Late last November, U.S. law enforcement authorities hit a record intercepting more than 3,000 counterfeit Gibson guitars from cargo containers at the Long Beach Seaport in California. It was the largest seizure of counterfeit musical instruments to date. The fraudulent Gibsons allegedly arrived at the U.S. port from Asia and would’ve been worth more than $18 million had they been genuine. But authentic Gibsons are generally manufactured in the U.S. in Nashville, Tennessee, where the company’s headquarters are located, and in Bozeman, Montana, where the company builds its acoustic guitars.
Following the seizure, U.S. officials warned customers about too-good-to-be-true deals on discounted guitars, as counterfeit products don’t follow or meet safety and quality standards. And, according to officials, criminals often sell counterfeit goods to fund other illegal enterprises, such as drug trafficking and forced labor.
Gibson guitars seem to be favorite items for fraudsters to fabricate, and they’ve made several appearances in law enforcement seizures over the years. For example, in 2007, police in Suffolk County, New York, seized 33 guitars from a music store and arrested its owner, Bernard Musumeci, for trademark counterfeiting. Musumeci allegedly acquired the counterfeit Gibsons, valued at $20,000, from an eBay vendor in China. In June 2021, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers confiscated 85 counterfeit guitars at Washington Dulles International Airport. The seized items were allegedly imported from China and included counterfeit models of Gibson, Fender, Kramer, CF Martin and Taylor guitars. Some of them had autographs of rock musicians, such as Slash of Guns N’ Roses, Les Paul, and Angus Young of AC/DC. The haul was valued at $260,000.
According to The Business Research Company, demand for a variety of musical instruments is expected to soar in 2025, from $14.72 billion in 2024 to $15.37 billion, fueled in part by the global expansion of social media platforms and e-commerce sites, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Counterfeiters and other fraudsters looking to take advantage of the rising demand in instruments may thrive in regions with low-cost manufacturing capabilities, such as Asia, Eastern and Southern Europe, and Latin America.
As demand for musical instruments grows and fraudsters take advantage of that demand, fraud examiners can help stem the flow of counterfeits on the market by knowing the differences between legitimate brands and fakes. In this article, Fraud Magazine explains those differences, explores the ways major instrument brands have fought to protect their products from counterfeiters and provides tips for music enthusiasts — and fraud fighters — to avoid falling victim to counterfeit scams.
Starting in the 20th century, Asian companies became significant producers of musical instruments. In the 1960s and early 1970s, Japan emerged as a leading legitimate manufacturer of guitars, pianos and various electronic devices. Japanese guitar brands, including Tokai, Burny, Yamaha and Ibanez, were identical replicas of Martin, Fender and Gibson guitar models, and in many cases, surpassed the quality and craftsmanship of the copyrighted brands. In the 1980s, Korea and Taiwan became leading low-cost producers of musical instruments globally; Korea largely produced pianos and guitars, and Taiwan excelled in the production of drums, wind and electronic instruments.
But in the 1990s, fraudsters in China and Hong Kong emerged as prolific producers of counterfeit goods, including musical instruments. According to CBP, counterfeit goods from Hong Kong and China accounted for 46% of the 19,724 seizures of shipments the agency made in 2023.
Counterfeit products and pirating occupy the top spot in the world’s top five organized criminal enterprises, surpassing drug trafficking, human trafficking and forced labor, illegal logging and fuel theft. In 2016, economic consulting firm Frontier Economics estimated that the value of trade in counterfeit and pirated goods could reach $991 billion by 2022.
In the musical instrument market, it’s important to distinguish between “replica instruments” and “modified fakes,” as they both have distinct differences. A replica instrument is crafted to closely resemble a particular model from a different brand. Replica makers typically integrate high-quality materials and construction techniques into their instruments, and they’re often sold under the replica builder’s own brand or label. Guitar companies like Agile, Firefly and Cort produce affordable guitars that resemble classic models but aren’t counterfeit. They clearly distinguish their products from brands like Gibson or Fender, making it evident that they’re offering their own versions rather than imitations.
A modified fake instrument has a component that’s been altered to make it look like an expensive model. For example, when trying to pass off a used Fender “Squier” electric guitar (a low-cost but high-quality sub-brand) as a more expensive model, counterfeiters often remove the “Squier” logo from the headstock (top of the guitar) and replace it with a “Fender” waterslide (decal) logo. Other fraudsters might disguise cheap orchestral instruments (brass, woodwinds) by replacing poor-quality components, such as reeds or buttons, with phony branded ones.
