Fake logos on instruments

[Dad3353]

1 hour ago, discreet said:

All Bran? Baked beans? Fish fingers?

Ah yes; that was it..! Fish fingers. I have my own recipe of sorts, putting two fish fingers to brown slightly in a spot of olive oil and a twist of lemon, whilst whisking up two eggs, a hefty splash of milk (seasoning, of course...) and two and a half measures of rolled oats. This goes over the fish; I turn down the flame, cover the pan and allow to simmer. I'll usually turn it over when nearly done, to crisp the top. Two mugs of Earl Grey. Delicious.

Either that or a grapefruit.

[Woodinblack]

1 hour ago, mcnach said:

People do all kinds of modifications to their guitars: preamps get added/removed/replaced, pickups changed, or added... when does it stop being a Brand X product? The serial number criterion... I don't know, sometimes the serial number is on a neck plate. Change the neck plate... it's most definitely still the same bass, in my opinion. Change the neck... hmmm... that's quite a substantial change. I guess, for me, once you change the (most?) fundamental aspect of an instrument, it becomes another. If I replace the neck, it's no longer the same instrument. However... it kind of still is. Argh. I don't know.

 

I suppose it matters only if the make is more important than the bass. So for some people, only when you are selling it, and others it is a lot more important.

If I had a fender (I don't) that needed a new neck, I would replace the neck. if the neck I got had a fender logo on it, it would stay that way. if it had no logo on it, it would probably stay that way too, as I am not that bothered. The only time I would really mind is if it was originally colour matched with the bass (which my Maruszczyk has), it would need to stay that way.

So the colour matters, but the logo doesn't.

[discreet]

7 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

...two fish fingers to brown slightly in a spot of olive oil and a twist of lemon, whilst whisking up two eggs, a hefty splash of milk (seasoning, of course...) and two and a half measures of rolled oats. This goes over the fish; I turn down the flame, cover the pan and allow to simmer. I'll usually turn it over when nearly done, to crisp the top. Two mugs of Earl Grey. Delicious...

So basically fish fingers in a porridge omelette? Erm...

[Dad3353]

Yes, but savoury porridge (sea salt, black pepper, herbes de Provence, sometimes dehydrated onion...). Porridge (or porage; a whole new subject for debate...) has properties beneficial to diabetics, apparently, helping with the use of insulin by the body. Tastes good, too..!

Sweetened porridge, on the other hand, would be less good for me. That boat sailed a while back. 

Edited December 28, 2017 by Dad3353

[mcnach]

6 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

Again, it's not a question of 'deceit'. If the name is trademarked, it cannot be used except by the holder of that trademark or licensees. That's all. If I try to sell custard tarts with a Fender logo on 'em, it infringes their trademark (unless I'm licensed by them to do so...). Nothing else is relevant.

 

I think the issue is more of a distinction between 1) made to be sold as a Brand X 'lookalike', and 2) made by an individual for their own purpose. 

Situation 1 is wrong. That's why Limelight had to backtrack and stop putting Fender logos on their basses... but they'd still "help a buyer apply their own Fender logo", as long as Limelight is not doing it (yes, we know...). Personally I don't mind enterprises like Limelight, because they very clearly state what they do and they do not attempt to pass their instruments for 'real' Fenders. Others (see plenty on AliExpress) are not so cool.

Situation 2 is "ok". The thing is that one day they may decide to sell the instrument to another person. As long as the instrument is described accurately, I can't see the problem, personally. It's like me debadging my Audi A3 and putting Maserati logos... (ok I'd fool nobody, but whether it's easy to pass for the real thing is not the matter here). Maybe I just like my car with those logos, for whatever reason. It's my car. Then one day I decide to sell it... then I sell it as an Audi A3 and there's this person who thinks an A3 with Maserati logos look great, and they buy it. No deceit. No harm. Still... a company's logo should only really be used by that company, hence the "ok" with quotation marks. 

I think we're having the discussion here with people coming at it from different places, depending on whether they are more interested in talking pure right or wrong, or whether it's a wrong that needs to be punished (and who is harmed). A company like Rickenbacker protects their designs aggressively for whatever reasons (they have many valid ones) but one I read was that they take pride in their quality, and they do not want people to judge their company poorly after unwittingly playing a fake instrument. It's a reason I can sympathise with (even if I detest their manners: you can be right and still be an a$$hole). Fender seems to be a different kind of animal. Maybe their baby grew too big and they cannot police it as much as they would like, but for whatever reason they do not pursue individuals. Today it is incredibly easy to find decent looking parts that allow you to build your own Fender lookalike. Add a logo, et voila, if you just want a replica, you got it. I find it hard to justify bringing down the hammer of Thor on those who do that for the simple purpose of playing a lookalike instrument, without lying about what it really is... even if, technically, it is wrong.

