prowla

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.

Is that so - they simply remanufacture existing Fenders?

Perhaps, but some of the posts here have claimed that the collective nouse and responsibility of this site would have prevented that happening. Which clearly didn't happen. (I'm sure it's a nice bass too.)

As far as 4001/4003 basses go, it's fairly easy to spot a fake, as no maker gets it 100% right. I've driven 3 hours to buy a Ric, only to find it was a fake when I got my hands on it (the owner was moritifed!). I've also bought a Ric string mute screw on ebay and received it to find it wasn't genuine (I got a refund), and a TRC. I've had 3 Japanese '70s copies, one of which had a "Rickenbacker" logo on it (which I removed); they are interesting historical instruments in their own right and I've still got one. But BC made the choice and, in the face of Rickenbacker's litigation (or threat thereof), went nuclear; I implicitly accepted the rule when I signed up! But Rickenbacker is a special case. The complication with Rickenbacker is that they are protecting the entire design as their IP, not just their logo. With Fenders, it's easier: any company can produce parts with look like Fender's, which are exact copies, slot-in replacements for Fender components. That's not the issue; that train left the station years ago. And people can put "Fender" logos on their instruments if they want to amuse themselves in their own bedrooms. The issue is where companies or individuals try to sell on instruments with fake Fender logos on them.

Except that he said he bought it here, thinking it was a Fender (which Limelight had customised).

Refer to just up this thread, where the owner of the Limelight bass said they bought it believing it was a Fender...

And that is my position too: Fender gave away the rights to their instrument designs by not establishing them as IP. Gibson only protected the "moustache" top of their headstock and the headstock diamond inlay. Rickenbacker protect all of their designs (which means they have to be very litigious, or just letting one through will establish the precedent). (And each owns their company logo, of course.) So anybody can make a Strat, but only Fender can make a Fender Stratocaster.

I'd leave it in, because it's pertinent to the discussion! :-) The law in the UK is a bit of a funny thing, from what I can tell; there are laws which are written in black and white and then there is case law, where the finer nuances of the written laws are established.

Interesting - where did you get that from? From https://www.gov.uk/using-somebody-elses-intellectual-property, "Using someone’s trade mark, patent, copyright or design without their permission is known as ‘IP infringement’ and could lead to a fine, prison or both.". There is more detail at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ip-crime-and-enforcement-for-consumers/ip-crime-and-enforcement-for-consumers

Nope. Nope. The misuse of brand logos is an issue and is illegal. As I mentioned, another site (The Fretboard) has implemented a no fake logos for sale policy, and at least one FB group has too. It is a real problem, not least exemplified by the fact that someone has posted on this thread that they bought a bass with a fake logo thinking it was a Fender. Commenting on whether folks have a thick skin or not is quite missing the point and is irrelevant.

So, to clarify, you bought it, on this site, thinking it was a Fender?

The thing I don't understand is why people do it. I once inherited a company car for a few weeks where the fool who had it before had stuck a "Turbo" sticker on the back; it was a clunker. The thing about BC's responsibilities is that they do not end there; websites cannot claim a hands-off approach, especially when they demonstrate a willingness to arbitrate on other similar matters (ie. Rickenbacker). With regard to the ethics of faking Fenders there was one just today where it seems that somebody on ebay has bought one. (The thread itself turned into a nice sideline about UFO, though!) As for protecting brands rights, I've no affiliation with the companies, but I do feel a duty of care to the potential buyers; I'm at the stage where I don't trust things with Fender logos. And heck, some of the fakes/fogeries may stand up in their own right; the saddest thing of all is seeing a vintage Tokai with a Fender logo on it.

I recently saw something advertised elsewhere as "upgraded" with a Fender logo.

It's got the power supply inside too, so things are well packed in there!

In doing that, you're effectively increasing its size...

I noticed today that another bass forum I frequent has instituted a policy of no sales of fake instruments, ie. ones which are manufactured with, or have subsequently had applied, logos of a different manufacturer; the most common one being Fender (because aftermarket waterslide logos are easy peasy), but there are also the ones which are produced as fakes (the "Chibson"s, etc.). Some of them can be quite difficult to spot, as the "ebay weird & wonderful" forum often highlights. Would it be an appropriate policy to institute here too? As a corollary, it's illegal in the UK to sell an item bearing the trademark of another company, but some folks seem to think it's alright, buyer beware, it's OK if you say it's a fake, or it doesn't apply to personal sales. I think that, in allowing them to be sold via here, the site is tacitly approving forgeries.