• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Fender decals on not-really-Fender basses

#581
ggunn said:
If you feel that something is morally wrong, don't do it. If you think putting a Fender decal on a Squire Squeirie Skwire (whatever) is morally wrong, don't do it. Like, if you think gay marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of your own gender. Like, if you think dancing and consuming alcohol is morally wrong, stay out of bars and dance clubs.

I think the world would be a better place if everyone would learn to mind their own business. And please don't start up with the "murder and rape is wrong, too" thing, OK? It's tiresome. :D
Click to expand...

This postmodern logic is quite poor. It's not about "minding" anyone's own business - it's about trademarks, patents, and a communal responsibility to uphold laws that are legitimate.
 
#583
ggunn said:
No it's not. It's about feeling morally superior to someone else.
Click to expand...

LOL. There is no "moral superiority" in acknowledging the administration of a legitimate law. That is the most ignorant thing I've heard yet. Also, comparing a conversation on trademarks to one on gay marriage is absurd. Someday, you might trademark or patent something (key word is 'might') and it could finally ring to you. "Hey, this guy is stealing from me/trashing my rep/falsifying my product!"

What's ironic is people put "Fender" decals on instruments in order to administer a false sense to other people. This could be because they feel like their instrument is inferior.

EDIT: 'the law' is that Fender has the rights to their namesake and logo and can administer it as they wish - as they invented it and created it. Give up the inane arguments.
 
#585
michael_atw said:
LOL. There is no "moral superiority" in acknowledging the administration of a legitimate law. That is the most ignorant thing I've heard yet. Also, comparing a conversation on trademarks to one on gay marriage is absurd. Someday, you might trademark or patent something (key word is 'might') and it could finally ring to you. "Hey, this guy is stealing from me/trashing my rep/falsifying my product!"

What's ironic is people put "Fender" decals on instruments in order to administer a false sense to other people. This could be because they feel like their instrument is inferior.

EDIT: 'the law' is that Fender has the rights to their namesake and logo and can administer it as they wish - as they invented it and created it. Give up the inane arguments.
Click to expand...

Not a chance. Now we've moved from moral superiority to intellectual superiority. Neat.

There is no law on the books that says you can't put a Fender logo or anything else on your own bass. They might have the right to pursue you civilly if you tried to make money with it somehow, but it would be a civil, not a criminal case and they would have to prove that they were damaged. If they don't choose to pursue it (and they won't), it's their call, not yours. If it's not worth their attention (and it's not) why is it worth yours? Why is it any of your business? It's not.

Have you never driven over the speed limit? Doncha hate it when "left lane vigilantes" drive the speed limit in the left lane because they think it's their responsibility to enforce the law? How is this different?

I'm gonna put a bunch of smilies here :D :D :D :D :D :D :D to assure everyone that I'm really not taking this very seriously.
 
#586
For 20 or so years, Jimmie Vaughan played a Strat that had a Schecter neck on a Fender body with a Fender decal on the headstock. Fender "punished" this behavior by giving him a signature model endorsement deal. Best possible outcome!:D
 
#587
ggunn said:
Have you never driven over the speed limit? Doncha hate it when "left lane vigilantes" drive the speed limit in the left lane because they think it's their responsibility to enforce the law? How is this different?
Click to expand...

Well, one difference is that the "logo vigilantes" don't actually have a law to enforce!

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D - more smileys!
 
#588
JACink said:
Nor does half of this thread, but we read it anyway (just like my post ;) )

But seriously, I wish they did make Squier gig bags, as I like the Fender bags, but there is something about buying a Fender bag/case for a Squier... I would buy Squier (at the same price) if they existed.
Click to expand...

I saw once where World Music Supply was selling a Squier branded hard case, for like $89, but that's the only place I've ever seen one. If I could get one (or two) I would.
EDIT: Just checked, they're still listed at $99.99
 
#589
Double E said:
Just curious...if we put up some real-life accounts of the victims of this practice of placing logos on headstocks, maybe it could accomplish something more than just idle bitching and finger pointing.

I frankly don't think it's a widespread problem.
Click to expand...

I've been dealing in Fender guitars and basses - vintage and new, for 3.5 years now. I've purchased roughly 1000-1200. Yes, it is a very large problem.
 
#591
ggunn said:
Not a chance. Now we've moved from moral superiority to intellectual superiority. Neat.

There is no law on the books that says you can't put a Fender logo or anything else on your own bass. They might have the right to pursue you civilly if you tried to make money with it somehow, but it would be a civil, not a criminal case and they would have to prove that they were damaged. If they don't choose to pursue it (and they won't), it's their call, not yours. If it's not worth their attention (and it's not) why is it worth yours? Why is it any of your business? It's not.

Have you never driven over the speed limit? Doncha hate it when "left lane vigilantes" drive the speed limit in the left lane because they think it's their responsibility to enforce the law? How is this different?

