Dad3353 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, skankdelvar said: ...Morrisons' Cheese and Tuna butterfly cakes... Not protected butterflies, I trust..? Edited December 27, 2017 by Dad3353 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellzero Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 I have the answer to all this jazz : Fake off ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 28 minutes ago, Paul S said: OK last post and I'm out. If it is not the intention of the person doing that to make them believe it is a genuine item then NO it isn't illegal. Copper or not this nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmo Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 22 minutes ago, discreet said: Limelight have their own decal, so I'd say yes. If they use genuine Fender parts , then put Limelight on it, are you deceiving people thinking you are getting Limelight but is a Fender? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 Another solution, folks. As it's only the logo that's the issue, how about banning photos of these from the Marketplace..? Sell away, post your pics, but never of any trademarked material. Free-for-all description (that's not illegal, as long as it's truthful...) but no headstock shots. Happy with that, y'all..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 6 minutes ago, Dad3353 said: If an infringement is suspected, Report it, and it'll be dealt with, as the Mods and Admins do with all Reports. What more is required, by anyone here..? Nothing! At least not from me. People should be careful what they wish for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 Just now, Dad3353 said: Not protected butterflies, I trust..? You'd have to address your query to Morrisons' customer services department; they would be best placed to resolve the issue. I'd check myself but I've got a batch of 1959 Les Pauls to 'age' before the end of the week. These things don't relic themselves, you know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, timmo said: If they use genuine Fender parts , then put Limelight on it, are you deceiving people thinking you are getting Limelight but is a Fender? Depends if the 'Limelight' part is a registered trademark, and therefore IP, or not. It's not a question of deceiving people or not. Edited December 27, 2017 by Dad3353 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmo Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Dad3353 said: Another solution, folks. As it's only the logo that's the issue, how about banning photos of these from the Marketplace..? Sell away, post your pics, but never of any trademarked material. Free-for-all description (that's not illegal, as long as it's truthful...) but no headstock shots. Happy with that, y'all..? I was happy with the way it was yesterday. I find it hard to beleive someone is getting all pious about it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 Just now, Dad3353 said: Another solution, folks. As it's only the logo that's the issue, how about banning photos of these from the Marketplace..? Sell away, post your pics, but never of any trademarked material. Free-for-all description (that's not illegal, as long as it's truthful...) but no headstock shots. Happy with that, y'all..? No, that's crazy talk. What if someone's selling a Sandberg, or a Lakland, or a Sadowsky? As far as I know, there have never been any issues regarding fakes with those brands, not at any time, and not anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 I still feel the distinction is that Limelight is a business albeit a small one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiOgon Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, Dad3353 said: Another solution, folks. As it's only the logo that's the issue, how about banning photos of these from the Marketplace..? Sell away, post your pics, but never of any trademarked material. Free-for-all description (that's not illegal, as long as it's truthful...) but no headstock shots. Happy with that, y'all..? No! Gross over reaction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 I don't think BC need to change anything. The Limelight fad has mostly passed now anyway afaik? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassassin Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 15 minutes ago, Paul S said: No, Jon, it isn't rubbish. What you and Prowla are talking about is an infringement of law concerning intellectual property. It is categorically not a deception, which is the term being banded about, and which covered by criminal law. The trouble is that neither of you understand that the term deception has a specific meaning in law and that is what I was talking about. Fair point about criminal law but IMO that's become a bit of a red herring in this discussion - if any sh!t (no matter how improbably) was to hit BC's fan over this it would be 100% trademark/IP violation related. As I said I don't think we should ban the sale of fakey Fender branded basses but it does seem to me that what we're doing is we're getting away with it because we're pretty inconspicuous. Just seems sensible to be very, very clear about what's for sale. