• 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.

Headstock Decal Etiquette

#122
khutch said:
The Fender logo is a Fender trademarked item. It can only be used with their permission. Last I knew, from an email response Fender sent me about 3 years ago, Fender considers it a fair use to put their decals on replacement necks made under license. At the time if you would send them proof of the authenticity of the rest of the bass they would sell you decals to put on it.

As far as I know Fender does not license others to make and sell Fender headstock decals. If that is the case then anyone but Fender who sells you such a decal is engaging in trademark infringement, as are you unless you buy decals only from Fender. It is not likely but they could take legal action if it is brought to their attention. Or rather it is not likely they would take action against you but very likely they would take action against the decal sellers. They are legally bound to do this otherwise they lose their trademark protection. But of course if there are any officially licensed decal makers then both you and they are covered by the licensing agreement and fees.

I don't know anything about the legality of making decals yourself for your own private use. I do know that it is very likely, in spite of what you say or intend, that these decals made "strictly for home use" will eventually end up on the market, and probably quite often here in the TB classifieds.
Click to expand...

Oh no!

FACTS!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Imaginary Pony
#124
gln1955 said:
Please elaborate. Everything I've ever read about intellectual property law (and I deal with this stuff a lot) implies that infraction involves sale or some kind of mass not-for-profit giving away of the item in question.

Are you really saying I can't put that Ford logo sticker on my Mazda?
Click to expand...

It's a misuse of a registered trademark / service mark. You could argue that it falls under parody if you put a Ferrari badge in a Pinto, but trademark owners are required to go after violations of their trademark or they risk losing that trademark. Classic examples are Kleenex being used generically instead of tissue or someone asking you to Xerox a page even though it's on a Canon copier. There's a 99.99% chance they'll never know, but if they are made aware of a misuse, they are required to take action. Look at what Rickenbacker does with eBay auctions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bholder
#126
lfmn16 said:
I've been trying to deceive myself for years, but I'm too smart to fall for it. ;)
Click to expand...

who-am-i.jpg
 
#129
MultiScaleMale said:
It's a misuse of a registered trademark / service mark. You could argue that it falls under parody if you put a Ferrari badge in a Pinto, but trademark owners are required to go after violations of their trademark or they risk losing that trademark. Classic examples are Kleenex being used generically instead of tissue or someone asking you to Xerox a page even though it's on a Canon copier. There's a 99.99% chance they'll never know, but if they are made aware of a misuse, they are required to take action. Look at what Rickenbacker does with eBay auctions.
Click to expand...

Well yes, that's what I'm saying. If you sell something on eBay with an inappropriate logo, I'd expect Rick or Fender or whomever to not take kindly to it. Same as if you were to make Fender waterslides by the thousands and give them away. It dilutes the value of the Fender brand and would be an infringment. But has there ever been a case where an individual put a logo on something like a replacement neck for their own private use and been prosecuted? It's not hurting Fender in the least; in fact it's providing a bit of free advertisement for the real thing.

For the record, in the case the OP presents, I'd leave the Warmouth neck blank 'cause I think it looks cool that way.
 
#130
MultiScaleMale said:
It's a misuse of a registered trademark / service mark. You could argue that it falls under parody if you put a Ferrari badge in a Pinto, but trademark owners are required to go after violations of their trademark or they risk losing that trademark. Classic examples are Kleenex being used generically instead of tissue or someone asking you to Xerox a page even though it's on a Canon copier. There's a 99.99% chance they'll never know, but if they are made aware of a misuse, they are required to take action. Look at what Rickenbacker does with eBay auctions.
Click to expand...
Good point - though there's no legal misrepresentation going on when someone personally misuses a trademark and doesn't try to sell it for something it is not, the onus is on the trademark owner to prove they made every effort to protect it, or they risk losing it. I'm not sure where the line legally is or should be, but the law is written to encourage trademark owners to be even more paranoid and aggressive about enforcement than whatever their normal natural inclination might be.
 
#132
Many moons ago I played tournament paintball. More than once we contacted a copyright/trademark holder to re-use a logo or image for our team jerseys. We were always told as long as we only printed enough for our 5 man team (and a few backups), did not sell or give away, they would not and could not stop us. Many teams did this and did not run into issues. The issue is profit. If you are making a profit from sale, you are harming the copyright holder. If you sell a used item for less than what it sold for new, hard to claim financial harm and collect on a infringement claim.

What happens w/ pseudo ricks and e-bay is grey IMO, it seems more like successful bullying vs having a valid legal point. Some of the clones that get pulled were made decades ago, how can you prove current financial harm on something made decades ago in another country? And has already changed hands several times on the secondary used market? I could see if these are brand new mass made knockoffs, but ancient used stuff is getting pulled too. Not much if any profit is being made on these sales, so where is the financial harm? It doesn't exist.
 
#133
An interesting twist developing around the idea that the Warmoth neck is both a licensed product and a Fender authorized replacement neck. Fender does in fact inspect Warmoth necks from time to time. If in fact Fender will give you a logo to put on a Warmoth necked but otherwise original Fender, then that should influence whether or not it is a misuse of trademark, no?
 
#135
I have a custom-built 5 string P-bass with a '58-style vintage Fender spaghetti logo on the headstock, because I always wanted a very-vintage-looking five string P-bass. I don't believe I'll ever sell it, but if I did, I would specifically say that it is not a real Fender.

Here it is... anyone who knows anything about Fender fivers can recognize that this is not a Fender. Even so, I would never misrepresent. It's just one bass, and it's just for me.
15%2B-%2B1.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: God's Favorite Bass and Jah Wobble Fan
#138
2.6kHz said:
Many moons ago I played tournament paintball. More than once we contacted a copyright/trademark holder to re-use a logo or image for our team jerseys. We were always told as long as we only printed enough for our 5 man team (and a few backups), did not sell or give away, they would not and could not stop us. Many teams did this and did not run into issues. The issue is profit. If you are making a profit from sale, you are harming the copyright holder. If you sell a used item for less than what it sold for new, hard to claim financial harm and collect on a infringement claim.

What happens w/ pseudo ricks and e-bay is grey IMO, it seems more like successful bullying vs having a valid legal point. Some of the clones that get pulled were made decades ago, how can you prove current financial harm on something made decades ago in another country? And has already changed hands several times on the secondary used market? I could see if these are brand new mass made knockoffs, but ancient used stuff is getting pulled too. Not much if any profit is being made on these sales, so where is the financial harm? It doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Wrong - the issue is not profit, the issue is likelihood of confusion.
 
#140
buldog5151bass said:
Wrong - the issue is not profit, the issue is likelihood of confusion.
Click to expand...
Technically the law only applies to confusion in the TM holders marketplace. It has to be in connection with a good or service. So here is my read on it assuming Fender did not supply the logo.

- I apply the decal and use the bass for personal enjoyment only - not a violation
- someone prints and sells me the logo - violation on their part
- I use the bass in a public performance - maybe a violation but difficult to litigate
- I sell the bass as if it were a Fender - duh
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back