Fake logos on instruments

[LewisK1975]

RE: The Limelight sale thread that's being referred to as an example.

Yes, it has a Fender logo.  I understand the point being made regarding that.

But, AFAICS the listing advertised it as a Limelight.  The problem was that the buyer did not understand what Limelight did.  The buyer incorrectly believed that Limelight took factory produced Fenders and reliced / pimped them and then re-sold them.  That is very clearly the buyer's own fault, surely? 

The seller has not attempted to deceive potential buyers, and Basschat has no responsibility to educate them about Limelight's business model either..

Edited December 28, 2017 by LewisK1975

[mcnach]

7 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

But they don't make cosmetically similar models.

 

No, but the main point is: a company (large or small) chooses what to do with their products, and if they are a large company with smaller subcompanies and they label their products differently, then that's what they are. Whether the products look alike or not is entirely irrelevant, but used by some to 'pretend' they have a Brand X product despite its Brand Y label. 

Of course, nobody says their Ferrari is a Fiat. However, I have heard many times how a Skoda is just like a particular VW or Audi, and Minis referred to as BMWs... Again, the direction is always the same: associate a perceived lower tier product with a perceived higher tier one.

But you knew that already.

[Happy Jack]

Congratulations to LewisK1975, on having the 500th post on this thread.

Just to recap, has someone suggested that people put fake logos on basses then?

 

[mcnach]

1 minute ago, Happy Jack said:

Congratulations to LewisK1975, on having the 500th post on this thread.

Just to recap, has someone suggested that people put fake logos on basses then?

 

 

You're just bitter because you tried to the the 500th but got a little late

[discreet]

20 minutes ago, LewisK1975 said:

The problem was that the buyer did not understand what Limelight did.  The buyer incorrectly believed that Limelight took factory produced Fenders and reliced / pimped them and then re-sold them.  That is very clearly the buyer's own fault, surely? 

The seller has not attempted to deceive potential buyers, and Basschat has no responsibility to educate them about Limelight's business model either..

This. Obviously a misunderstanding that was cleared up quickly. But the OP is trying to use this ONE example to leverage his own agenda and imply that BC is the world centre for counterfeit bass guitars. Which it clearly is not. He can't provide links to ANY examples of the deliberate sale of fake basses on BC. The OP wants existing rules changed, apparently on a whim and for no good reason. The rules as they stand work perfectly well, have done so for years and patently do not need changing.

This is all I have to say, I can't waste another entire day on this rubbish. Worst thread ever. Now I must away and compose my upcoming thread demanding the banning of ads for combos - because I just don't like them.

Edited December 28, 2017 by discreet

[Steve Browning]

In fairness, the OP is suggesting the existing rules should be policed thoroughly. The mods state that it is not practical and that seems to be accepted. The discussion has widened to Trigger's broom but that's sort of a separate issue really.

[discreet]

2 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

In fairness, the OP is suggesting the existing rules should be policed thoroughly. The mods state that it is not practical and that seems to be accepted. The discussion has widened to Trigger's broom but that's sort of a separate issue really.

Ah, OK. Obviously I'm out of the loop having had better things to do today. Thanks for the info. I just couldn't bring myself to read through it all again. 

UNFOLLOW!! THHHP!!!

[Jimothey]

40 minutes ago, mcnach said:

 

Just because you do not understand the question it doesn't make it moronic. 

Fiat owns Ferrari just like Fender owns Squier.  

My apologies my post was a bit harsh but Fiat does not own Ferrari, Fiat has a controlling stake in Ferrari it does not own the company outright, the point I was making is the logo for squier says “by fender” on it I have never seen a Ferrari logo with “by Fiat” on it

So that is a completely different scenario 

Edited December 28, 2017 by Jimothey

[fretmeister]

36 minutes ago, LewisK1975 said:

RE: The Limelight sale thread that's being referred to as an example.

Yes, it has a Fender logo.  I understand the point being made regarding that.

But, AFAICS the listing advertised it as a Limelight.  The problem was that the buyer did not understand what Limelight did.  The buyer incorrectly believed that Limelight took factory produced Fenders and reliced / pimped them and then re-sold them.  That is very clearly the buyer's own fault, surely? 

The seller has not attempted to deceive potential buyers, and Basschat has no responsibility to educate them about Limelight's business model either..

No.

Its actually the fault of Limelight for putting the logo on in the first place when limelight knew they didn’t have permission to do so.

 

Intent to deceive does not matter. See my post re disclaimers not changing the illegal nature of the product.

