About this article :
A brief overview of the recent “Stratocaster ruling” in the context of HCU vs. PANArt
Summary (as of April 2026) of the HCU vs. PANArt legal dispute and the background story
Related articles:
An international group of Handpan Builders and Merchants (HCU) vs. PANArt – a chronological sequence of events since fall 2020
Part 1 & Part 2
Last updated 2 April 2026
It’s interesting that HCU’s lawyers argue one way one time and the exact opposite the next. In March 2026, Bird & Bird (Dissmann) won a case for Fender Musical Instruments before the Düsseldorf Regional Court in the dispute over the Stratocaster shape of Fender Guitars. Interestingly, the opposing side in this trial argued exactly as the HCU lawyers from Bird & Bird did in the case against PANArt: The shape is functional/descriptive, and therefore not a design eligible for protection!
Assessment of the opposing Bird & Bird argumentation (Dissmann):
1) Professional duty: Lawyers argue on a case-by-case basis, not ideologically, but according to an ‘adaptable strategy’ for their respective clients.
2) Opportunism: Bird & Bird (large law firm) maximizes client profits: Fender = big fish, HCU = idealists (lower fee?)
3) Tactics: For Fender: Prove “fame + non-functionality” (surveys, sales figures); for HCU: Reverse it – “Hang” is too generic (no burden of proof for brand recognition? Weak, as it has been refuted).
4) Interpretation: Shows trademark law as a gray area. HCU’s position (“free imitation”) fails with iconic brands; Dissmann adapts to win.
5) Contradiction: Argumentation inconsistent: Bird & Bird rejects the “monopoly argument” for HCU but upholds it for Fender ???
<< Bird & Bird Secures Landmark Ruling for Fender to Protect the Legendary Stratocaster® Design >>
Published March 13, 2026
Here is the LINK to the BIRD & BIRD publication:
englisch
german
A comprehensive summary of the PANArt vs. HCU debate
The Hang, the Handpan and the legal dispute over their legacy
A comprehensive documentary – as of April 2026
Part I: The origins of the Hang and the birth of the Handpan
1. The background: PANArt and the steelpan tradition
The history of the Hang begins in the Swiss capital, Bern, where a vibrant steelpan scene had developed in the 1980s and 1990s. Felix Rohner and Sabina Schärer were members of the steelband ‘Bernese Oil Company’ and were deeply involved in the construction and tuning of steelpans.
In June 1993, four members of the band – including Rohner and Schärer – founded PANArt Steelpan-Manufaktur AG in Bern. The company initially focused on the construction and repair of steelpans and quickly developed into a respected manufacturer in Europe.
2. Materials research: From the oil drum to the pang
A major breakthrough for PANArt lay in materials science. Whilst traditional steelpans are made from recycled oil drums (spundfässer), Rohner and Schärer developed a completely new raw material: deep-drawn and subsequently gas-nitrided sheet steel. This special material – which they called ‘Pang’ – enabled significantly greater tonal purity and stability than conventional steel drums.
This material gave rise to the Pang instrument family, a series of experimental sound objects that bridged the gap between the Caribbean steel pan tradition and entirely new types of sound bodies.
3. The Birth of the Hang (2000–2001)
The decisive impetus for the creation of the Hang came from the Swiss percussionist Reto Weber. In the autumn of 1999, Weber visited the PANArt workshop with an unusual idea: he wanted an instrument that combined the sound characteristics of the Trinidad steelpan with those of the South Indian ghatam (a clay ball) – and one that could be played with the hands.
Rohner and Schärer took up this suggestion and began intensive experimental work. In the course of 2000, the Hang was created – a lens-shaped resonating body consisting of two interconnected half-shells made of nitrided sheet steel. The upper side (‘Ding’ side) features a central dome and circularly arranged tone fields; the lower side (‘Gu’ side) has a central opening (the ‘Gu’), which serves as a resonance hole.
The name ‘Hang’ comes from Bernese German and means ‘hand’ – a reference to the way it is played with bare hands.
4. The presentation at the Frankfurt Music Fair (2001)
In the spring of 2001, Rohner and Schärer presented their new instrument to the public for the first time at the Frankfurt Music Fair. The reaction was overwhelming: the Hang captivated musicians, dealers and the public alike with its unique, warm sound and intuitive playability.
Consequently, PANArt ceased production of steel pans entirely and devoted itself exclusively to the Hang. In 2003, the company was renamed PANArt Hangbau AG.
5. The further development of the Hang (2001–2013)
Over the years, the Hang underwent several generations and further developments:
• First generation (2001–2005): The original Hang with a brass-coloured finish. It was available in various tunings and quickly became a sought-after collector’s item.
• Second generation (2006–2007): Improved sound design, modified surface treatment. PANArt experimented with new alloys and tuning techniques.
