prowla

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.

It's just an example of a similar site which has implemented a policy which they think is manageable, and is what prompted my thinking.

Sure - as I said, the other site prompted me to thinking about it. (Yep - that's my opinion.)

Thanks - sometimes just seeing the logo may be enough. But yes, if anybody has a genuine '62 Fender bass going for £750, then let me know!!!

Sure, but it's possible to do without resorting to personal jibes. As I say, you guys run the site. :-)

FYI, here's a link to The Fretboard's rule: http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/120189/no-fakes#latest

Can you please articulate what the "drastic solution" you perceive is?

OK - I'm not a self-appointed forum prefect (which is personal), but this is an issue, as exemplified by the two threads I've linked here (one discussing a fake spotted on ebay and one discussing the Limelight here) and further, as also mentioned, another site (The Fretboard) has instituted a no fake logos policy. Therefore I've started a discussion here, and mostly that's what is going on. From my perspective, I don't think that Fender logos belong on non-Fender instruments and that selling instruments with them on should not be condoned/endorsed, not least because it is illegal. There have been, and will continue to be, discussions about the rights and wrongs of selling fake logo'd instruments (there was another of a shop in Thame a while back). However, I don't own/operate/control this site and you, the mods, do and I respect that. But this is a valid conversation to have and there are opinions on both sides.

Don't get personal ("forum prefect").

I don't know. If they use Fender parts, then they would already have a Fender logo (applied by Fender!). I would say that the Fender body and neck (and s/n) are the key things which make the item a Fender.

I don't know. And some of the Fender partscaster/blasters can be better than the genuine ones, but they don't then need a Fender logo: I have a J-bass, comprising a Warmoth body, Status graphite neck, and other non-Fender parts; it's better as it is than with a Fender logo. I have a P-bass, comprising a Squier body, a fretless Mighty Mite neck, and other non-Fender parts; It's got no logo on the headstock (though I have a "Prowla" waterslide to put on it). Neither of those infringe any IP and putting a Fender logo on them would be daft. I've not played a Limelight, but it could well be that they stand on their own merits without need for fakery.