So it's okay to advertise counterfeits in H/C?

[gtrjones]

H/C has no liability for enabling these transactions?

ebay is pulling trademark infringing ads, is that because they know they're open to lawsuit?

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?p=31164703#post31164703

[Anderton]

H/C has no liability for enabling these transactions?

ebay is pulling trademark infringing ads, is that because they know they're open to lawsuit?

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?p=31164703#post31164703

We've actually pulled several for sale items and posts involving counterfeits. I took a look at the thread and the question here is whether these are being passed off as genuine, either by the company that made them, or by the seller. The seller made it clear they are non-originals. I can't see enough detail in the pictures to determine whether the companies used, for example, a Gibson or Fender logo, or tried to mislead people into thinking they're the Real Thing. I can certainly see several things right off the bat (e.g., the knobs) that say "these are not the real thing."

There are plenty of, shall we say, "emulations" of Les Paul and Strat shapes, even from legit companies. But there's no question when they're sold as non-originals. So, the real question here is whether the guitars are being passed off as the genuine article, or as imitations of the real thing.

At least that's the way it looks to me, but I'm not infallible, nor do I know the nuances of copyright law in this case. Comments?

In any event, thanks for pointing this out. If they are indeed counterfeits and sold by the manufacturers in a misleading way, the thread should indeed be pulled, even though the seller was upfront about what he was selling.

[gtrjones]

I'm no copyright/trademark attorney, and I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

But my understanding is that if you put a logo (either Fender or Gibson) on a guitar that was not built by them, it's trademark infringement, regardless of how you 'represent' it during the sale, or whether you built it or are reselling it.

Fenders are more difficult, as you can buy a neck that Fender corp. actually applied the logo to, and put it on a partscaster.

But those 'les pauls' that are for sale definately have 'Gibson' logos.

[Anderton]

But those 'les pauls' that are for sale definitely have 'Gibson' logos.

Thread gone.

[gtrjones]

Another 'logo' question.

What's H/C's policy on Fender logos? Obviously, body shapes are not trademarked, and most necks that have the trademarked headstock shape are 'licensed' necks, so Fender Corp. got their piece that way.

But for parts guitars that are advertised as not being 'Fenders', (i.e. warmoth, allparts, musickraft, etc) bodies and necks but that have had a 'Fender' decal applied to the headstock...

Is it enough to state clearly that the guitar was not made by Fender? Or should the guitar not have the trademarked logo at all (I get the sense that this was the clincher in the Gibson case, above).

Sorry if it seems I'm picking nits, but I'm curious, and think it's an interesting discussion.

[Samilyn]

Thread gone.

Good idea. Better safe than sorry.

[larryguitar]

Anybody notice a theme?
1972guitars sells a counterfeit strat neck (http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2173288)

1972guitars sells Gibson headstock overlays (http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2167514)

This is the same guy that was selling Musoland copies he bought in bulk for resale (by his own admission.)

So we have an entire forum designed to combat counterfeiting (I'm all for it, BTW) and another forum where we allow people to repeatedly post counterfeit items for sale.

That seems sort of counterproductive. :facepalm:

[jaytee123]

I'm no copyright/trademark attorney, and I didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

But my understanding is that if you put a logo (either Fender or Gibson) on a guitar that was not built by them, it's trademark infringement, regardless of how you 'represent' it during the sale, or whether you built it or are reselling it.

Fenders are more difficult, as you can buy a neck that Fender corp. actually applied the logo to, and put it on a partscaster.

But those 'les pauls' that are for sale definately have 'Gibson' logos.
If it is built by someone and not sold, is it still infringement?

[Samilyn]

If it is built by someone and not sold, is it still infringement?

That brings to my mind a real dilemma that would call for some hair splitting. I guess if you put someone else's trademarked name on something you built, it could be construed that you're trying to make everyone else think it's the real thing, so could be considered infringement.

However, say if you built a git and specified that, say, a Fender neck, was used in the build, but the rest was your own work, then I guess it'd be okay.

Just my thoughts.