I'm gonna put a bunch of smilies here :D :D :D :D :D :D :D to assure everyone that I'm really not taking this very seriously.
Click to expand...

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

Your continued posts are confounding because they indicate a more a troll rather than someone who actually comprehends the subject of the thread.
 
#593
#595
Double E said:
Trademark Law does not apply...it is for protection against the manufacture and commercial sale of goods with false trademarks. Fender couldn't care less if Joe Schmoe puts a Fender logo on his Squire.
Click to expand...

There was a thread just yesterday I believe of a custom bass on Ebay; it was portrayed as a Fender, created by the builder.

Yes, it does apply, regardless of whether they pursue it. If you think it doesn't, then I guess if I snatch a purse I'm not breaking laws just so long as I get away and they stop chasing me.

And yes, a main crux of this thread has been on the sale of counterfeit Fenders.

This is getting (or has been) ridiculous.
 
#596
Double E said:
So you've purchased 1000-1200...probably looked at a lot more than that. How many fakes did you buy or identify?
Click to expand...

Identify? Hmm...in the thousands easily. Some are described as being fakes; some are either unintentionally or intentionally sold without any want or ability to disclose that information.

One example was a Telecaster I viewed on Ebay recently. The seller stated plainly it was a frankenstein but claimed in the same breath it was a 1998 judging "by the serial number". The serial number was fabricated as was the decal. He stated it was created in 1995 right in the description. Upon emailing him confronting him of his gaffe he took out the "1995" part; however, continued to claim he could only verify it by the serial number. I told him it was fake and he avoided response to my 2 following messages. This happens pretty often.

I've likely purchased 50-75 fakes. Some are frankensteins, some outright fakes. Most of those were initially and once I was able to easier identify real vs. fake they stopped. I skip over or avoid them now of course.
 
#597
I think this thread is fun if you aren't emotionally involved.

AND, I think that Fender wants people to think that Squiers are Fenders!

Why else would they make the instruments look exactly the same, and make the logo almost exactly the same!

They make the word Squier look so much like Fender, with the ending "ER" exactly the same, and the curve of the "S" mimicking the "F" on Fender. And it is on a Trademark Fender headstock.

From the crowd people see "Fender" - a visual memory loop that saves us the time of reading something - because we already know what it says - a well documented psychological process.
 
#598
michael_atw said:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

Your continued posts are confounding because they indicate a more a troll rather than someone who actually comprehends the subject of the thread.
Click to expand...
No, I comprehend it quite well, thank you. If you are indeed a purveyor of vintage instruments I grant that your perspective may be different than mine, but can you truly say that you would be fooled by a Fender logo on a less-than-Fender bass?

What are you going to do if you encounter someone in a bar band playing a bass with a Fender logo on it that is obviously to your discerning eye not what it would seem to the uninitiated? Perform a citizen's arrest? Write an indignant letter to Fender? Rub one finger over the other and cry "shame, shame?" Pontificate about it on an internet forum, maybe?

The statute you cite gives Fender the right to sue someone for trademark infringement, but to succeed in their suit they must prove damages. How is Fender damaged by some guy in a local band doing this? I submit that it isn't Fender's protection of their trademark that you are concerned about, but your own self interest.

But I will admit that I was just having a little fun with you. I don't really care if Sgt. Rock puts a Fender logo on his whatever-it-is. In fact, I think it's a little silly, but to each his own. It's none of my business, either.
 
#599
michael_atw said:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

Your continued posts are confounding because they indicate a more a troll rather than someone who actually comprehends the subject of the thread.
Click to expand...

I checked out the link you posted and didn't see anything there that really disproved ggunn's point. Most of what is discussed on that web pages is about trademark infringment that may "cause consumer confusion" and "for commercial purposes" which ggunn clearly said he was not defending.

If anything, your website backs up his position where it says:

Finally, certain parodies of trademarks may be permissible if they are not too directly tied to commercial use. The basic idea here is that artistic and editorial parodies of trademarks serve a valuable critical function, and that this critical function is entitled to some degree of First Amendment protection. The courts have adopted different ways of incorporating such First Amendment interests into the analysis... Still other courts have held that the First Amendment effectively trumps trademark law, under certain circumstances. In general, however, the courts appear to be more sympathetic to the extent that parodies are less commercial, and less sympathetic to the extent that parodies involve commercial use of the mark.​
 
#600
Stewie26 said:
Putting a Fender decal on a Squire is kind of like putting a Chevy Corvette logo on a
Chevy Chevette. Yes, their both made by Chevrolet, but their is a huge difference.
Click to expand...

My uncle had a Chevy Chevette back in high school but always called it his 'vette. He wasn't playing up his car, he was just being a sarcastic butthole. Putting a Fender USA decal on a Rogue is downright funny (or sad, depending on how you look at it)

It's more like putting a Z06-R decal on a C5 Coupe than a Corvette logo on a Chevette anyway.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back