However, a counterfeit instrument is a copy created specifically to mislead consumers into believing it’s an authentic, premium instrument. Counterfeiters often clone company logos and other details. The key differences among replicas, modified fakes and counterfeit instruments lie in the maker’s intent (faithful reproduction versus poor imitation), legality (licensed intellectual property versus illegal, unlicensed) and quality (attention to craftsmanship, expensive materials versus cheap materials and careless construction).
Figure 1 below shows the differences between a counterfeit and authentic Gibson Les Paul electric guitar headstock. The most apparent difference between the two is the smaller size of the diamond-shaped mother-of-pearl or perloid inlay on the counterfeit headstock. What’s not so obvious to the untrained eye is the improper positioning of the “Gibson” name at the top of the counterfeit headstock and the oversized white string nut at the bottom of the counterfeit headstock.
Figure 1
Figure 2 below reveals another subtle difference between a counterfeit Gibson Les Paul and an authentic model: the curvature and depth of the right-hand bout. The counterfeit example shows a more shallow and less symmetrical curvature to the right bout than the real example.
Figure 2
Images courtesy of Gear Talk, “How to Spot a Fake Gibson Les Paul (with Examples),” March 10, 2023.
Legitimate guitar makers use specific types of wood for electric guitar bodies. Called “tonewoods,” these include alder, ash, mahogany, basswood, poplar and Korina. Each has particular characteristics that contribute to an electric guitar’s native tone. However, counterfeiters often use laminate wood (plywood), pine and other lower-quality wood to make their guitars. But beyond the quality of the materials and workmanship, something that looks amiss in the guitar headstock is usually a major clue that the guitar brand is suspicious. If the logo doesn’t look right, chances are the entire instrument is fake.
The used guitar market is projected to grow to $2.1 billion by the end of 2025, with used electric guitars making up 70% of all sales. Although most experienced guitar players know not to buy a “new” Gibson Les Paul guitar imported from Asia, since they aren’t made there, the large used-guitar market for major brand models presents many challenges to consumers.
The chief concerns when buying a used major-brand electric guitar (or any instrument) from online sellers are the authentication of an instrument’s pedigree and the seller’s honesty about the instrument’s condition. Even the global market for high-quality orchestral musical instruments (strings, woodwinds, brass) isn’t immune to counterfeiters and scammers.
A different type of concern with global instrument sales is the unstable link among authorized sales channels, distributors and instrument warranties.
Out-of-market musical instrument sales involve unauthorized distribution of instruments by licensed distributors. This often happens with orchestral woodwind, brass or stringed instruments. Buyers should be cautious, as warranties are only valid when purchased through authorized distributors.
While not illegal, gray-market sales of musical instruments occur outside authorized channels, offering lower prices but often selling used items as “new.” These sales lack post-purchase benefits such as warranties, free lessons and accessories.
In 2021, Fender discovered nearly 32,000 online listings of its products that could potentially violate trademark laws. About 70% of those listings were believed to be counterfeit items. However, many of these entities operate anonymously on third-party online platforms and outside authorized distribution channels. This makes it difficult to pursue perpetrators and organizations responsible for producing and distributing these fake goods.The chief concerns when buying a used major-brand electric guitar (or any instrument) from online sellers are the authentication of an instrument’s pedigree and the seller’s honesty about the instrument’s condition. Even the global market for high-quality orchestral musical instruments (strings, woodwinds, brass) isn’t immune to counterfeiters and scammers.
In March 2008, four prominent brands in the musical instrument industry — Ibanez, Gretsch, Fender and Paul Reed Smith (PRS) — formed the Electric Guitar Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (EGACC). This collaboration formed in response to mounting complaints by musicians and music stores of counterfeit instruments flooding the market. The initiative advocates enforcement of intellectual property laws by governmental authorities to combat unauthorized counterfeiting.
But the EGACC struggled in its efforts to stem the manufacture and importation of counterfeit electric guitars for two major reasons: (1) it lacked a website and had no international visibility; and (2) the countries exporting counterfeit guitars were often reticent in prosecuting offenders. However, the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (IACC) plays a crucial role in fighting against counterfeiting, particularly for items such as musical instruments, including guitars. The IACC has implemented initiatives like RogueBlock and MarketSafe to report online sellers of counterfeit goods to financial services companies and remove counterfeit listings from online marketplaces.
