a financial position that prevents it from taking on a major guitar company. This does not constitute understanding for your client. It's just pragmatic positioning by a party with lesser resources. And we talked about um I mean the whole the whole idea behind the LSL uh GoFundMe.

[00:42:35]It's not it's not because Jerry it's not because they were getting sued. Nobody nobody uh I mean maybe people who don't understand the situation are saying they they're being sued or don't understand kind of what's happening.

[00:42:48]LSL was served a cease and desist along with I don't know how many other companies see to respond to a cease and desist legally requires you to employ the services of a lawyer and lawyers are not cheap I don't know Google how much a lawyer costs I know how much Beantock costs that's not cheap and for these companies that are selling 500 guitars a year that is enough to put you out of business so they have to hire a lawyer and pay a lawyer to respond legally with a letter. Does that that does that mean they're not getting sued, but does that mean there's not a legal response needed or legal uh you know legal services needed? No, that's not what it means.

[00:43:29]And I think that's the point that's being missed here is it costs money. I mean, Fox Rothschild has sent now two letters in response to Fender. I don't know how many hours, you know, a letter takes. I'm sure it based on the amount of detail in this letter and based on on the content of it, I would say it probably takes quite a bit of time. So, you can see how that bill could add up.

[00:43:52]And that's I think that's what a lot of people, myself included, are upset about because like Fender is is a multi-billion dollar corporation. They're backed up by a multi-billion dollar private equity firm in Surfco Pacific. They have resources.

[00:44:08]They can do they could send letters all day. That's nothing to them.

[00:44:12]But these these little companies, they they can't do that. They don't have those resources. So, you know, Fender maybe has a couple of paths to victory here, and we talked about it last night.

[00:44:20]Number one is just bleed these companies dry. They can't sell enough guitars to pay for their legal fees. They're barely making it by to begin with. Uh so, that's number one. I mean, maybe they have to declare chapter 11 reorganized.

[00:44:31]Maybe they have to declare chapter 7 and they're done. And then Fender gets part of the market back. Uh or maybe they they make a they have a misstep in responding. um to these um you know these cease and desist letters and that's problematic too because then Fender can latch onto that and then get leverage that way. So that's why you have to employ a lawyer and and and have them make sure these things are airtight and you don't mess up by putting something in writing that you're going to regret. So, you know, huge huge side note there. Um but but uh I digress.

[00:45:07]Let's get back to the letter here. Okay.

[00:45:08]Um where were we at?

[00:45:11]The entire matter, this entire matter is US fact intensive. In your warning letter, you describe Leo Fender having inspiration from the fins of Cadillacs and Mustangs of the time. This is one of the more laughable parts of the original cease and desist. Uh, however, in 1954, however, uh, it was a very early time for the fins on Cadillacs and Mustangs did not appear until 1964.

[00:45:35]Thus, it is clear that Leo Fender did not rely on or look to the Mustangs for such inspiration and likely not Cadillacs either, as this only clarifies our position that FMIC's claims based on US facts in the German court were simply a fabrication rather than facts derived from reality. The facts from the 2009 TTAB trademark case uh decision have not changed. Our clients need to have clarity if you're going to Let's see.

[00:46:03]Sorry, let me back that up there. Our clients need to have clarity if you're now stating that FMIC's initial worldwide demands are now limited only to Germany and the EU. And that was kind of the backpedal. I mean, Bud said this only currently, he said, currently this only impacts guitars manufactured, shipped, sold, distributed in the EU.

[00:46:23]Um, and I think the word currently is important there, but that's that's kind of beside the point with what we're talking about here. But that's not that's not what the cease and desist letter said, right? It was a worldwide ban. Um, blocking Jerry.

[00:46:39]Whatever. Let Jerry talk, man. Nobody.

[00:46:42]It's all good. It's all good. Um, let Jerry cook. He thinks he's cooking, so let him cook.

[00:46:50]Uh, let's see.

[00:46:53]Where are we at here? Okay. Our clients.

[00:46:55]Okay. So, I read that. Yeah. So that was kind of the the original letter was like worldwide cease production of guitars, send us evidence that you destroyed all your guitars. All those types of things are talked about 250,000 euro fine, legal fees, blah blah blah blah blah.