• Integral Hang (2008–2009): A fundamental redesign with modified material treatment and a new sound philosophy.
• Free Integral Hang (2010–2013): The final phase of Hang production. PANArt produced according to its own criteria and without taking customer requests into account.
From 2013/2014, PANArt ceased production of the Hang and concentrated on new sound sculptures such as the Hang Gubal, Hang Urgu, Hang Gudu and various Pang string instruments. For PANArt, the Hang was a ‘sound sculpture’ – a work of art – and not merely a musical instrument.
6. The birth of the handpan movement (from 2007)
The enormous demand for the Hang and PANArt’s strictly limited production (distribution via direct sales only, later via postal application) led independent instrument makers worldwide to begin developing their own versions of similar instruments.
Pantheon Steel and the Halo (2007–2009)
Kyle Cox, an experienced steelpan maker from the USA, founded Pantheon Steel in 2004. Inspired by the Hang, he developed his own instrument – the Halo. On 13 March 2009, Pantheon Steel presented the first playable Halo. Cox also coined the term ‘handpan’ as a generic term to distinguish the new instrument genre from the registered trademark ‘Hang’. The term first appeared on the Pantheon Steel website in 2007.
Dennis Havlena and the DIY movement
The American instrument maker Dennis Havlena published instructions for building simple handpan-like instruments from propane gas cylinders. His instructions, which were freely available on the internet, contributed significantly to the spread of the DIY handpan movement and inspired numerous subsequent handpan builders.
Other pioneers
In the years that followed, numerous handpan manufacturers emerged worldwide:
• Bellart/SPB (Spain): One of the first European handpan manufacturers.
• Caisa (Germany): Former German manufacturer.
• Ayasa Instruments (Netherlands): Later one of the defendants in the legal dispute with PANArt.
• Saraz Handpans (USA): A major American manufacturer.
To this day, there are hundreds of handpan manufacturers worldwide, serving an estimated market volume in the tens of millions.
Part II: The Legal Dispute – HCU vs. PANArt
1. Summary
Since around 2020, a landmark legal dispute has been raging between PANArt Hangbau AG and an international community of handpan manufacturers and retailers who have joined forces under the umbrella of ‘Handpan Community United’ (HCU).
At its core, the dispute centres on whether the Hang, as a work of applied art, is protected by copyright – and whether this protection extends to the extent that the manufacture and distribution of handpans by third parties can be prohibited.
PANArt argues that the Hang is not primarily a musical instrument, but a sound sculpture – a work of visual art that enjoys copyright protection. The HCU, on the other hand, takes the view that the basic form of the handpan is functionally determined and cannot be subject to copyright, as musical instruments primarily serve a utilitarian purpose.
2. Chronology of events
2.1 Background (2007–2019)
Ever since the first handpan copies appeared, PANArt had expressed its displeasure at the imitation of the Hang. The company regarded the handpan industry as an infringement of its intellectual property. During this phase, however, matters remained largely confined to verbal disputes and isolated warnings.
2.2 PANArt’s copyright offensive (2020)
In 2020, PANArt significantly stepped up its campaign. The company sent cease-and-desist letters and warning letters to handpan retailers in Germany, including World of Handpans and Yatao Shop, as well as to the Dutch manufacturer and materials supplier Ayasa Instruments. PANArt claimed that the hang was protected by copyright as a work of applied art and demanded that the production and distribution of handpans be ceased.
2.3 Founding of the HCU (2020)
In response to PANArt’s legal offensive, around 25 handpan manufacturers and retailers from various countries joined forces to form a group of claimants: the Handpan Community United (HCU). The HCU commissioned the internationally renowned law firm Bird & Bird to provide legal representation. The aim was to seek a declaratory judgement establishing that no copyright exists on the hang that could prohibit the manufacture of handpans.
In autumn 2020, the HCU filed the claim with the Commercial Court (High Court) of the Canton of Bern.
2.4 The judgement of the High Court of Bern (2 July 2024)
After proceedings lasting around four years, the High Court of the Canton of Bern delivered its judgment on 2 July 2024 in the first phase of the proceedings (case number: HG 20 117). In a 95-page ruling, the court decided:
• The Hang is a work of applied art within the meaning of the Swiss Copyright Act (URG).
• Copyright protection extends to the Hang in all its versions – in Switzerland as well as in Germany and the Netherlands.
• Protected features of the work: the lens shape comprising two half-shells, the central dome (‘Ding’), the circular arrangement of the tone fields and the opening on the underside (‘Gu’).
• The HCU’s claim was dismissed.
• The costs of the proceedings were imposed on the group of claimants (HCU).
The court clarified that the requirements for a degree of creativity in applied art are no higher than those for non-functional art. The scope for design was deemed sufficient, and there were no mandatory requirements that would have necessitated the chosen form.