In 2008, two Chinese firms, paylessguitar.com.cn and musoland.com.cn, allegedly violated regulations by distributing and selling counterfeit guitars through multiple websites aimed at international customers. TheGearPage.net forum reported that the paylessguitars.com website claimed, “We can make any kind of guitar with any kind of logo you want … Paylessguitars.com offers a lot of guitars in every imaginable brands … All the musical instruments are fabricated in our China factory ...”
After several months of investigation, in November 2008, the Chinese Public Security Bureau (PSB), in cooperation with EGACC members, raided the retail and warehouse locations of these two businesses, where they discovered 1,200 counterfeit guitars as well as other instruments from four prominent guitar brands. Owner Li Dan, her mother and her business partner were arrested. According to the December 2009 issue of Music Inc. magazine, the Chinese Xuanwa District Court in Beijing sentenced Li Dan to three years in prison for running the guitar-counterfeiting ring.
Trademarks, or brands, signal information about the source, quality and expected standards of specific items, or what’s called brand equity — trademarks help shape people’s perceptions of brands. Understanding this psychological insight drives businesses to fiercely protect those unique identifiers. The courts may remove protections when trademarks become part of the public lexicon (i.e., semantic shift, which is what happened to “aspirin,” “Kleenex” and “super glue”). Those marks are then ruled by the courts as generic in standing.
Courts may also remove or deny protection when efforts to defend marks are lax, which is what happened with Fender Musical Instrument Corporation (FMIC).
In 2003, FMIC sought trademark protection from the U.S. government for the characteristic body designs of three of its popular guitar models: the Stratocaster, Telecaster and Precision bass. Since the late 1950s, several companies have been producing guitars and basses using those Fender body designs.
Fender’s effort understandably sparked a strong response from other guitar builders. In a worst-case scenario, if the courts ruled in Fender’s favor, Fender could’ve shut down builders who had been using those designs for several decades or demanded costly licensing fees from them.
For nearly 40 years, Fender took a relaxed stance with other guitar builders who created models in the Telecaster or Stratocaster body styles. While Fender actively opposed blatant counterfeits, many guitar companies in the 1970s and 1980s were producing Stratocaster and Telecaster look-alikes, with Fender filing relatively few cease-and-desist letters or taking legal action.
For six years, Fender contested a decision from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which ultimately ruled against them in March 2009. The TTAB concluded that Fender’s trademarks weren’t valid, stating that Fender filed its claim too late in the evolution of guitar design.
The board noted that Fender had historically focused on protecting its word marks (logo) and headstock designs, rather than the shape of the guitar bodies. The court stated that Fender didn’t publicly assert trademark rights over body shapes until 2004, despite many other manufacturers producing guitars with similar body styles for nearly four decades prior — either as fully assembled instruments or kits.
As a result, the TTAB determined that the opposing parties (other guitar builders) successfully demonstrated that the guitar body configurations Fender sought to trademark were generic in standing.
It’s a different story with Gibson’s defense of its trademarked instruments. Both Gibson body and headstock shapes are trademarks the company has vigorously defended for many years.
In November 2000, Gibson filed a lawsuit against renowned guitar builder Paul Reed Smith (PRS), claiming that PRS’s Singlecut guitars copied the trademarked shape of Les Paul bodies, which Gibson had secured seven years earlier. The lawsuit accused PRS of unfair competition, fraud and deceptive practices and demanded large damages. This claim seemed unusual because many companies had been making similar Les Paul replicas for years. However, in 2004, a district court ordered PRS to stop making, selling and distributing the Singlecut.
One year later, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the previous injunction regarding Gibson trademark infringement. The ruling emphasized consumer confusion over imitating brands, referencing guitar historian and Gibson’s expert witness Walter Carter’s testimony. To Gibson’s surprise, Carter stated that while someone might mistake a Singlecut for a Les Paul from a distance or in a smoky bar, only an “idiot” would confuse a PRS Singlecut with a Les Paul at the point of sale. Following the court’s decision, PRS quickly resumed production of its popular single-cutaway guitars, which had sold well prior to the legal dispute.
In late 2024, Gibson issued a cease-and-desist order against 16 Creative, a celebrity merchandising and fulfillment company, for trademark infringement for guitar models supposedly endorsed by U.S. President Donald Trump. Gibson claims that the guitars mimic the body shape of its Les Paul design.
The guitars are reportedly designed by an unnamed luthier (guitar builder) and made by several unnamed companies. The $11,500 electric guitars autographed by Trump and $1,500 unsigned versions have sold out.