 

 

 

[mcnach]

6 hours ago, prowla said:

 

The other aspect is presenting a headline declaring an item to be some brand "For sale ACME unit xxxx" and then in the detail revealing that it is not "This is a WIDGETCO yyyy".

 

 

That kind of baiting is very annoying and culprits should be shot. 

[discreet]

3 minutes ago, mcnach said:

A company like Rickenbacker protects their designs aggressively for whatever reasons, but one I read was that they take pride in their quality, and they do not want people to judge their company poorly after unwittingly playing a fake instrument.

I've read more than one sorry tale of Rics basically falling apart and their CS dept going into full-on denial mode, even blaming the customer for it!

To be fair I've never owned one, but the few I have played didn't instil confidence to say the least. I do know there are good ones out there, though. Because someone told me.

[mcnach]

22 minutes ago, discreet said:

I've read more than one sorry tale of Rics basically falling apart and their CS dept going into full-on denial mode, even blaming the customer for it!

To be fair I've never owned one, but the few I have played didn't instil confidence to say the least. I do know there are good ones out there, though. Because someone told me.

 

Me too. I think there's even someone here with an amazing story of a blue Ric where the blue was leaching into the neck binding and he was blamed for it. And quite a few reports of bridges bending... etc.

But as a reason, it stood out as a good one. 

[discreet]

7 minutes ago, mcnach said:

I think there's even someone here with an amazing story of a blue Ric where the blue was leaching into the neck binding and he was blamed for it.

I've read that one. IIRC, JH told him it happened because he was playing the bass wrongly.

[kodiakblair]

If @karlfer is correct and I think he is any ban or restrictions on sales will see a drop in supporting membership,no point in paying when it's now difficult to sell your gear.

Less for sale ads will mean less visitors. Not so good when it comes to attracting advertisers. How will you pay the running costs with less cash coming in ? 

[Jimothey]

Everyone keeps using the word “Fake” which is not technically the right word to use, you should really use “counterfeit” as that means to try and pass off a “fake” item as the genuine article (ie deception) so that is illegal 

All counterfeits are fakes but not all fakes are counterfeits 

Some people have spouted the definition of copyright/trademark laws but unfortunately the problem with law is it’s open to interpretation it’s not a black and white thing there is plenty of grey areas 

[Cato]

5 hours ago, mcnach said:

 

Me too. I think there's even someone here with an amazing story of a blue Ric where the blue was leaching into the neck binding and he was blamed for it. And quite a few reports of bridges bending... etc.

But as a reason, it stood out as a good one. 

I seem to recall that there was another level of weirdness to that one, along the lines of because the owner had acquired the bass in a private sale rather than though an approved dealer, John Hall was so e how implying that he may not be the legitimate owner of the bass, or something along those lines.

[HazBeen]

18 pages, as my kids often say when we are travelling.... ARE WE THERE YET?

[EssentialTension]

23 minutes ago, HazBeen said:

18 pages, as my kids often say when we are travelling.... ARE WE THERE YET?

'It's just round the next corner.'

[Heathy]

40 minutes ago, HazBeen said:

18 pages, as my kids often say when we are travelling.... ARE WE THERE YET?

I skipped from page 1 to 18, and saw the discussion had moved on to porridge.

We may have missed a turning!

[MB1]

4 hours ago, Jimothey said:

Everyone keeps using the word “Fake” which is not technically the right word to use, you should really use “counterfeit” as that means to try and pass off a “fake” item as the genuine article (ie deception) so that is illegal 

All counterfeits are fakes but not all fakes are counterfeits 

Some people have spouted the definition of copyright/trademark laws but unfortunately the problem with law is it’s open to interpretation it’s not a black and white thing there is plenty of grey areas 

MB1.

ive had a word with Alexander o Neal and he's said "Changing the word "Fake" for "Counterfeit " ain't a option..."it just ain't Funky!"

[lurksalot]

14 hours 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.

I will quote you on this and highlight the pertinent bits 

The issue is gain or loss , if their is an abscence of   "a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another"

might this seem as definitive as you claim?

To be honest this community is pretty hot on things like this , and as far as Fender are concerned they are probably quite happy to see there brand being promoted everywhere and as long as this site is clear as to what is being sold and that there is no-one with "a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another"   in the process I think it seems quite clear.

I base this analysis on the above quote as it is your argument , not as a point of law , though it may still apply 

[drTStingray]

44 minutes ago, EssentialTension said:

'It's just round the next corner.'

Aha - been fooled many a time before by that one!!

19 minutes ago, MB1 said:

MB1.

ive had a word with Alexander o Neal and he's said "Changing the word "Fake" for "Counterfeit " ain't a option..."it just ain't Funky!"

I think the Commander in Chief and his press office may have a view on that - 'fake' is a favourite buzz word and 'counterfeit' doesn't have the same ring or effect, especially in a tweet or landmark speech. 