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, discreet said: No, that's crazy talk. What if someone's selling a Sandberg, or a Lakland, or a Sadowsky? As far as I know, there have never been any issues regarding fakes with those brands, not at any time, and not anywhere. Again, it's not a question of 'deceit'. If the name is trademarked, it cannot be used except by the holder of that trademark or licensees. That's all. If I try to sell custard tarts with a Fender logo on 'em, it infringes their trademark (unless I'm licensed by them to do so...). Nothing else is relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, stingrayPete1977 said: I still feel the distinction is that Limelight is a business albeit a small one. Please take your spoon elsewhere! Limelight have their own decal, as I keep saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 27, 2017 Author Share Posted December 27, 2017 3 minutes ago, Paul S said: No, Jon, it isn't rubbish. What you and Prowla are talking about is an infringement of law concerning intellectual property. It is categorically not a deception, which is the term being banded about, and which covered by criminal law. The trouble is that neither of you understand that the term deception has a specific meaning in law and that is what I was talking about. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yorks5stringer Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 48 minutes ago, prowla said: I only went back through this month's bass sales and found a number of items bearing false logos and Fender in their titles. I may have missed your full response and have not got the stomach to go back through all the posts, but how many of these were being sold as genuine Fenders ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, Dad3353 said: Another solution, folks. As it's only the logo that's the issue, how about banning photos of these from the Marketplace..? Sell away, post your pics, but never of any trademarked material. Free-for-all description (that's not illegal, as long as it's truthful...) but no headstock shots. Happy with that, y'all..? Were I in your position I would caveat the above as a suggestion for discussion. Some might read it as a commitment to action. In which case, do you and your chums really want to be trawling through every ad to (i) ascertain the nature of any logos and (ii) make sure that in given circumstances any headstock shots are removed? For was this not the ill-favoured reef upon which the Hall / BC dialogue monologue foundered? That the bloviating buffoon demanded an eyeball inspection of any ad which might fall foul of his trademark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 I think that referral to the definition of 'fake' would be beneficial. It's only 'fake' if purporting to be what it is not. The simple application of a logo does not constitute a 'fake'; only the 'false' claim that it is what it is not. The use, however, of that unlicensed logo is illegal. Can we drop the (mis...) use of the word 'fake' in this context, please..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discreet Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Bassassin said: Just seems sensible to be very, very clear about what's for sale. But that's exactly whats been happening! There is NO evidence that anyone has listed a bass for sale with the intention of selling a fake! No need to change anything. It was all ticking along nicely until someone decided to make a mountain out of a molehill. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bumnote Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 39 minutes ago, stingrayPete1977 said: Would Limelight have been able to sell their basses for the same price without the copyrighted logo before they took off as the latest fad on here? Yes because you commission a limelight, not a fender, The spec is agreed and priced accordingly. Its the buyers responsible for choosing whether or not to have a decal, I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 2 minutes ago, skankdelvar said: Were I in your position I would caveat the above as a suggestion for discussion. Some might read it as a commitment to action. In which case, do you and your chums really want to be trawling through every ad to (i) ascertain the nature of any logos and (ii) make sure that in given circumstances any headstock shots are removed? For was this not the ill-favoured reef upon which the Hall / BC dialogue monologue foundered? That the bloviating buffoon demanded an eyeball inspection of any ad which might fall foul of his trademark? Indeed; this is only my contribution to this topic as a Member, albeit a Mod for my pains. The Upper Echelon will doubtless statute, if required, over and above the T & Cs already in vigour. I'm not a member of the Police, and don't wish to take on such responsibility, but will act, within the forum rules, on any Report signalled, on this subject or any other. Why does that not suffice..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassassin Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 1 minute ago, yorks5stringer said: I may have missed your full response and have not got the stomach to go back through all the posts, but how many of these were being sold as genuine Fenders ? That *really* doesn't matter - as far as FMIC would be concerned every single one is a violation of their registered trademark. Just now, discreet said: But that's exactly whats been happening! There is NO evidence that anyone has listed a bass for sale with the intention of selling a fake! No need to change anything. It was all ticking along nicely until someone decided to make a mountain out of a molehill. See above. I don't know if Fender has a policy of not wasting their time on small fry, or if BC just hasn't been noticed yet - but we are allowing (and from the evidence of this thread) advocating trademark violation. Not sure how sensible this is... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Jack Posted December 27, 2017 Share Posted December 27, 2017 Please can I have the 300th post on this utterly pointless thread? Please Please Pretty Please? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif.9ad672bb8b84505709f76b39c8c256ec.gif)
Recommended Posts