Fake logos on instruments

[skankdelvar]

6 minutes ago, EssentialTension said:

I'm nearly out of popcorn.

I've got some loose Tesco popcorn that I've put in a 'gourmet brand' bag.

£1.99 posted or WHY

Edited December 27, 2017 by skankdelvar

[Cato]

11 minutes ago, prowla said:

You are picking which laws (and rules) you wish to apply. Links to counterfeit/trademark law have already been provided, along with links to site rules covering copyright/trademark.

I'm inclined to go with the ex copper when he's talking about the law.

[prowla]

4 minutes ago, Paul S said:

No it isn't.  As I explained.  You do not know what you are talking about I am afraid.

Do you think that is is OK to falsely use another company's brand when selling something?

[discreet]

10 minutes ago, prowla said:

I only went back through this month's bass sales and found a number of items bearing false logos and Fender in their titles.

How many were clearly intended to deceive potential buyers?

[Paul S]

Theft act covers deception.  No spurious argument on my part but a response actually based on a knowledge of law - something you clearly no have idea about.  

[prowla]

Just now, Cato said:

I'm inclined to go with the ex copper when he's talking about the law.

That explains the shift to theft over trademark law.

[Cato]

3 minutes ago, skankdelvar said:

I've got some loose Tesco popcorn that I've put in a 'gourmet brand' bag.

£1.99 posted or WHY

I  a shop selling Smokey Bacon popcorn the other day. 

That's just wrong, isn't it?

[stingrayPete1977]

Would Limelight have been able to sell their basses for the same price without the copyrighted logo before they took off as the latest fad on here? 

 

[prowla]

Just now, discreet said:

How many were clearly intended to deceive potential buyers?

Do you think it is OK to knowingly sell items falsely bearing other companies trademarked logos?

[discreet]

4 minutes ago, skankdelvar said:

I've got some loose Tesco popcorn that I've put in a 'gourmet brand' bag.

£1.99 posted or WHY

Would you trade for some own-brand couscous in a Waitrose packet?

[Pinball]

But if you make a bass out of parts and use a gebuine Fender neck that is logo'd then that is OK isn't it?

As long as you let people know

Edited December 27, 2017 by Pinball

[discreet]

1 minute ago, stingrayPete1977 said:

Would Limelight have been able to sell their basses for the same price without the copyrighted logo before they took off as the latest fad on here? 

Limelight have their own decal, so I'd say yes.

[prowla]

1 minute ago, Paul S said:

Theft act covers deception.  No spurious argument on my part but a response actually based on a knowledge of law - something you clearly no have idea about.  

As pointed out earlier, I linked the trademark law.

Are you saying that it is OK to knowingly sell an item which has a false and unauthorised trademarked log on it?

Using your clear knowledge of the law, can you please point me at the written legislation and/or case law which states that?

[Paul S]

Just now, prowla said:

Do you think it is OK to knowingly sell items falsely bearing other companies trademarked logos?

OK last post and I'm out.  If it is not the intention of the person doing that to make them believe it is a genuine item then NO it isn't illegal.

[Bassassin]

I kind of understand why Prowla's a bit nonplussed about BC's multiplicity of standards here. The moment scary Mr Hall pops his chubby little pate over the parapet we ban all sales of anything even remotely Rick-ish (just in case, ooh, can't be too careful) - but carry on freely flogging fakey Fenders like there's no tomorrow.

And then get all indignant and defensive when it's pointed out that using imitation Fender logos flouts the exact same trademark laws.

 

[prowla]

Just now, Pinball said:

But if you make a bass out of parts and use a gebuine Fender neck that is logo'd then that is OK isn't it?

I think that the mods earlier stated that if the logo was applied at the factory (or licensed location) then it is kosher.

[discreet]

3 minutes ago, Cato said:

..a shop selling Smokey Bacon popcorn the other day. 

That's just wrong, isn't it?

Ugh. It sounds wrong, but I'd still probably taste it, just to make sure.

[prowla]

Just now, Paul S said:

OK last post and I'm out.  If it is not the intention of the person doing that to make them believe it is a genuine item then NO it isn't illegal.

But they'll still sell it with that illegal fake unauthorised logo and that's OK then?