[gtrjones]

If it is built by someone and not sold, is it still infringement?

I'm not an attorney, but have studied copyright and trademark law a bit (being prepared for my inevitable music career)...

As I understand it, using the logo is trademark infringement. So technically, just applying the decal is an issue. But the question is, how would the owner of the trademark know it's an issue, and ask you to stop? The answer, generally, is when you advertise the instrument for sale.

I don't think the Fender lawyers are going from bar-to-bar to ask weekend warriors if their guitar is a 'real' fender...

But when you put a guitar up for sale in 'the marketplace', then you're directly competing with Fender for that customer looking to buy a guitar, and using their logo to do it. Cause whether the seller is forthright about the origins of the guitar or not, the presence of the logo has to impact on the sale.

[kingsransom]

Manufacturing, owning, buying, or selling an unauthorized copy of a trademarked or copyrighted item is illegal. Period.

So if you buy that fake LP with the idea that you will only play it in your bedroom or (insert excuse here), you are breaking the law, plain and simple.

Whether the owner of the trademark (in this case Gibson) discovers that you've broken the law or can prove loss of income as a result is an entirely different question.

[gtrjones]

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2177674

Post #1 "might-mite neck"

Post #5 "has Fender decal"

[Roby Lee]

I bought one off ebay,the seller told me it was a copy,got for chump change even compared to epi les paul,and its alot better guitar then the epi,and I have a studio paul,bought from a music store,its usa made,but its no better then the fake custom I got,the main thing I see is the ebony fretboard and finish isnt nitro,I slapped 2 emg actives in the fake,an it sound better then an epi zak w,paul,so do I care its a fake,no I don't,I didn't buy it to resale,i got to play and keep,and now that 90% of American companies are have a lot of guitars made over sea's anyway,they did it to themselves,by trying to sell cheaper made guitars,look at dean,they sell Korean guitars everyday for over $1000,.you know they have no where near that in them,I think as long as the seller tells the truth about it being a copy,nothing is wrong,let the corporates battle it out,we the consumers seem to have forgotten what rock n roll was about in the beginning,a revolution against corps,just my 2 cents worth which now due to the moveing of most of our manufacturing oversea/s has made all of our money drop in value,like Gibson doesn't have enough money already,

http://www.myspace.com/window100

[Roby Lee]

didnt say it was right,I dont even think they should be allowed to use the design of anything that someone else made,much less put some one else's name on it,I only said,if its a deal nothing wrong with the seller as long as he is telling the truth,a person doesnt have to buy it that way,he isnt being misled,he knows he is buying a cheaper clone,and in a way,it does sorta show just how much the real one is realy costing to build,like clone amps ,maybe they dont put the same name on it,but they copy the design to the letter in most case's.same as the pc world and amp replicated sounds,wow you can get a marshall ,fender sound by buying a processor amp way cheaper,is that wrong to? I do agree it is wrong,but hey is it wrong for a guy who cant aford the real one to buy the replicated when he cant aford the realone,wait how long till he can aford to play music,or buy the best deal he can get,when it comes down to how much a person can aford and how it takes them to get the things he needs ,I have both,clones and real ones,and acualy ichoose to play my epiphones more then the gibson or the clone ,I have a dfh dean,it play,bands play copy written songs all the time in clubs,they make money doing it,they dont ask,or get any type of permission,they just do it,but that is acepted,mm idont think that is right either,they take somes music(song and copy it sometimes to the point that they sound just like the original ,that right then?but its done everyday,maybe I came across with my post in the wrong way, Iwill rephrase itm, I thinks its wrong for someone,anyone to copy anything that is copywritten,but once its there,why not use it,but we can go on and on all day with both sides of an argument off this nature,
but your right,it is wrong,but its not wrong to buy it,and it doesnt bother me to buy it if iknow its a copy doesnt mean iwould sell it,or even pretend its real,but anyway,those clone gibsons are spelled gibsun ,its easy to see the u replaced the o in the clones,and I am not trying to be a smark aleck,just my opinion,which is like a grain of salt,can be used or left off,lol,napster got busted ,but how many other phile shares are out there that dont,

didnt gibson make a clone of the les paul called the paul ,Les got poed about it to,they even put his name on the fisrt sg's.he didnt say they could,seems they are guilty of doing the very same thing they say some one else did,but I still buy there guitars to,if ifind them at a good deal,




http://www.myspace.com/window100

[larryguitar]

Your eloquent, cogent and well-conceived post surely proves the point.