[drTStingray]

6 minutes ago, lurksalot said:

.........and as far as Fender are concerned they are probably quite happy to see there brand being promoted everywhere........

and therein lies the root of the problem. Most if not all other manufacturers are interested in protecting their product and more importantly their customers from counterfeit. If your primary aim is only publicity then your business is not customer focussed and hey presto......your product and customers suffer and you lose money. Certainly not the only way to lose money but a contributor. 

[Hellzero]

Waiting for post 1999 to see if party is over, oops out of time. 

[Happy Jack]

I'm waiting for the great porridge -v- porage debate to kick off ...

[Paul S]

17 hours ago, stingrayPete1977 said:

Copper or not this nonsense.

Actually, you are right.  That was nonsense.  With a little time to reflect I think everyone here is a bit right and a bit wrong.  Here's my wrong bit - after spending half my working life in a criminal law environment that is how I view things, so when I saw something being described as a deception when it wasn't within criminal law definition of a deception that is what I focused on.  Thereby losing sight of the other issues, which was the trademark issue.  Trademarks, copyright, intellectual property are subject to law, just a different law to criminal law, and so technically any infringement of trademark law is illegal.  So I was wrong to overlook that and apologise for adding fuel to the whole debate in my small but stubborn way.  Had I taken the time to read properly everything I would have been brought back in line.

Our legal system is complex with different levels and layers of laws governing different aspects of how we interact with each other.   A bit like an onion - all those skins.  When  I was a copper I dealt largely with criminal law -  deep in the core of the legal system  -it is the remit of police to monitor these laws and ultimately these can be dealt with in the criminal court.  Also traffic laws.  But there are a myriad other laws dealing with everything else in society from buying/selling houses to trademarks, copyrights and other intellectual property.  There are dealt with in a completely different way in civil court where an individual or company has to make the case privately, usually with solicitors acting on their behalf.   Sometimes important issues but generally not with the same gravitas as criminal law.  This is what the Rickenbacker issue is all about and also the main issue here, I think.

The OP was about headstock logos and, yes, it is illegal to use a trademark in this case under laws governing intellectual property.  The situation is clearly black and white, what would be called an absolute offence, requiring no proof other that the fact itself.  But is it important?  It is to some but not, it seems, to a lot of others.  Clearly not to Fender.  In an everyday language situation someone looking at a bitsa bearing a Fender logo would assume it to be a Fender and therefore be 'deceived' into thinking it was a Fender.  There are few consequences that make any difference to anyone except perhaps the owner of the bitsa may feel better about himself and his bass.  As defined by criminal law it is not, however, a deception - which is the bit I latched on to but actually isn't (or shouldn't have been) the main thrust of the whole discussion.  But, as soon as you add an element of gain into the equation it becomes a lot more serious than just a trademark issue - it becomes a crime.

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by Paul S

[prowla]

54 minutes ago, lurksalot said:

I will quote you on this and highlight the pertinent bits 

The issue is gain or loss , if their is an abscence of   "a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another"

might this seem as definitive as you claim?

To be honest this community is pretty hot on things like this , and as far as Fender are concerned they are probably quite happy to see there brand being promoted everywhere and as long as this site is clear as to what is being sold and that there is no-one with "a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another"   in the process I think it seems quite clear.

I base this analysis on the above quote as it is your argument , not as a point of law , though it may still apply 

I think the "gain" in question is the money they are receiving.

[kodiakblair]

27 minutes ago, drTStingray said:

If your primary aim is only publicity then your business is not customer focussed and hey presto......your product and customers suffer and you lose money. Certainly not the only way to lose money but a contributor. 

FMIC have their logo on so many products it's obvious the brand name is more important to the owners (Sevrco Pacific) than the guitars. Want a Fender pencil case ? No problem,T-shirt ? Training shoes ? Fridge or fridge magnets ?. Fender decals on non-Fender guitars only reinforces the fact Fender make guitars. Course Fender are $100 million in the red 

 

The American site TB  carrys plenty of ads for Squiers bearing Fender logos,given that folk sue at the drop of a hat in the US, if there was a legal issue those ads would be banned.

[stingrayPete1977]

1 minute ago, kodiakblair said:

FMIC have their logo on so many products it's obvious the brand name is more important to the owners (Sevrco Pacific) than the guitars. Want a Fender pencil case ? No problem,T-shirt ? Training shoes ? Fridge or fridge magnets ?. Fender decals on non-Fender guitars only reinforces the fact Fender make guitars. Course Fender are $100 million in the red 

 

The American site TB  carrys plenty of ads for Squiers bearing Fender logos,given that folk sue at the drop of a hat in the US, if there was a legal issue those ads would be banned.

Are those rebadged Squiers being sold by a trading business like Limelight?