[Steve Browning]

 

[fretmeister]

20 minutes ago, discreet said:

This. Obviously a misunderstanding that was cleared up quickly. But the OP is trying to use this ONE example to leverage his own agenda and imply that BC is the world centre for counterfeit bass guitars. Which it clearly is not. He can't provide links to ANY examples of the deliberate sale of fake basses on BC. The OP wants existing rules changed, apparently on a whim and for no good reason. The rules as they stand work perfectly well, have done so for years and patently do not need changing.

This is all I have to say, I can't waste another entire day on this rubbish. Worst thread ever. Now I must away and compose my upcoming thread demanding the banning of ads for combos - because I just don't like them.

The Limelight (or indeed any non Fender with a Fender logo bass) is a deliberate sale of a counterfeit item.

 

Disclaimers don’t make an illegal item legal.

 

No one is suggesting the seller of the bass in the classifieds is telling porkies. He is being honest. The problem is that he is being honest about a counterfeit item!

 

If that doesn’t show exactly why the law is as it is - that the next owner might not be honest- then I don’t know what does.

[fretmeister]

1 hour ago, Jimothey said:

Sorry but unless you are trying to sell the item as the genuine article then it’s not a “counterfeit” it’s a “fake” or “replica”

The definition of counterfeit is : To make a exact imitation of something valuable with the intention to deceive or defraud 

So only fake or counterfeit items can cause injury or are dangerous to the public sorry but that’s utter rubbish you hear of manufacturers doing product recalls all the time because of issues with the product that came out of their factory  

Also you say that Limelight make counterfeit’s which they don’t!!! Be very careful in what you say because that could be classed “defamation”

Rubbish.

you can look all my info up on the various Trading Standards websites. 

 

[mcnach]

13 minutes ago, Jimothey said:

My apologies my post was a bit harsh but Fiat does not own Ferrari, Fiat has a controlling stake in Ferrari it does not own the company outright, the point I was making is the logo for squier says “by fender” on it I have never seen a Ferrari logo with “by Fiat” on it

So that is a completely different scenario 

 

No worries... stuff in writing here often looks serious while the very same stuff spoken while having a friendly discussion and a couple of beers would cause no offence. It's all good.

Yes, it actually turns out that Ferrari and Fiat seem to be going separate ways lately... but I just wanted to make the point about there being a larger company who decides what the subcompanies do etc as expanded earlier. However... and I add this simply as a curious bit of info  it turns out there's a Fiat 500 "Tributo Ferrari"... 

 

[fretmeister]

Jimothey

 

here you go, just 1 example 

“it is illegal to apply someone’s trademark... etc etc”

And

”the law applying to disclaimers...does not apply to trade mark and copyright legislation. In essence COUNTERFEIT items cannot legitimately be sold”

 

its up to the indiviuals whether to follow the law or not. But they don’t get to moan if they get prosecuted.

[jazzmanb]

1 hour ago, prowla said:

If you want them that way for your own enjoyment, then it's your choice.

However, if any of those items you describe there are sold with Fender logos then they are illegal.

Selling an illegal item as a fake does not make it honest, as detailed already.

Putting a logo on your bass doesn't make it illegal,i could write it on with a marker ,selling it 100% as a bass with a logo on isn't selling a fake either.What about putting a Fender stamped neck plate on or a genuine Fender neck on a bitsa?.If you sell it and describe it honestly i'm not sure what's illegal or fake about it.If i sell my bass and put on THIS ISN'T FENDER what law am i breaking?bearing in mind everything but the neck is Fender japan

[fretmeister]

1 minute ago, jazzmanb said:

Putting a logo on your bass doesn't make it illegal,i could write it on with a marker ,selling it 100% as a bass with a logo on isn't selling a fake either.What about putting a Fender stamped neck plate on or a genuine Fender neck on a bitsa?.If you sell it and describe it honestly i'm not sure what's illegal or fake about it.If i sell my bass and put on THIS ISN'T FENDER what law am i breaking?bearing in mind everything but the neck is Fender japan

Read the post immediately above.

 

[LewisK1975]

6 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

No.

Its actually the fault of Limelight for putting the logo on in the first place when limelight knew they didn’t have permission to do so.

 

Intent to deceive does not matter. See my post re disclaimers not changing the illegal nature of the product.

In my post I said that I understood the point being made about the bass having a Fender logo.  I'm not disputing that.

My point was that the listing had been used as an example of someone buying what they believed to be a genuine Fender.

Whilst that is true, IMHO the reason for that belief cannot be ignored.  He believed Limelight Basses to be re-worked genuine Fenders.  He was wrong, but spent his money without doing the proper research (he's openly admitted this).