:facepalm:

[Trace-P38]

pics?

[Roby Lee]

well maybe I didnt go over and spell check every word,but I see some can read it ,its coherent enough to be understood,but peace October Man,
everything on any forum is nothing but an opinion,all are mere words typed and in reality do nothing more then give us something to do when we have nothing else to do,isnt that why people read books?but anyway,peace out,and chill,life is the thrill,not the description of life
and iwill get some pics up soon,my limted brain has to figure out how to make the flash work on the camera,dad blame instruction book is written for a brainer not a lamer like me,) hehe


http://www.myspace.com/window100

[pjc]

Apparently you quit school before you learned how to properly construct sentences, spell, and use punctuation. Learn to do that and I promise I'll read your post next time.

+1. And don't forget, paragraphs are your friend!

[Roby Lee]

well,what would you suggest I do with it? shoot it full of holes with a olo 45 ,lol,cause I sure couldnt sell it,mmm,but then I would have to buy a gun to do that,and I refuse to own a gun,so maybe cut it up into scrap wood and burn it?well I could use it for a project guitar and sand it all down,

I am sure the finish is cheap poly anyway like most foriegn guitars have on them,so it would most likely make it sound better that way,then it wouldnt be counterfeit,a no name is better anyway then a name ,who plays the name anyway,
but with an u and not a o,its not realy a true clone even,gibson not gibsun ,I realy dont see why they didnt add a g at the end of it anyway,they sold these things on ebay so cheap they would have sold anyway,
HAHAHA or change the name to clone on the headstock,
but I only posted a pic of it so others could see it,and not get ripped off, iwas lucky enough not to have been lied to when I saw it,
Does anyone know how to make a logo name that can go on it,because it does play good,,but no I didnt think it was illegal to own it,its not spelled exactly the same on the name,I figured it would not matter that way,now if it had gibson with an o,then yeah,I would think it would be wrong to have it,

any suggestions? real suggestions,




http://www.myspace.com/window100

[larryguitar]

You do know that its a Federal crime to own counterfeit merchandise, right?

And IP's can be tracked through a public forum. :cop:

Sand the headstock into a different shape and sand Gibson (that's weak sauce with the 'u'; sorry, many legit Gibsons use that same font) off the face. Spray it black gloss and you're golden.

L

[ThudMuffin]

Sand the headstock into a different shape and sand Gibson (that's weak sauce with the 'u'; sorry, many legit Gibsons use that same font) off the face. Spray it black gloss and you're golden.

L

+1

Doubtless, many have gotten screwed by this crap, but it would still be nice to have access to some junk like this.
I'm always looking for some new plank to experiment on, and when it comes to the woodwork, it would be nice to try it out on a near-identical piece before taking the router to my real Paul.

I say sell 'em, report the fakes, do your homework.

[boytbpc]

any suggestions? real suggestions,


Sell it and buy "Hooked on Phonics".

[daddymack]

Sell it and buy "Hooked on Phonics". shouldn't that be 'huked on fonix'?:confused:

[boytbpc]

If only I knew how to type some characters backwards. :)

[slo-burn]

