Fake logos on instruments

[mcnach]

4 hours ago, Hellzero said:

Isn't it a no Rickenbacker sale place for that reason ? I mean fakes and as there are even more fake Fender's than fake Rick's, why not be logical all the way up to the end of your idea !?!

 

The real reason is not that, but to ensure certain Mr. H. doesn't hassle the people in charge of the forum. 

[ZilchWoolham]

Discreet, I think you're replying to arguments nobody here has even put forth. At most, some people are considering if a ban on instruments with fake logos (which may or may not be criminal) would be a good idea, for the benefit of buyers everywhere. I think this is a very pertinent discussion, considering we are on Basschat, and the insinuation that those who do object to fake logos are sheltered and fragile people with no experience of "real" issues is downright insulting, which I'm suspecting was your intention, although of course I'd gladly be proven wrong. 

[prowla]

2 hours ago, KingPrawn said:

This is great. I feel like I’m embroiled in some type of conspiracy. My life has just got interesting. I’m selling the bass in question on the forum. The original sale line I put up was “ Fender Jazz with limelight love” Another chatter pointed out that this may be throwing others of the sent. 

ill be perfectly honest, when I bought this bass I thought it was a fender jazz reissue that had been pimped by Limelight. I honestly thought that’s what they did. Like some people do with cars. Once I had read upon the company I realised I’d made a genuine mistake. So changed it immediately.

Im not sure of the legality of logos etc. i completely agree about not promoting the sale of fake instruments in any way. I don’t think it’s the quality of the bass as the Limelight is stunnng to play and I own genuine vintage fender jazzes. It’s the intent to decive that would damage the site. Maybe it’s an issue for the powers at be need to consider ( wait until I’ve sold my Limelight first please)

I do believe in the integrity of BC Members. I’ve been buying and selling on here for years and have never had anything but good experiences.  I’ve often relied on the comments and knowledge of other members to inform my decision and increase my own knowledge  I’ve always felt I can post questions  Maybe we need a section to “Ask the experts”

 

So, to clarify, you bought it, on this site, thinking it was a Fender?

[prowla]

1 hour ago, discreet said:

Are we already suffering from too much holiday time on our hands, or what? I say every Fender bass made after 1965 is questionable - because Leo sold the company to CBS in that year and thus they were no longer made by him. Thhp! 

Maybe we should have a member vote on it? And should the site owners go nuts and say we can list only 'genuine' Fender basses on BassChat, I'll be more than happy to PhotoShop the decals off mine before posting the pictures. And subsequently PM any prospective buyers to tell them that it still has a Fender decal on it. How''d you like THEM apples, ladies?

This is first-world-virtue-signalling-snowflake-problem stuff, people. If you're determined to worry, there are far more important things to be worrying about. If you really think the possible misuse of guitar decals is any sort of an issue, I would suggest you thicken your skin somewhat, get out a bit more and start enjoying life.

Nope.

Nope.

The misuse of brand logos is an issue and is illegal. As I mentioned, another site (The Fretboard) has implemented a no fake logos for sale policy, and at least one FB group has too. It is a real problem, not least exemplified by the fact that someone has posted on this thread that they bought a bass with a fake logo thinking it was a Fender. Commenting on whether folks have a thick skin or not is quite missing the point and is irrelevant.

[prowla]

10 minutes ago, Cato said:

//Pedant alert.//

The use of a brand logo on a replica instrument that has been advertised and sold as a replica instrument is not 'illegal' unless a court has ruled it to be so.

I have no idea if that has ever happened in the UK.

It may possibly  be a breach of corporate or civil law, but as long as the seller is not trying to pass off the instrument as the genuine article, then no criminal laws have been broken, unless a judge has ruled otherwise.

 

//pedant alert//

Edit.

Just point out the obvious, potentially breaching civil or corporate law may not land you in prison, but it could result in a life shatteringly expensive court case and damages.

Interesting - where did you get that from?

From https://www.gov.uk/using-somebody-elses-intellectual-property, "Using someone’s trade mark, patent, copyright or design without their permission is known as ‘IP infringement’ and could lead to a fine, prison or both.".

There is more detail at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ip-crime-and-enforcement-for-consumers/ip-crime-and-enforcement-for-consumers

 

[Cato]

12 minutes ago, prowla said:

Interesting - where did you get that from?

From https://www.gov.uk/using-somebody-elses-intellectual-property, "Using someone’s trade mark, patent, copyright or design without their permission is known as ‘IP infringement’ and could lead to a fine, prison or both.".

There is more detail at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ip-crime-and-enforcement-for-consumers/ip-crime-and-enforcement-for-consumers

 

I've withdrawn the post because it's a bit of a legal minefield, but the long and the short of it is that it comes down to intention.

If the seller is intending to deceive the purchaser then there is definitely a criminal offence, otherwise it's not quite so clear cut, especially not pertaining to one off private  sales between individuals where  neither party raises a grievance. 

