prowla

OK - there was a more recent string of comments suggesting that a Limelight was made exclusively from Fender parts, which had also possibly been covered before; I was just underlining that (or at least intending to).

Well, you are highlighting the fact that there are several different aspects to the illegality of fakes. The fact is that it is illegal to sell an item which bears an unauthorised trademark, regardless of intent. Adding in the intent to deceive the buyer then brings in a further illegality.

Yes, precisely.

If you want them that way for your own enjoyment, then it's your choice. However, if any of those items you describe there are sold with Fender logos then they are illegal. Selling an illegal item as a fake does not make it honest, as detailed already.

Are you arguing for the sake of it?

Did the neck come with a Fender logo? if so, then it was put there by the manufacturer and belongs there. I don't think anybody has suggested it should be banned from sale and I think describing it as a partscaster is appropriate. I've got a partscaster: Warmoth (licensed) neck, Fender body, Fender tuners, Fender nut, Fender temolo bridge, Fender knobs, 3rd party pickguard & pickups, CTS pots. It's more Fender than not, but it's not got a Fender logo. If I were to sell it, it would be described as a partscaster with a parts listing.

You could be right.

Which is great. But they are not Fenders.

As I mentioned, if that had been clarified on post #2, we probably wouldn't be on page 19!

Squier (by Fender) is Fender's junior brand, so a 3rd party "upgrading" it by changing the logo is an an unauthorised use. Doing so with the intention of selling it for more money is deception.

The conclusion (from the mods), as I read it, was that the existing site rules already forbid it, but items will only be removed if someone alerts them.

If they use Fender parts then the neck comes with a Fender logo on the headstock. But I think someone posted that they don't.

My guess is the gain is the money at the point of exchange, independent of any overall p&l considerations, ie. before you had an item and no money, after you have gained money. I expect the legal term is established.

I've only got three, but they are all great instruments and I wouldn't chose any other bass on the planet over them. I've seen some of the stories of folks issues, but haven't had dealings with Rickenbacker myself (mine were all bought used); as far as the UK goes, you wouldn't have to deal with Rickenbacker for warranty issues anyway.

Thanks for coming back with that reasoned update - my opinion of you has just done a 180! I wonder about how it affects Fender; their position in the guitar world is similar to IBM's in the PC world; they've defined the standard for interchangeable guitar parts, but now anybody can make competing parts (and they seem lax at chasing up licensing deals). I don't know if seeing the logo on fakes is a kind of free advertising. As far as the brand goes, my first reaction to seeing a "Fender" guitar or part is one of suspicion - is it genuine? I think they need a thriving used market to support their new sales, so I don't think that perception is health for them.

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

I think I gave my opinion on that earlier.

Great - it leave the Rics for me!

I've tried a couple of times, acknowledged that the current rules & position cover it, but there keep being new (or should I say repeated old) questions. (Some folks certainly seem to be quite vociferous in saying they don't give two hoots about it!)

You seem to be fixating on questions you are chucking into the mix. Thinking about it, I know two people who've bought fake Rics; one via gumtree and one from "a friend". There is a Squier with a fake Fender logo in the list I posted earlier. I may know people who have got fake Fenders, but I don't have the info to hand. Why do you keep asking these questions? Do you think they excuse the act of selling fakes?

No - you are inventing your own definitions. The trademark law (quoted) identifies the issue as putting an unauthorised trademark on an item; that's what makes it a fake. You don't have the opt-out of saying it's not genuine (which is just another way of saying it's a fake).

Did you see the recent ebay thread? Does it matter whether I personally know them? I do know someone who bought a Rickenbacker copy thinking it was a real one.

Are you saying that no fake instruments, ie. ones bearing fake logos, have ever been sold via this site?

It is a question challenging a strawman; people do build strawmen just to give themselves something to argue against. The fact is that that it is the act of selling a fake logo'd instrument which is against the law and whether it was done having disclosed it or not is irrelevant.

You may be right, but people do buy Fender logo'd Squiers thinking they are Fenders.