So if somebody posts a real San Dimas Charvel here with a s\strat headstock, are you considering it to be conterfiet? They never sold with the Fender name on it, in fact, even though a Charvel looks like a strat, it is really quite a different beast! How about an Anderson or Suhr? counterfeits? Fender claims That that shape is "intelectual property", but the courts have ruled (see Gibson vs. Paul Reed Smith) that those body shapes are "generic" geometric shapes" and that in fact Fender and Gibson shapes are altered, centuries old Spanish acoustic guitar shapes. Food for thought; if you wanted to build a guitar body made in the shape of a perfect square, are you stealing intellectual property from Bo Diddly? The courts say nay. It's like Donald Trump trying to copyright the words "your fired". You can't. They are part of the public domain, same as the square or triangle. If someone sells a Warmoth parts guitar, they have every legal right to use the word "Strat" as those parts are licensed by Fender, as "Strat parts". You just can't apply a Fender logo and sell it as such. One more thing. If a company owns an intellectual property and say Fender did not license or make replacement parts, in many cases the courts see it as legal to supply replacement parts using ianothers intellectual property if there is a market void for replacement parts. In other words you can't make a product and refuse to offer replacement parts and then sue another company who does fill that void. You have a responsibility to the market place to supply parts and if you can't or don't, another can step in in many cases. How far do you want to take this? maybe you should you go to law school and forget about being a musician?

[slo-burn]

BTW gtrjones, your photo is the intellectual property of South Park! Did you get express written permission to use it?

[larryguitar]

Are you kidding? You can't differentiate between a guitar that uses a similar body shape and a company purposely producing guitars carrying someone else's logo and name?

There's a counterfeit apologist who always pops up in these conversations, and their writing style is distinctive; no paragraphs, attempts to equate 'similar' and 'purposely copied' and all that. Always shows up with three or four posts.

Hmmmm.....

Hi again. :wave:

[slo-burn]

I said nothing of LOGO'S read the post!

[slo-burn]

Larryguitar
with all do respect you need to remove your pompous head from your ass! what the hell does paragraphs or writing style have to do with point? This is'nt english 101! are you kidding? No I think you are not...
see guys like you always resort to some kind of personal attack when they have no usefull counterpoint to a debate, kinda like politics!
If a guy makes a clone logo and all for his own personal use, and it is not intended for the market place there is no law against that. If the guy later desides to sell it privately to another person in a non business transaction, perfectly legal. I make Charvel clones for a living. I do not use logo's even though everyone wants the logo. if i sell the guitar to the guy and he installs a logo, I am not legally reponsible. BTW I make my guitars on a custom order basis, I do not send them to music stores.
So, my customers are ordering cloned parts and they know it, and they buy them, because they can't get it from someone else, the way they want it. If you want to be a fascist, move to europe!

[slo-burn]

BTW I made the last post in three seperate paragraphs and the website converted it. I use paragraphs! So get a life my friend!

[slo-burn]

Do you have any usefull points to ad to the discusion?

[slo-burn]

BTW Slash's favorite guitar is a Les Paul clone, and he can afford any real vintage Les paul he wants! Is he breaking the law? Or the guy who made it? Clones are not always scrap, and more often that not better! So you prefer Gibson and Fender have a monoploly on everything? There are not many companies who make guitars who have not been bought up by them. They have also used each other's intellectual property on many occasions.
Leo Fender stole the Bassman circuit from RCA and tweaked it, Marshall stole the Bassman and tweaked it. Law breakers all? every and I mean every high gain amp made uses the same driver and power stages as the Bassman, with a few tweaks. Why is everyone not in jail or being sued Larry?
Would you consider a soldano or Bogner, or Dr Z junk infereior clones?
How far do you want to take this? If you had it your way Marshall would never have existed and rock history would be something entirely differenmt than what it is!
Hmmmmmmm............

[larryguitar]

Hopeless.

:facepalm:

[Roby Lee]

Avoid being scammed: Share your tips on identifying counterfeit guitars (and other gear). On-topic only
well i am not concerned by ip tracking otherwise i would not have joined a forum,as I said I only posted the pics so others could see what they look like,and now your condeming me for owning it?what a crock man,the thread title is about how to identifie fakes,I showed a pic of a fake,and now I get condemed,yeah funny,
so I can see why a person would not continue to post here,do as asked,then get flamed ,lol,Larry its all good man,
but I am off work today,so I am takeing the guitar to guitar center,and will ask them to run the seriel numbers,before I do anything,but I most likely will just do the fast route as you suggested if it really is a fake,and spray paint over the name,I didnt come here to be judged by the way,I thought I would make friends with some real musicians,
and Liveing in America does have benifits,they are not the gestopo, I have already asked the local copshop, I know them well,they said there isnt anything to worry about ,its a guitar not a bomb or gun lol and I am not trying to sell it either,

