Fake logos on instruments

[Dan Dare]

39 minutes ago, prowla said:

Someone on this thread bought a Limelight thinking it was a Fender.

Probably got a better instrument than a Fender. If they paid Fender money, they're quids in

[discreet]

4 minutes ago, HazBeen said:

To me this spells non-issue. It’s like putting a roundabout on a road nobody uses, you csn do it but it costs time, effort and does not solve anything really.

I've run out of reactions today, but LIKE.

[discreet]

1 minute ago, Dan Dare said:

Probably got a better instrument than a Fender. If they paid Fender money, they're quids in

That's a good point. It's actually like putting a Ford decal on a Mercedes...

[prowla]

21 minutes ago, Dan Dare said:

Let's keep this one going. I like spoof labels. My Bitsa has a Fender style logo that says 'Findus Sea Bass' on the headstock, courtesy of a chap on eBay. Is that illegal?

What trademark is that infringing?

[discreet]

2 minutes ago, prowla said:

What trademark is that infringing?

Findus, obviously. I hope Dan isn't thinking of selling that bass, as someone might buy it thinking it's a crispy pancake.

[prowla]

12 minutes ago, Dan Dare said:

Probably got a better instrument than a Fender. If they paid Fender money, they're quids in

Agreed, so why's it got a Fender logo?

[bumnote]

14 minutes ago, discreet said:

You mean you're NOT McCartney??

only between 1 and 8 when I am asleep

[yorks5stringer]

When do we get to the bit when everyone kisses and makes up? It's just I have to go out in about 25 minutes and I don't want to miss it.....

[discreet]

1 minute ago, yorks5stringer said:

When do we get to the bit when everyone kisses and makes up? It's just I have to go out in about 25 minutes and I don't want to miss it.....

I've got herpes, so it's not gonna happen.

[yorks5stringer]

Do you mean herpes or are you faking Hermes, the parcel courier?

[prowla]

18 minutes ago, discreet said:

Continuing to say the same thing over and over again expecting a different response is a sign of something, I can't remember what. The fact is, that bass was put up for sale in good faith by the seller. Yes, he was wrong about the bass, but had no intention of deceiving anyone. You can't use that as an example of mis-selling.

Please find me an example of a fake Fender deliberately put up for sale on this site to be sold as a genuine Fender and bought by someone who thought it was a genuine Fender.

I quoted you the example of someone who bought it thinking it was a Fender, because it had a Fender logo.

[discreet]

2 minutes ago, prowla said:

I quoted you the example of someone who bought it thinking it was a Fender, because it had a Fender logo.

Please find me an example of a fake Fender with a Fender decal that was put up for sale by a BassChat member on this site with the deliberate intention of deceiving other members, which was then subsequently bought buy a member who thought it to be a genuine Fender.

[HazBeen]

I can’t believe ‘m quoting this numpty: FAKE news!

 

[HazBeen]

Is this even BC?

[discreet]

9 minutes ago, yorks5stringer said:

Do you mean herpes or are you faking Hermes, the parcel courier?

I think it best if we leave my package out of this.

[discreet]

1 minute ago, HazBeen said:

Is this even BC?

Nope, it's AD now.

[prowla]

As far as the law goes, whether there is a disclaimer is irrelevant; the law states:

• A person commits an offence who with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor—

  (a)applies to goods or their packaging a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, or

  (b)sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire or distributes goods which bear, or the packaging of which bears, such a sign, or

  (c)has in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business any such goods with a view to the doing of anything, by himself or another, which would be an offence under paragraph (b).

It doesn't matter whether they presented it as the genuine article or not; the simple fact that it carries a trademarked logo is what the law covers.

The penalty is:

• A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

  (a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;

  (b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or both.

Constantly challenging for an instance where a person has sought to sell an item pretending that it was something else is a red herring (oh lawd - another fish!); the issue is in selling the item itself.

[HazBeen]

2 minutes ago, discreet said:

I think it best if we leave my package out of this.

And here I was thinking you’d be “discreet” about it.

[timmo]

1 minute ago, prowla said:

As far as the law goes, whether there is a disclaimer is irrelevant; the law states:

• A person commits an offence who with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor—

  (a)applies to goods or their packaging a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, or

  (b)sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire or distributes goods which bear, or the packaging of which bears, such a sign, or

  (c)has in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business any such goods with a view to the doing of anything, by himself or another, which would be an offence under paragraph (b).

It doesn't matter whether they presented it as the genuine article or not; the simple fact that it carries a trademarked logo is what the law covers.

The penalty is:

• A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

  (a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;

  (b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or both.

Constantly challenging for an instance where a person has sought to sell an item pretending that it was something else is a red herring (oh lawd - another fish!); the issue is in selling the item itself.

It is against the law to drive without removing all the snow off the cars roof. A lot of people do though

[Steve Browning]

3 minutes ago, prowla said:

As far as the law goes, whether there is a disclaimer is irrelevant; the law states:

• A person commits an offence who with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor—

  (a)applies to goods or their packaging a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, or

  (b)sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire or distributes goods which bear, or the packaging of which bears, such a sign, or

  (c)has in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business any such goods with a view to the doing of anything, by himself or another, which would be an offence under paragraph (b).

It doesn't matter whether they presented it as the genuine article or not; the simple fact that it carries a trademarked logo is what the law covers.

The penalty is:

• A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

  (a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;

  (b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or both.

Constantly challenging for an instance where a person has sought to sell an item pretending that it was something else is a red herring (oh lawd - another fish!); the issue is in selling the item itself.

We all know. You proposed a similar ban on such things being sold on here (which could be anything, even on the sell anything pages) and this was rejected. What more is there to say. Yes, we implicitly condone it but we don't care. You seem to have one sympathiser as far as I can see but the mods have stated that nothing will be changing.

Carry on by all means but it's your head and your brick wall.

[prowla]

4 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

We all know. You proposed a similar ban on such things being sold on here (which could be anything, even on the sell anything pages) and this was rejected. What more is there to say. Yes, we implicitly condone it but we don't care. You seem to have one sympathiser as far as I can see but the mods have stated that nothing will be changing.

Carry on by all means but it's your head and your brick wall.

I guess you haven't read what the mods wrote; the situation is that the rules already cover it, but they moderate with a light touch.

Nice use of the "we" there, though.

[T-Bay]

23 minutes ago, yorks5stringer said:

Do you mean herpes or are you faking Hermes, the parcel courier?

Don’t worry, if it’s Hermes no one will get it.

[discreet]

1 minute ago, prowla said:

Constantly challenging for an instance where a person has sought to sell an item pretending that it was something else is a red herring (oh lawd - another fish!); the issue is in selling the item itself.

I don't care how many times you quote rules to me - it's not a red herring, it is absolutely central to this entire thread  - I've asked you repeatedly to find me an example of a fake Fender, with a Fender decal, that was put up for sale by a BassChat member, on this site, with the deliberate intention of deceiving other members, which was then subsequently bought buy a member who thought it to be a genuine Fender.

But you won't. Because you can't. And you can't because there isn't one. Which means that the whole premise of your OP - 'We should instigate a policy that another website has implemented, i.e. no sales of fake instruments', is fatally flawed. It's totally unnecessary. Because no fake instruments have ever been sold on this site. It is a non-issue, and will remain a non-issue.

[prowla]

11 minutes ago, timmo said:

It is against the law to drive without removing all the snow off the cars roof. A lot of people do though

It is against the law to kill, but a lot of murders do happen.

[discreet]

1 minute ago, prowla said:

It is against the law to kill, but a lot of murders do happen.

Yes... yes, they do...