[00:47:09]That was a worldwide demand. Now they're again Fender's backpedaling to, oh, we're just talking about the Germany, talking about Germany and the EU. What's the big deal?

[00:47:19]And that's what that's what Bud told all the dealers at the dealer meeting. If your client has now agreed not to pursue claims in the US or any other territories, they must confirm that in writing. This letter is being sent in conjunction with a response from German council Meisner Bolt. So like it said, um I I think it said in the outside of the letter, maybe I'm getting ahead of myself.

[00:47:41]Uh yeah. So um Fox Rothschild mentioned that after consultation in conjunction with German and EU legal council early on the in the letter and now uh hold on.

[00:47:54]Yeah. Now they're referring to the they they actually are naming the German council Meisner Bolt. So again, I mean let's let's go back to the point on what does this cost?

[00:48:06]uh you have your now you have your US attorney that you have to pay for this this letter but you also have to employ a German attorney as well because we need to make sure everything is copacetic in Germany and the EU as well as you know the American side which is where these companies are located. So legal costs are are going through the roof here as you can you can probably assume.

[00:48:31]Um, let's see. Uh, German Council.

[00:48:36]Okay. And this is kind of just the wrap-up, the dismount here. Nothing contained in this letter should be considered as a waiver of any rights and claims of our client. Further, nothing herein should be construed as an adoptive admission of our client. Our client hereby reserves all such rights and remedies under both law and equity.

[00:48:54]Sincerely, Ron Beantock.

[00:48:57]So, there you have it. you guys are up tod date on the latest. This is hot off the press.

[00:49:05]Um, and in typical, you know, Ron Beantock, Fox Rothschild fashion, he came out and uh threw some hay makers.

[00:49:14]Um, I I I just uh I read these letters and I'm like, man, like I I kind of see I can kind of understand like why lawyers can be so expensive because that what what it comes down to is like if you don't have the right lawyer on something like this, this could be the death of these companies. If they hire the the wrong lawyer and and they screw up something in one of these letters, that could be that could be it, you know. So, um, you're up. You're on top of things. You're caught up. Appreciate you guys listening in. Um, a lot of comments.

[00:49:51]Let me see here.

[00:49:57]Wow.

[00:50:00]Yeah. I I don't really know what to say.

[00:50:01]I mean, hopefully I think I think it's it's pretty clear why. I mean, one of the things we talked about last night, I I'll bring it back up again, just there's so much so much yelling in the chat about it, nobody's Fender hasn't sued anybody. Bud was not lying about that. But that's that's beside the point. The point is that doesn't that doesn't mean that these companies don't require legal counsel. I I I don't want to revisit that because I just talked about that a few minutes ago, but uh I I don't know.

[00:50:35]It is what it is. It's It's good times, I guess. Um, you guys just stay tuned to the channel and and we'll keep you guys up to date. I'm sure Fender will probably respond pretty quickly because that seems to be kind of what they've done in and at least in the first round.

[00:50:51]So, we'll see. We'll keep our eyes peeled for that. Appreciate you guys tuning in. Uh, give us a sub if you're watching on YouTube, if you're on Facebook, uh, Instagram. Give us a follow. We're going to keep you up to date on this thing. And also, you know what? like we're not just Fender uh legal legal uh battle people, you know, we we're actually guitar players, too.

[00:51:12]We like to do guitar stuff. We got demos. We got interviews. We got rig I I can't say rig rundowns. We have behind the tones, uh where we go out and and check out, you know, guys guys rigs and so forth. So, we got some other, you know, fun guitar content that we would love to get back to as soon as as soon as this legal stuff calms down. So, check that out. Uh we did a Marsenzo X demo. uh dropped that on the channel a couple days ago. Uh Braden Stewart, he's a a Texas um artist, singer, songwriter, guitar player. Uh we did an interview with him at the Dallas Guitar Show uh last month. Got a lot of good stuff in there. So check out our catalog. Um and you know, you can always buy a t-shirt, support the the the LSL legal fund if you want to do that. Um but that's all I got for you guys. Appreciate y'all. Um and y'all have a good night. Take care.