Gust0o

Happy to chip into any fighting fund. Pretty sure we have some in-house legal types. In any case, it's not gone that far - it's just bluster. He'll make threats in the hope of having his way; and, as in all other walks of life when someone threatens you out of the blue, we can make our own judgements about the character of John Hall. I've seen CEOs intervene personally to make a difference, from firms far larger than Rickenbacker - but I've never seen one quite do cack-handed. They normally dive in to so brands; not f*** them. Ah well, perhaps we'll have some Ratner-esque gaffe for further amusement.

Aw, I just sold my Charvel! This would have made for a great counter

sh*t, can you imagine if they ever raised this fuss over Fender copies... we'd have nothing left to talk about

[quote name='Sibob' timestamp='1334145288' post='1611501'] It's funny isn't it, how protecting ones intellectual property (or at least that's how JH see's it) can damage your sales, as is probably the case here. By taking away peoples choice, they're less likely to choose your product, simple as that. Embrace competition and the intrinsic quality of a company will usually show through the players with discerning tastes. As has been mentioned, protecting ones assets is fine, but there are means to do so without alienating your customer-base If nothing else, this thread might act as a business lesson in 'Uk bassists' for Ric lol Si [/quote] At the risk of jeopardising my £2k-a-day consultancy, a superb suggestion! If you're going to tackle copyright infringement, dedicate your efforts to where they can have most effect - which, assuredly, is not pursuing individual sellers of aging equipment. The remainder comes in having confidence in your proposition; in putting the right quality, innovation and effort into it; so when people look at your proposition and a fake, or an alternative, they're not looking at a choice - because there is only one option. It [b]has[/b] to be your product. They might be 'small family firm', or whatever guff, but the principle still works. And I've never felt that way about a Ric. I've played one, which was stunning, which I would own - if John Hall stopped being a bell end long enough for me to contemplate it - which is in Simon's profile pic. I'll take Paypal for that John, I'm not even arsed about the fees. I've got another six hours of this consultancy left. Any more lessons you'd like?

[quote name='John Hall' timestamp='1334141848' post='1611408'] [/quote] FYI, the smiley of choice is

Originally obtained via Gumtree, in an exchange for some magic beans. Vintage 1972. Very good for metal. Incorporates all the latest Rickenfecker innovations, including [i]no strings[/i]. No headstock/lawsuit copy. Signed by my mate John Hall. I also have a mate called Chris Squire, and he could also sign if that clinched the deal. Starting offers @ £2500.

[quote name='pete.young' timestamp='1334137753' post='1611301'] This would appear to be untrue, but can you afford to blink last? Hall doesn't care about the outcome - the only reason for this is a demonstration that he's aggressively defending his trademark. [/quote] Quite likely, as it's been a real issue for them. The US litigation system - indeed, as with so much in that country - has some very deep flaws. And by [i]blink[/i], they traditionally mean [i]afford.[/i]

[quote name='Kiwi' timestamp='1334135309' post='1611247'] John Hall states: [i]"I'm under no obligation to provide further clarification, other than to note that you are hosting ads for goods which infringe our registered trademarks, copies of which were provided. Sale of such items is simply not legal and as such, you are acting as the facilitator."[/i] [/quote] See Shockwave's response. John Hall is unable to provide further clarification as I suspect he already knows this - it's bluster and bullying. Can we confirm if he has contacted the seller, since they would - no doubt - also be of concern? I'd wait for your formal legal opinion to confirm your position before acting. Even if that opinion confirms that the ad is allowed under current UK legislation, you still have the option to pull it if you continue to feel uncomfortable - or if you want a break from the drudgery of John Hall's Outlook outbox. Well, I'm equally under no obligations to show any respect to a firm totally lacking in innovation or progressive spirit, and headed up by a CEO [i]who can find the time to personally pursue such frivolities.[/i] That last line says it all: too much time on your hands, John. Just what leadership are you providing, again? You might want to learn Mandarin and go after some of your real issues, or try and find something more productive to do which pushes your business forward.

Careful Kiwi, you'll be being extradited in no time - it'll be solitary confinement in some dusty super-max! Or, more likely, he hasn't got a f***ing hope. It's a private sale listing of an instrument that you did not manufacture, in another country. See Monckyman's response. It's the typical American litigation model, of issuing threats and being the last one to blink. I can understand the need to protect intellectual and material copyrights, for something you have invested heavily in - but I would suggest that this kind of action, on such a level, is counterproductive. Such a private sale would have zero impact on Rickenbacker sales - but the associated press certainly will. In a bid to stop a single sale, he has produced negative responses from a dozen members or more - people who are active purchasers; and have the ability to pass that negative response on to others. We've said before, but the Rickenbacker brand is out of all proportion to the energy and ambition of the company. They have this incredible, iconic product; and they have no idea how to sell it. Since someone from Rickenbacker is reading this forum, my consulting rate will be £2000-a-day to tell you how to do it Pull the sale thread out or respect or courtesy; but don't pull it simply because John Hall is telling you to do so [i]or else[/i]. It's laughable.