Stratocaster: When Copyright Comes to the Rescue of an Iconic Shape

Few product designs have achieved the iconic status of the Fender Stratocaster. Yet, despite its worldwide recognition, trade mark protection for the guitar’s shape has often proved difficult to obtain or enforce. This article examines how copyright law can provide an alternative and sometimes more effective means of protecting distinctive product designs when trade mark law reaches its limits. Focusing on recent litigation involving the Stratocaster, it analyses the relationship between copyright, design rights and trade mark law, and explains why originality and artistic expression may offer stronger legal protection than acquired distinctiveness in certain circumstances. Beyond the specific case of the Stratocaster, the article explores the broader implications for luxury goods, industrial design and consumer products whose commercial value is closely linked to their visual identity. It argues that rights holders should adopt a complementary intellectual property strategy, combining different legal regimes to maximise protection against imitation and counterfeiting, rather than relying exclusively on trade mark law.

Lacoste v Shein: When a Platform Can No Longer Hide Behind Hosting Status

A platform is not one legal object. In Lacoste v Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. and Infinite Styles Services Co. Ltd. (Paris, Pôle 5 ch. 1, 8 July 2026, RG 25/12454), the Court of Appeal refused to let the operators of shein.com shelter behind the hosting exemption of Article 6 of the Digital Services Act: goods “sold by Shein”, Shein labels and packaging, and the Commission’s designation of the service as a very large online platform revealed a hybrid activity, and the characterisation attached not to the platform as a whole but to the role actually played in the disputed transactions. The judgment reaches beyond the twenty offending products. “Lacoste”, typed into the internal search engine, infringes the word marks; “crocodile”, a free word, grounds unfair competition and parasitism. Interim damages rise from €30,000 to €300,000 — the defendants’ own failure to disclose their turnover counting against them — and the measures run across the European Union.

28 August 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

COSHIELD: The Scope of the UDRP in Trademark Disputes

Not every dispute involving a trade mark and a domain name amounts to cybersquatting. In Polyco Healthline Limited v. David Beatson (WIPO Case No. D2026-1893), the panelist denied the complaint brought against coshield.com, a domain used since 2020 to sell personal protective equipment in the very sector where the complainant has exploited its SHIELD trade mark since 1997, and despite a settlement agreement concluded between the parties in 2021. The decision turns on the moment of acquisition: created in 2014, the domain name appears to have changed hands in May 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the combination of “Co” and “Shield” could describe the business rather than target Polyco. The evidence being “finely balanced”, bad faith was not established. This article examines why trade mark infringement and cybersquatting are two paths that do not necessarily converge.

23 August 2026
Initially published on iptwins.com

Article Information

Author

Emmanuel Gillet

Publication Date

30 May 2026

Jurisdiction

Industry

Related Decision(s)

14c O 64/25Landgericht DüsseldorfLandgericht Düsseldorf, Versäumnisurteil, 22 December 2025, 14c O 64/252025-12-22
Please select listing to show.

Filter articles

Filter for Topics
Filter for Industries
Filter for Jurisdictions