[prowla]

2 minutes ago, discreet said:

Limelight have their own decal, so I'd say yes.

And I wish they would - they have a reputation as decent quality kit.

[Bassassin]

1 minute ago, Paul S said:

OK last post and I'm out.  If it is not the intention of the person doing that to make them believe it is a genuine item then NO it isn't illegal.

Why didn't BC's owners just tell John Hall that & send him away with a flea in his ear? I think that's rubbish, tbh, a trademark's a trademark.

[Paul S]

No, Jon, it isn't rubbish.  What you  and Prowla are talking about is an infringement of law concerning intellectual property.  It is categorically not a deception, which is the term being banded about, and which covered by criminal law.  The trouble is that neither of you understand that the term deception has a specific meaning in law and that is what I was talking about.

[discreet]

2 minutes ago, Bassassin said:

...but carry on freely flogging fakey Fenders like there's no tomorrow.

No-one is selling fake Fenders. To do that would imply deliberate intent and we've already established that there has been none. The issue seems to be whether it's possible to buy a non-Fender bass with a Fender decal on it on BassChat and somwhow think its a Fender, even when it's been made perfectly clear that it's NOT a Fender.

Not sure what the problem is frankly, I'd never sell a fake Fender on Basschat. That's what eBay and Gumtree are for.

[Cato]

13 minutes ago, Bassassin said:

Why didn't BC's owners just tell John Hall that & send him away with a flea in his ear? I think that's rubbish, tbh, a trademark's a trademark.

I believe the problem with John Hall and Ric was that the BC site owners simply couldn't afford to go to court for the test case which would have decided exactly what the legal responsibilities of a third party marketplace are in regards to selling copies/replicas/modded instruments.

Which John Hall knew when he decided to issue his threats against a relatively tiny website rather than one of the really big online marketplaces.

As far as I know, no such test case has so far been undertaken in the UK, so the responsibilities of the market place in those scenarios is still legally undefined.

Edited December 27, 2017 by Cato

[Dad3353]

12 minutes ago, Bassassin said:

I kind of understand why Prowla's a bit nonplussed about BC's multiplicity of standards here. The moment scary Mr Hall pops his chubby little pate over the parapet we ban all sales of anything even remotely Rick-ish (just in case, ooh, can't be too careful) - but carry on freely flogging fakey Fenders like there's no tomorrow.

And then get all indignant and defensive when it's pointed out that using imitation Fender logos flouts the exact same trademark laws.

And I've already suggested that the definitive answer to having certainty of no infringement is to not sell anything on the site. Be wary of what is asked for.

If an infringement is suspected, Report it, and it'll be dealt with, as the Mods and Admins do with all Reports. What more is required, by anyone here..? (No, put your hand down; we're not going to be dishing out popcorn..! )

[skankdelvar]

I feel that the voice of the counterfeiting community is sorely under-represented in this discussion. We counterfeiters provide a useful service to impecunious consumers and concerned citizens alike. The thrifty musician benefits from our admittedly variable skills in replicating desirable instruments; the 'worried' individual is afforded the personal satisfaction of broadcasting their concerns in public forums. 

Moreover, the spare parts industry receives a useful boost while artistically inclined individuals are rewarded for honing their skills on Photoshop or similar software packages. Likewise, manufacturers of specialist water-soluble adhesives receive a financial fillip above and beyond their trading turnover with the original manufacturers.

Most importantly, counterfeiters contribute to enhanced GDP, the benefits of which ultimately trickle down to the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. Those who parade their indignation at our valuable role in eradicating inequality should perhaps look in the mirror and ask themselves 'Who is the real criminal?'

18 minutes ago, Cato said:

I  a shop selling Smokey Bacon popcorn the other day. 

That's just wrong, isn't it?

I am ill-suited to render an aesthetic verdict, being habituated to covering bacon in maple syrup. Nevertheless, I sympathise with your concern, being myself similarly agitated by Morrisons' Cheese and Tuna butterfly cakes.

 

17 minutes ago, discreet said:

Would you trade for some own-brand couscous in a Waitrose packet?

I might be tempted if it's the bacon and maple couscous with cash my way.