2.5 The appeal to the Federal Supreme Court (2024–2025)
The HCU lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Bern Higher Court with the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne. On 27 February 2025, the Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It confirmed that the question of fundamental copyright protection would not be re-examined until the Bern Higher Court had concluded the second phase of the proceedings – the question of the specific scope of protection.
2.6 The second phase: scope of protection (2025–2026)
Following the Federal Supreme Court’s decision, the case was referred back to the Bern Higher Court for the second phase. Here, the court must decide which specific handpans fall within the scope of protection of the Hang copyright and which do not.
The next hearing took place on 27 January 2026. A final judgement on the question of which handpans are legal and which are not is still pending at the time of this documentation (April 2026).
3. Positions of the parties
3.1 PANArt’s position
• The Hang is a sound sculpture and a work of visual art, not merely a musical instrument.
• The shape of the Hang is an expression of the individual personalities of its creators (Rohner and Schärer) and is therefore protected by copyright.
• The handpan industry constitutes systematic imitation that infringes PANArt’s intellectual property.
• Handpan manufacturers and retailers profit financially from a form that PANArt developed through years of research.
3.2 Position of the HCU
• The basic form of the handpan (two half-shells, tone fields, central dome) is functionally determined and serves to produce sound.
• Musical instruments should, in principle, not be subject to copyright, as their form is determined by their intended use.
• Copyright protection would pose an existential threat to the entire handpan industry – hundreds of manufacturers, retailers and musicians worldwide.
• The HCU acknowledges PANArt’s pioneering work but argues that innovation and diversity in music must not be restricted by the copyright claims of a single company.
Part III: The Stratocaster ruling and the parallels with the Hang case
1. The Stratocaster ruling (March 2026)
On 9 March 2026, the Düsseldorf Regional Court handed down a landmark ruling that bears direct parallels to the legal dispute over the Hang. The international law firm Bird & Bird – the same firm representing the HCU in the proceedings against PANArt – secured a groundbreaking ruling in this case for Fender Musical Instruments Corporation.
1.1 Facts of the case
Fender brought an action against the Chinese company Yiwu Philharmonic Musical Instruments Co., which sold electric guitars via the online platform AliExpress whose body shape was modelled on the iconic Fender Stratocaster® – including shipments to Germany.
1.2 The ruling
The Düsseldorf Regional Court ruled:
• The body shape of the Stratocaster is a work of applied art and enjoys full copyright protection under German and EU law.
• The design goes beyond a purely functional design and embodies an independent creative achievement.
• Yiwu Philharmonic is prohibited from manufacturing, distributing and offering guitars with the Stratocaster body shape in Germany and the EU.
• Violations are punishable by fines of up to €250,000 per infringement or imprisonment for up to six months.
The ruling has effect beyond Germany throughout the European Union, regardless of where the instruments in question are manufactured.
2. The parallels with the Hang case
2.1 Identical legal argument: ‘Applied art’
The central parallel between the Stratocaster ruling and the Hang case lies in the identical core argument: both cases revolve around the question of whether the shape of a musical instrument is protected by copyright as a ‘work of applied art’.
PANArt argued in the proceedings against the HCU in exactly the same way as Bird & Bird argued on behalf of Fender in the Stratocaster case: the external shape of the instrument is not purely functional, but rather an expression of an independent creative achievement that goes beyond what is technically necessary.
2.2 The irony of the situation
The particular explosiveness of the situation stems from a remarkable irony: In the handpan case, Bird & Bird represents the HCU – that is, the party arguing that the shape of a musical instrument should not be protected by copyright. At the same time, the same firm represents Fender in the Stratocaster case – and successfully argues exactly the opposite there: that the shape of a musical instrument is indeed protected as a work of applied art.
This situation raises questions:
• Does the Stratocaster ruling weaken the HCU’s position in the Hang proceedings?
• How can Bird & Bird argue in one case that the shapes of musical instruments do not deserve copyright protection, whilst in another case they are fighting for precisely that protection for a client?
• Does the Düsseldorf ruling strengthen PANArt’s legal position, even though it was secured by the HCU’s opposing party?
2.3 Assessment
The Stratocaster ruling confirms a trend in European case law: iconic product designs – including those of everyday objects and musical instruments – can enjoy full copyright protection as works of applied art. This development significantly bolsters PANArt’s argument in the Hang case.
However, there are also significant differences: whilst the Stratocaster shape is essentially an aesthetic design (an electric guitar can function in many different body shapes), the HCU argues that the Hang’s shape is more functionally determined – the lens shape and the arrangement of the tone fields are acoustically necessary. The Bern court, however, had already rejected this argument in the first phase of the proceedings.
In summary, it can be said that the Stratocaster ruling, secured by the HCU’s own law firm, sets a precedent that effectively supports PANArt’s position in the handpan dispute. It remains to be seen how this development will affect the second phase of the Bern proceedings.