prowla Posted December 28, 2017 Author Share Posted December 28, 2017 16 minutes ago, Paul S said: Actually, you are right. That was nonsense. With a little time to reflect I think everyone here is a bit right and a bit wrong. Here's my wrong bit - after spending half my working life in a criminal law environment that is how I view things, so when I saw something being described as a deception when it wasn't within criminal law definition of a deception that is what I focused on. Thereby losing sight of the other issues, which was the trademark issue. Trademarks, copyright, intellectual property are subject to law, just a different law to criminal law, and so technically any infringement of trademark law is illegal. So I was wrong to overlook that and apologise for adding fuel to the whole debate in my small but stubborn way. Had I taken the time to read properly everything I would have been brought back in line. Our legal system is complex with different levels and layers of laws governing different aspects of how we interact with each other. A bit like an onion - all those skins. When I was a copper I dealt largely with criminal law - deep in the core of the legal system -it is the remit of police to monitor these laws and ultimately these can be dealt with in the criminal court. Also traffic laws. But there are a myriad other laws dealing with everything else in society from buying/selling houses to trademarks, copyrights and other intellectual property. There are dealt with in a completely different way in civil court where an individual or company has to make the case privately, usually with solicitors acting on their behalf. Sometimes important issues but generally not with the same gravitas as criminal law. This is what the Rickenbacker issue is all about and also the main issue here, I think. The OP was about headstock logos and, yes, it is illegal to use a trademark in this case under laws governing intellectual property. The situation is clearly black and white, what would be called an absolute offence, requiring no proof other that the fact itself. But is it important? It is to some but not, it seems, to a lot of others. Clearly not to Fender. In an everyday language situation someone looking at a bitsa bearing a Fender logo would assume it to be a Fender and therefore be 'deceived' into thinking it was a Fender. There are few consequences that make any difference to anyone except perhaps the owner of the bitsa may feel better about himself and his bass. As defined by criminal law it is not, however, a deception - which is the bit I latched on to but actually isn't (or shouldn't have been) the main thrust of the whole discussion. But, as soon as you add an element of gain into the equation it becomes a lot more serious than just a trademark issue - it becomes a crime. Thanks for coming back with that reasoned update - my opinion of you has just done a 180! I wonder about how it affects Fender; their position in the guitar world is similar to IBM's in the PC world; they've defined the standard for interchangeable guitar parts, but now anybody can make competing parts (and they seem lax at chasing up licensing deals). I don't know if seeing the logo on fakes is a kind of free advertising. As far as the brand goes, my first reaction to seeing a "Fender" guitar or part is one of suspicion - is it genuine? I think they need a thriving used market to support their new sales, so I don't think that perception is health for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodiakblair Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 8 minutes ago, stingrayPete1977 said: Are those rebadged Squiers being sold by a trading business like Limelight? No private sales by individuals. A business doing the same would get jumped on,that's trying to steal sales of new guitars from FMIC. No money in 2nd hand sales for FMIC so they don't concern themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimothey Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 11 minutes ago, prowla said: I think the "gain" in question is the money they are receiving. But how would it work if the “fake” guitar is better than the genuine article then doesn’t the buyer “gain” and better instrument, so would that mean that the seller is the one who makes a “loss” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Dare Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Jimothey said: But how would it work if the “fake” guitar is better than the genuine article then doesn’t the buyer “gain” and better instrument, so would that mean that the seller is the one who makes a “loss” Hence my earlier comment about picking up a Limelight for Fender money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingrayPete1977 Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, kodiakblair said: No private sales by individuals. A business doing the same would get jumped on,that's trying to steal sales of new guitars from FMIC. No money in 2nd hand sales for FMIC so they don't concern themselves. That's the difference afaic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 28, 2017 Author Share Posted December 28, 2017 10 hours ago, discreet said: I've read more than one sorry tale of Rics basically falling apart and their CS dept going into full-on denial mode, even blaming the customer for it! To be fair I've never owned one, but the few I have played didn't instil confidence to say the least. I do know there are good ones out there, though. Because someone told me. I've only got three, but they are all great instruments and I wouldn't chose any other bass on the planet over them. I've seen some of the stories of folks issues, but haven't had dealings with Rickenbacker myself (mine were all bought used); as far as the UK goes, you wouldn't have to deal with Rickenbacker for warranty issues anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 28, 2017 Author Share Posted December 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, Jimothey said: But how would it work if the “fake” guitar is better than the genuine article then doesn’t the buyer “gain” and better instrument, so would that mean that the seller is the one who makes a “loss” My guess is the gain is the money at the point of exchange, independent of any overall p&l considerations, ie. before you had an item and no money, after you have gained money. I expect the legal term is established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodiakblair Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 Just now, stingrayPete1977 said: That's the difference afaic. Aye Pete. Can't quite see why private sales on here of Squier/Fender logo is being seen as an issue,if it's marked as Squier/Fender logo of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimothey Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, Dan Dare said: Hence my earlier comment about picking up a Limelight for Fender money I agree with you and I can’t remember who else said it but if Limelight use all genuine Fender parts to make the guitar then surely they can put a Fender logo on it because it is technically a Fender so I’m struggling to see what the problem is!