I would bet money that Fender are fully aware of the activities of Limelight and other similar companies and that conversations have taken place between them, possibly involving lawyers.

Until those conversations are made public, the rest of us will have no idea what kind of agreement was reached.

 

Edited December 27, 2017 by Cato

[bazzbass]

I don't mind smaller companies copying  a bass, as long as their own label is on it.

 

People putting Fender logos on Squires is wrong, especially if they try to pass it off as a Fender.

 

If you want a Fender, buy a Fender.

[timmo]

To be fair to fakes getting resold further down the chain, lots of people on this forum peruse Ebay and Gumtree amongst others. They soon spot a fake and call it out to us and ebay. If Ebay has been informed, which happens, and they do nothing, then there is not a lot that one can do.

[The59Sound]

To be fair to the OP, Rickenbackers are still banned from being sold here aren't they? 

[wateroftyne]

11 minutes ago, The59Sound said:

To be fair to the OP, Rickenbackers are still banned from being sold here aren't they? 

Yep, and the reason why is referenced a couple of times.

[Hellzero]

11 hours ago, wateroftyne said:

It's a no-Rickenbacker sale place because Rickenbacker aggressively defend their intellectual property.

"8 - Please note that with immediate effect, Basschat will not accept any adverts selling or otherwise trading or exposing for sale ANY Rickenbacker products. This is the only way we can ensure that no copies of Rickenbacker instruments appear in the marketplace, however unwittingly that may be. Ask John Hall (Rickenbacker CEO) if you have any questions about this."

Am I reading wrong, but it's clearly stated that it's to avoid selling fakes even if John Hall is quite aggressive about that point... So why not avoiding selling any fakes at all !?!

[Dad3353]

12 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

...So why not avoiding selling any fakes at all !?!

How, in practical, pragmatic terms could the site (the Mods..? Admin..? A robot..?) know if a bass presented for sale is a fake or not..? The decision to ban Ric ads was the result of exactly that conundrum. Under menace of legal action if any infringement was seen, and not being able to identify with certainty the origin of any bass advertised, it was necessary to ban all. That way, it's certain that no fakes are for sale. Should the site do the same for Fenders..? Ban them from being sold totally; that way no illicit trademarks would get through the net. Yes, this means that 'pukka' Fenders would be banned, too (but how would one distinguish 'real' from 'false'..?). It's a solution; is that what is being proposed..? If not, what other method would ensure zero tolerance..? 

[Steve Browning]

Maybe, for clarity, all adverts should, as the very first word, name the manufacturer of any given product. A Limelight would be listed as such and a no-name would also have to be so called. You might want to add that it carries a particular logo but that would be clear (and so would any intention to deceive by default) from any photos.

Maybe there should also be a rule that all items for sale have a front and back photo too. People only ask for them anyway.

[discreet]

22 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

"8 - Please note that with immediate effect, Basschat will not accept any adverts selling or otherwise trading or exposing for sale ANY Rickenbacker products. This is the only way we can ensure that no copies of Rickenbacker instruments appear in the marketplace, however unwittingly that may be. Ask John Hall (Rickenbacker CEO) if you have any questions about this."

Am I reading wrong, but it's clearly stated that it's to avoid selling fakes even if John Hall is quite aggressive about that point... So why not avoiding selling any fakes at all !?!

Surely that's obvious? Because we'd see an announcement like this:

'Please note that with immediate effect, Basschat will not accept any adverts selling or otherwise trading or exposing for sale ANY bass guitars. This is the only way we can ensure that no copies of instruments appear in the marketplace, however unwittingly that may be.'

Is that really what you want?

[discreet]

17 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

Maybe, for clarity, all adverts should, as the very first word, name the manufacturer of any given product. A Limelight would be listed as such and a no-name would also have to be so called. You might want to add that it carries a particular logo but that would be clear (and so would any intention to deceive by default) from any photos.

99.9% of the time, that happens anyway. We've had one instance of the first word in an ad being 'Fender' where the item was not a Fender - and that was because of a genuine error on the part of the seller, who obviously did not intend to deceive anyone. And it got picked up straight away. Which just goes to show that any deliberate attempt at selling a fake here will be shot down in flames immediately. 'Basses for Sale' is a self-policing forum. Whether you think that's a good thing or not is moot.

Edited December 27, 2017 by discreet

[Woodinblack]

33 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

Am I reading wrong, but it's clearly stated that it's to avoid selling fakes even if John Hall is quite aggressive about that point... So why not avoiding selling any fakes at all !?!

Yes, you are reading it wrong. It is to avoid having to talk with (or be talked at) by John Hall.

talk to him, you would understand!

[prowla]

5 hours ago, Cato said:

I've withdrawn the post because it's a bit of a legal minefield, but the long and the short of it is that it comes down to intention.