Interestingly, during the late 1960s through the early 1980s, Japanese guitar maker Kawai Teisco built inexpensive classical and electrical guitars under the rare “Trump” brand name, but it had no affiliation with the current U.S. president.
There’s no definitive legal framework that limits copying a design without risking a lawsuit. It’s unpredictable when or how legal action might arise, as the creators of famous guitar designs have often been inconsistent in their approach to confronting replicas.
Small criminal enterprises often benefit from intellectual property theft, while multinational enterprises (MNEs) are the biggest victims of counterfeiting. Chinese anti-counterfeiting organizations hired by MNEs to identify counterfeiters were actually counterfeiting their clients’ products, according to a report by the Associated Press in 2015. MNEs often fear upsetting major governments and avoid actions that could create conflict or difficulty in doing business.
Because of the high costs and sociopolitical issues involved in nationwide crackdowns on counterfeiting, some countries have little incentive to take strong action against counterfeiting. For example, China has had issues with counterfeiting for many years, with one study estimating that it accounted for 8% of China’s gross domestic product in 2006.
Counterfeiting issues often persist when governments make minor, cosmetic changes to appease MNEs without addressing key root-cause problems, such as the role of counterfeiting in local economies, local protectionism, corruption and the need for legal economic alternatives to counterfeiting. As long as inexpensive counterfeit guitars are being made, there will always be buyers looking for a deal.
Here are some ways to avoid getting scammed when buying musical instruments:
Certified Fraud Examiners (CFEs) can be instrumental in the fight against counterfeits by learning about legitimate brand-name guitars and where they’re made. While Gibson manufactures its Les Paul models in facilities in Nashville, Tennessee, and its acoustic guitars are built in Bozeman, Montana, the company does outsource the manufacture of its sub-brand Epiphone line of electric guitars in Qingdao, China. Likewise, Fender has its custom guitar shop in Corona, California, as well as production facilities in Mexico, China, Indonesia, South Korea and Japan for various guitar and bass models.
Online guitar forums can be excellent resources from others who’ve purchased counterfeit guitars. Quora.com has a list of them. Some online guitar forums, such as Reddit’s r/guitar forum, often have users discussing where they purchased a counterfeit Gibson and other fake models. They aren’t buying these guitars out of the trunk of someone’s car; they’re likely purchasing them from small distributors using online selling platforms such as eBay, Etsy and Facebook Marketplace, where authenticity can be difficult to verify. CFEs should take note of such breadcrumbs that could lead to importers of counterfeit guitars.
Some fraudsters try to sell cheap, counterfeit orchestral instruments (mostly brass, woodwinds) to unsuspecting buyers. One Facebook group called “Counterfeit Musical Instruments, Scams, and Stolen Alerts,” identifies scammers and counterfeiters while helping musicians recover lost and stolen orchestral instruments.
The CBP website contains statistics, summaries and operational data on many types of seizures, such as those mentioned in this article. CFEs involved with counterfeit imports could also become members of the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (IACC). This organization initiates programs with and supports actions by governments and the private sector that result in increased enforcement, lead to the prosecution of intellectual property infringers, and create a deterrent to counterfeiters and pirates.
It’s best to work with a knowledgeable, experienced musician or major guitar brand representative who can assist with electric guitar counterfeiting investigations. And always perform due diligence when working with foreign nongovernmental anti-fraud investigators and organizations.
Donn LeVie Jr., CFE, is a staff writer for Fraud Magazine and has served as a leadership strategist at ACFE Global Fraud Conferences and led people and programs for Fortune 100 companies, the federal government and academia for more than 30 years before retiring last year. A guitar player since age 5, LeVie has played in blues, rock and country bands, from small nightclubs to large arenas, and now performs private classical guitar house concerts in the Greenville-Asheville area. He also builds his own line of custom electric guitars. Contact him at donnleviejr@gmail.com.
Unlock full access to Fraud Magazine and explore in-depth articles on the latest trends in fraud prevention and detection.
Read Time: 12 mins
Written By:
Jennifer Liebman, CFE
Mandy Moody, CFE
Jala Attia, CFE
Read Time: 6 mins
Written By:
Laura Harris, CFE
Read Time: 14 mins
Written By:
Donn LeVie, Jr., CFE
Read Time: 12 mins
Written By:
Jennifer Liebman, CFE
Mandy Moody, CFE
Jala Attia, CFE
Read Time: 6 mins
Written By:
Laura Harris, CFE
Read Time: 14 mins
Written By:
Donn LeVie, Jr., CFE
