prowla

Thanks - I looked at the abridged rules which are in the selling section: So, actually, it looks like the rules already state (my bold) "... Provide any content that may give rise to civil or criminal liability of the Administrators, or that may constitute or be considered a violation of any local, national or international law, including -- but not limited to -- laws relating to copyright, trademark, patent, or trade secrets.". Which kind of covers it : fake logos are a violation of copyright and trademark! Can you link to those T&Cs, please, as I couldn't find them!

Darn - I could've sworn I typed an 'n' there!

As I say, I'll get back if I spot any. I'll be honest and say that, because I look at many sites, I may have an overall picture rather than a site-specific one, and will also repeat that the OP was triggered by a couple of things which happened to coincide.

As I said, if people want to do things in their own bedroom, then that's up to them. It only turns into an issue (from the point of ads) when they decide to sell it. Your example of the replacement part for your Squier is an interesting one and I'm surprised nobody has brought up a similar argument already; my thought would be that were you to sell it, it would be fine if you included the original neck and declared the replacement one. My opinion is that the part(s) bearing the serial number define its brand. That said, for a sub-£100 bass, a decent replacement neck may be worth more than the rest anyway!

I'm guessing that something like this has been discussed before and one example should be all that is required. There is also the counter argument that if someone posts something which is a fake, then there is no basis in the current rules to deny them. But If I see more, I'll flag them up!

A bit like Neil with his "Martial" cab.

I think you've come across as a decent person.

I put it to you that it was you who in fact started the fake food analogies!

Well, if I were to, I would've prepared a business case in advance, formulated a product strategy, and practiced responses to possible questions. However, this isn't Dragon's Den and this thread is a discussion. :-)

Someone introduced breakfast cereals into the conversation and it wasn't me!

Well, I haven't compiled an exhaustive list; as it stands, there's the two examples mentioned a couple of times in this thread, ie. the Limelight and the ebay discussions (which actually are examples of folks here doing the right thing with reference to another site which BC-ers likely frequent). I'm sure they're not unique, but I don't have supporting figures

From my perspective, it is more the latter, maybe 60/40.

Well connoisseurs of cornflakes might dispute that, but they are definitely different from bran flakes. (And that comment was intended for mchach :-) )

It would help prevent mis-selling and misrepresentation.

But that's not what I'm saying.

I don't think I ever said that. Selling an item which is counterfeit is illegal. If someone sold me Kellogs Cornflakes and they turned out to be cheapo brand bran flakes augmented with sawdust, then I'd have a problem.

As I've said, the Rickenbacker one is a special case, because they are protecting the entire design as IP; therefore anything which looks remarkably similar to a Ric is in scope. And lso as previously mentioned, I think it is relatively easy to spot a Ric bass copy/fake, as none of them quite get it right. I think that in Ric's case, perhaps the baby was thrown out with the bathwater, but I can understand why the approach from Rickenbacker was perceived to be belligerent and the decision as-was was taken. Of course I would not suggest a blanket ban of all brands for which there might be a copy a-la Rickenbacker, as that would clearly mean that nothing could be bought and sold! But in the case of other guitar brands, they've really only got their logos and some fine detail of the design (eg. Gibson's "moustache" headstock), so Fender-shaped instruments; I would think that a policy of disallowing them and removing offending ads when flagged (much in the same way as removing offensive posts) would be a lightweight and practical approach. Squiers with Fender logos applied, Chibsons, etc.; they are simply a deceit. (I've not idea what's going on with Limelight, as they should be standing in their own right; I remember Peter Cook's Mighty Mite range in the 70s - he never felt the need to put "Fender" on them!)

I've posted the links which say so.

Imagine you bought a tin of Heinz beans and it turned out they'd stuck a label on a cheaper brand! (Lunch time for me too - fried up leftovers and some pickle!)

Ah yes - les autres and all that...

Well, always on the lookout for something interesting.

You're on a roll!

I buy and sell at many sites, as I choose to do.

That did make me chuckle!

Thanks - I'll take that onboard. I am always scouring sites looking for "Fender", "Gibson", etc., and there are lots of cases of keyword spamming, fakes which come up.