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lurksalot Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 23 minutes ago, prowla said: I think the "gain" in question is the money they are receiving. I would take "gain" as being "added" value due to the incorrect labelling in this instance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Browning Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 10 minutes ago, prowla said: Thanks for coming back with that reasoned update - my opinion of you has just done a 180! I wonder about how it affects Fender; their position in the guitar world is similar to IBM's in the PC world; they've defined the standard for interchangeable guitar parts, but now anybody can make competing parts (and they seem lax at chasing up licensing deals). I don't know if seeing the logo on fakes is a kind of free advertising. As far as the brand goes, my first reaction to seeing a "Fender" guitar or part is one of suspicion - is it genuine? I think they need a thriving used market to support their new sales, so I don't think that perception is health for them. I really don't think anyone was disputing the legal point about trademarks. The issue was more about the BC reaction and whether it warranted a ban on sales of instruments which bore decals to which they weren't entitled. The conclusion appears to be 'none'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 28, 2017 Author Share Posted December 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, Jimothey said: I agree with you and I can’t remember who else said it but if Limelight use all genuine Fender parts to make the guitar then surely they can put a Fender logo on it because it is technically a Fender so I’m struggling to see what the problem is!?! If they use Fender parts then the neck comes with a Fender logo on the headstock. But I think someone posted that they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimothey Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, kodiakblair said: Aye Pete. Can't quite see why private sales on here of Squier/Fender logo is being seen as an issue,if it's marked as Squier/Fender logo of course. But doesn’t the Squier logo have by Fender written on it? So isn’t it a Fender anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 28, 2017 Author Share Posted December 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, Steve Browning said: I really don't think anyone was disputing the legal point about trademarks. The issue was more about the BC reaction and whether it warranted a ban on sales of instruments which bore decals to which they weren't entitled. The conclusion appears to be 'none'. The conclusion (from the mods), as I read it, was that the existing site rules already forbid it, but items will only be removed if someone alerts them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Browning Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 Limelight don't use all Fender parts. I think some are licensed (necks certainly) but other parts aren't - they don't use Fender pick ups. Either way, they make instruments which Fender would be proud to make!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Browning Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 1 minute ago, prowla said: The conclusion (from the mods), as I read it, was that the existing site rules already forbid it, but items will only be removed if someone alerts them. Exactly, no change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodiakblair Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Jimothey said: But doesn’t the Squier logo have by Fender written on it? So isn’t it a Fender anyway? Some of them will but others ? Well folk go the whole hog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 28, 2017 Author Share Posted December 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Jimothey said: But doesn’t the Squier logo have by Fender written on it? So isn’t it a Fender anyway? Squier (by Fender) is Fender's junior brand, so a 3rd party "upgrading" it by changing the logo is an an unauthorised use. Doing so with the intention of selling it for more money is deception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 28, 2017 Author Share Posted December 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Steve Browning said: Exactly, no change. As I mentioned, if that had been clarified on post #2, we probably wouldn't be on page 19! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowla Posted December 28, 2017 Author Share Posted December 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, Steve Browning said: Limelight don't use all Fender parts. I think some are licensed (necks certainly) but other parts aren't - they don't use Fender pick ups. Either way, they make instruments which Fender would be proud to make!! Which is great. But they are not Fenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Browning Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 Just now, prowla said: Which is great. But they are not Fenders. Now you're just getting tedious. Not a single person has stated anything to the contrary.You prefers Rics you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger2611 Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 Still confused, my Strat was built by me from parts, a genuine Fender 1962 reissue Jap neck, a Fender Japan body, a set of Fender custom shop 69 pickups, Fender bridge, Fender tuners, Fat Boy plastics, Callum block, is it a Fender, well all the parts suggest it is, would I sell it as a Fender, no I wouldn't, I would describe it as a collection of parts, would I be deceiving anyone with it....hopefully not, should it be banned from sale because all the parts (even though most are genuine Fender) never met one and other until they came together on this guitar.....I struggle to accept that a Callum block or Fat Boy plastics should tip any balance as Fender have on many occasions fitted none Fender parts to their guitars (The Khaller? Trems of the 80's guitars, Kluson tuners etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Browning Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 I would have to say a Fender can only come out of a Fender factory myself but the wealth of parts (sold by Fender themselves) make your point a valid one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimothey Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, prowla said: Squier (by Fender) is Fender's junior brand, so a 3rd party "upgrading" it by changing the logo is an an unauthorised use. Doing so with the intention of selling it for more money is deception. Could you please explain the difference between a Squier body and neck and a Fender body and neck? Aren’t they the same thing? And aren’t they are both built in a Fender factory so if you upgrade the hardware to a Fender spec then surely it is a Fender? Edited December 28, 2017 by Jimothey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodiakblair Posted December 28, 2017 Share Posted December 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, Jimothey said: Could you please explain the difference between a Squier body and neck and a Fender body and neck? Aren’t they the same thing? And aren’t they are both built in a Fender factory so if you upgrade the parts to a Fender spec then surely it is a Fender? Squiers are built by Cort so there's no Fender factory involved . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif.9ad672bb8b84505709f76b39c8c256ec.gif)
Recommended Posts