If the seller is intending to deceive the purchaser then there is definitely a criminal offence, otherwise it's not quite so clear cut, especially not pertaining to one off private  sales between individuals where  neither party raises a grievance. 

I would bet money that Fender are fully aware of the activities of Limelight and other similar companies and that conversations have taken place between them, possibly involving lawyers.

Until those conversations are made public, the rest of us will have no idea what kind of agreement was reached.

 

I'd leave it in, because it's pertinent to the discussion! :-)

The law in the UK is a bit of a funny thing, from what I can tell; there are laws which are written in black and white and then there is case law, where the finer nuances of the written laws are established.

[wateroftyne]

Could someone refer me to an instance where a fake Fender has been sold on Basschat as legit, to someone who believed it to be real?

Edited December 27, 2017 by wateroftyne

[prowla]

4 hours ago, bazzbass said:

I don't mind smaller companies copying  a bass, as long as their own label is on it.

 

People putting Fender logos on Squires is wrong, especially if they try to pass it off as a Fender.

 

If you want a Fender, buy a Fender.

And that is my position too:

• Fender gave away the rights to their instrument designs by not establishing them as IP.
• Gibson only protected the "moustache" top of their headstock and the headstock diamond inlay.
• Rickenbacker protect all of their designs (which means they have to be very litigious, or just letting one through will establish the precedent).

(And each owns their company logo, of course.)

So anybody can make a Strat, but only Fender can make a Fender Stratocaster.

[prowla]

5 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

Could someone refer me to an instance where a fake Fender has been sold on Basschat as legit, to someone who believed it to be real?

Refer to just up this thread, where the owner of the Limelight bass said they bought it believing it was a Fender...

[prowla]

30 minutes ago, discreet said:

99.9% of the time, that happens anyway. We've had one instance of the first word in an ad being 'Fender' where the item was not a Fender - and that was because of a genuine error on the part of the seller, who obviously did not intend to deceive anyone. And it got picked up straight away. Which just goes to show that any deliberate attempt at selling a fake here will be shot down in flames immediately. 'Basses for Sale' is a self-policing forum. Whether you think that's a good thing or not is moot.

Except that he said he bought it here, thinking it was a Fender (which Limelight had customised).

[Steve Browning]

3 minutes ago, prowla said:

Except that he said he bought it here, thinking it was a Fender (which Limelight had customised).

I mean no disrespect but that is a bit of a schoolboy error. Limelight is well renowned on this site and it would have been simplicity itself to find out that Limelight don't do that kind of thing. I would be amazed if the original advert had any room for doubt of the authenticity of the instrument (I would think the price itself was a give-away).

As I said, I mean no disrespect but the cost of a Limelight relic against the original thing (even a Fender relic) would surely have prompted some questions about the authenticity.

Bet it's a great bass too.

[KiOgon]

I thought Limelight assembled basses from genuine Fender parts - customised, is that right?

[wateroftyne]

10 minutes ago, prowla said:

Except that he said he bought it here, thinking it was a Fender (which Limelight had customised).

Was it described and sold as a legit Fender, or was it rather a misunderstanding by the buyer?

I'm not sure the populace of BC should be penalised for it...

[prowla]

44 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

How, in practical, pragmatic terms could the site (the Mods..? Admin..? A robot..?) know if a bass presented for sale is a fake or not..? The decision to ban Ric ads was the result of exactly that conundrum. Under menace of legal action if any infringement was seen, and not being able to identify with certainty the origin of any bass advertised, it was necessary to ban all. That way, it's certain that no fakes are for sale. Should the site do the same for Fenders..? Ban them from being sold totally; that way no illicit trademarks would get through the net. Yes, this means that 'pukka' Fenders would be banned, too (but how would one distinguish 'real' from 'false'..?). It's a solution; is that what is being proposed..? If not, what other method would ensure zero tolerance..? 

 

As far as 4001/4003 basses go, it's fairly easy to spot a fake, as no maker gets it 100% right. I've driven 3 hours to buy a Ric, only to find it was a fake when I got my hands on it (the owner was moritifed!). I've also bought a Ric string mute screw on ebay and received it to find it wasn't genuine (I got a refund), and a TRC. I've had 3 Japanese '70s copies, one of which had a "Rickenbacker" logo on it (which I removed); they are interesting historical instruments in their own right and I've still got one.

But BC made the choice and, in the face of Rickenbacker's litigation (or threat thereof), went nuclear; I implicitly accepted the rule when I signed up!

But Rickenbacker is a special case.

The complication with Rickenbacker is that they are protecting the entire design as their IP, not just their logo.

With Fenders, it's easier: any company can produce parts with look like Fender's, which are exact copies, slot-in replacements for Fender components.

That's not the issue; that train left the station years ago.

And people can put "Fender" logos on their instruments if they want to amuse themselves in their own bedrooms.

The issue is where companies or individuals try to sell on instruments with fake Fender logos on them.