Those would be a trademark, if anything.
Anyway, it would not be a copyright issue w/ this guitar when push comes to shove--however it might seem from that Wikipedia article. (I love the Wikipedia but it is not the best place to quote from in this instance, especially since you can quote directly from the U.S. Copyright Office's website w/ about the same amount of effort.)
I guess you could potentially say the pattern is a copyrightable feature on a useful article. (The rules are different for useful articles. You definitely aren't going to be able to copyright the whole guitar for all intents and purposes.) But then you would be trying to copyright camouflage and painting things to look like metal plating, which makes about as much sense as copyrighting plaid. The only issue here is that exact design being copied, which if you could argue was distinctive enough would qualify as a trademark, something like Burberry plaid to stick w/ that theme.
It is a fine line, I understand, and I kind of whish you could copyright it. As much as I believe a well-made guitar w/ a fantastic paint job is a work of art, legally it is simply does not get the same kind of consideration as a painting or a sculpture.
Edit: And while it is not much of a legal issue, it is still fully lame to have ripped off the design so thoroughly.