prowla

I've quoted you an instance where someone bought one, but you don't seem to want to accept that. As for the instances of attempted deceit, I can't say. But it's irrelevant anyway, as the above shows, it's the act of selling the item which is there in black and white. I don't know why you keep on banging on about the same question, which you seem to think somehow trumps the law itself.

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

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.

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

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

What trademark is that infringing?

You keep saying there hasn't been an instance, so I keep quoting you the same instance; at the point in time he bought it, the person thought it was a Fender.

But a bit heavy, sometimes.

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

It means you have to count them, one-by-one.

That seems reasonable to me; as I previously acknowledged, the existing rules seem to cover it (and I had only read the abridged ones). TBH, the workload of this thread may have been greater than that of handling the 1% fake Fenders. I've learned some things as a result of this thread, so it's been enlightening.

Ah - the english word "deception", as opposed to the precise legal term "deception". Now, in law, I think that (and correct me if I am wrong) that a deception is defined as representing something as true whilst knowing that it is in fact untrue. On that point, it would appear that the tactic of saying "the item I am selling you is an illegal fake" would absolve them of the charge of deception. 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". Is that a deception, or is declaring it as a fake at any point a get-out? Regardless of the above, the item itself is still a fake. Which infringes trademark & copyright law.

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

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

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

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?

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

That explains the shift to theft over trademark law.

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

Yes it is, as I explained. You are trying to have a different argument (ie. quoting the theft act to support a spurious argument).

Thanks for your support!

I'm nearly ready for another fry-up!

The existence of the fake logo itself is a deception; saying it is a fake doesn't get around that.

The fact that they have the logo is a deception and is illegal. The fact that they have Fender in the title but are not is a deception, regardless of the subsequent description. Simple answer is to just not use that company's brand.