This reminds me of stickers on those paint removal heat guns which say 'Do not use as a hair dryer'.

[jazzmanb]

15 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

The Limelight (or indeed any non Fender with a Fender logo bass) is a deliberate sale of a counterfeit item.

 

Disclaimers don’t make an illegal item legal.

 

No one is suggesting the seller of the bass in the classifieds is telling porkies. He is being honest. The problem is that he is being honest about a counterfeit item!

 

If that doesn’t show exactly why the law is as it is - that the next owner might not be honest- then I don’t know what does.

He then is breaking the law,knowingly passing something off as something it isn't

[jazzmanb]

1 minute ago, fretmeister said:

Read the post immediately above.

 

haven't time.we're talking individuals selling on a one to one to others,not mass counterfeiting .The vast majority are sold with good clear details of exactly what it is and the price reflects it.We seem to getting worried on other peoples behalfs

[fretmeister]

1 minute ago, jazzmanb said:

He then is breaking the law,knowingly passing something off as something it isn't

Yes. But if you read the law itself you’d see that the disclaimer use does not render an illegal item legal

 

Consider the reverse. If Bill buys a bass he thinks is a genuine Fender and sells it on... all good. If Pete buys it and discovers the bass was not a Fender then Bill has to refund Pete...  even if Trading Standards get involved and confiscate and destroy the bass. Bill has to go back to where he bought it from.

 

Selling with criminal intent to deceive leads to criminal liability to the seller. Selling without does not BUT the item remains illegal and can be confiscated and destroyed. Each person in the chain gets their money back from the last. Caveat Emptor is massively reduced in counterfeit cases as the item is illegal.

[fretmeister]

4 minutes ago, jazzmanb said:

haven't time.we're talking individuals selling on a one to one to others,not mass counterfeiting .The vast majority are sold with good clear details of exactly what it is and the price reflects it.We seem to getting worried on other peoples behalfs

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalala does not change the fact that clear details / disclaimers about the product DOES NOT change the illegal nature of the product.

 

”I am being honest about the heroin I’m selling”

Plenty of honesty there. The product is still illegal. That’s really how simple it is. It’s just that the penalties for breaking the law are somewhat different.

 

the scale of the crime, whether a single bass or a factory full does not change the offence, it only changes the aggravating factors for sentencing. Stealing a kitkat gets you a caution. Stealing a cargo unit full gets you prison. Both are still theft.  Punching someone once gets you community service. Punching them 10 Times gets you prison. Both still assault.

[stingrayPete1977]

16 minutes ago, jazzmanb said:

haven't time.we're talking individuals selling on a one to one to others,not mass counterfeiting .The vast majority are sold with good clear details of exactly what it is and the price reflects it.We seem to getting worried on other peoples behalfs

I might have mentioned this before but I'll try again,  Limelight are a company. 

[jazzmanb]

7 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalala does not change the fact that clear details / disclaimers about the product DOES NOT change the illegal nature of the product.

 

”I am being honest about the heroin I’m selling”

Plenty of honesty there. The product is still illegal. That’s really how simple it is. It’s just that the penalties for breaking the law are somewhat different.

 

the scale of the crime, whether a single bass or a factory full does not change the offence, it only changes the aggravating factors for sentencing. Stealing a kitkat gets you a caution. Stealing a cargo unit full gets you prison. Both are still theft.  Punching someone once gets you community service. Punching them 10 Times gets you prison. Both still assault.

Not sticking my fingers anywhere,you said it,its a guy selling a copy bass to another guy who knows it is,not heroin dealing .No ones stamped down on it or made it an issue because it isn't one

[jazzmanb]

1 minute ago, stingrayPete1977 said:

I might have mentioned this before but I'll try again,  Limelight are a company. 

Stop repeating yourself,everyone knows they are,i take it they are in the middle of massive legal wrangles ??

[prowla]

1 hour ago, discreet said:

This. Obviously a misunderstanding that was cleared up quickly. But the OP is trying to use this ONE example to leverage his own agenda and imply that BC is the world centre for counterfeit bass guitars. Which it clearly is not. He can't provide links to ANY examples of the deliberate sale of fake basses on BC. The OP wants existing rules changed, apparently on a whim and for no good reason. The rules as they stand work perfectly well, have done so for years and patently do not need changing.

This is all I have to say, I can't waste another entire day on this rubbish. Worst thread ever. Now I must away and compose my upcoming thread demanding the banning of ads for combos - because I just don't like them.

You are inventing things there and exaggerating to the point of being ridiculous.