[Roby Lee]

thank you Larry,good suggestion,I will post some pictures of it again after I refinish it,I have decided to cut the top and just paint the whole guitar Black,hehe,


http://www.myspace.com/window100

always good to at least try to and abide by the law,I am sorry I created a flame, war about this,, iwas only wanting to find out the best way to fix it,and if or if it needed fixing,and it does need to be fixed,and now I know what to do to fix it,
thanks again for all your thoughts,

[gtrjones]

slo-burn...

The headstock shape, the words 'Fender', Strat', 'Stratocaster', 'Telecaster', etc are all trademarked by Fender. You're correct, the bodyshape is not.

I do not have a problem with people selling partscasters. I own several. But too many people put together a partscaster out of squier plywood bodies and cheap ebay necks and then put a Fender logo on it. In my eyes, that's exactly the same thing as these chinese 'Gibsun' guitars. Either way, you're using the trademark illegally. Doesn't matter who did it, who owns it, or what kind of 'disclosure' happened during the sale. The guitar is technically illegal to own or sell.

The 'South Park' avatar was not created by the south park people and is not a trademark or copyright issue. It was created by me.

I just started this thread because I see trademark issue guitars listed for sale in the classifieds here. I'm thinking that because H-C is owned by Musicians Friend, who happen to be one of the largest Fender dealers on the planet, that Fender might have an issue with H-C providing a place for people to sell this stuff. Of course, the Chinese Gibsuns should be gone too, but they typically don't last long. The 'Fender' stuff, for whatever reason, isn't seen to be the same problem, and I'm just trying to spark a discussion about why that's so.

[Screaming Stone]

It's like Donald Trump trying to copyright the words "your fired". You can't.

but you can trademark "You're fired" - which it is by JMBP (check out uspto.gov)

[slo-burn]

Larry your fired! lol;
Look guys I did'nt chime in to be abrasive or rude. When I saw our friend Robby Lee being lambasted simply for owning as clone, I thought it was a little too much. Yes gtrjones, I could'nt agree more that the plywood with logo scenerio is not only illegal but B.S. It just seemd to me it was getting way deeper than that in terms of parts casters and such. Larry no hard feelings, but you made a personal attack, basically call me a moron in a polite way, so I could'nt let that slide. I am not claiming to be a know it all, but as someone who has personaly received a cease and disist letter from Fender, I did my homework on this. Although you your avatar is not technically a south park character, technically you could be sued because the character "resembles" they're intelectual property. And your character makes my point for me. There are good scenerios where someone steps in and makes another persons product better aka, Charvel, Schecter, etc. at the time they came around Fender was making junk, in the USA. Also those guitars and parts although Strat inspired are really not clones, as other than that headstock shape, in most cases they had they're own identity, and many prefer those guitars and parts to what Fender offers. That is why I have customers. Guys who come to me prefer what I have to offer even to those parts that are officially licensed. Of course not everyone would wnat what I make either. It's a matter of choice. I would love it if someone came and gave Microsoft a run for they're money....Windows Vista....enough said.

[Roby Lee]

well I talked to the guys at GC,and they looked for the seriel number,it showed up as none,also another way to tell,the fake i have,has an extra number in its seriel number,when I asked them what should I do with the guitar,they just said,play it,,he did add that He wouldnt sell it to anyone unless you made sure they knew it was a clone,but he said its not realy that big of an issue unless your building and makeing them and selling them,but if you own one,he said dont sweat it,no fbi guys are gonna come running in after you,its a guitar not a biological weapon,lol,and I asked them,about the logo,they just said,its up to me as to what to do about that,in fact one of them offered to buy it,but Isaid same thing as before,no im keeping it because in all truth it plays better then some of the les pauls they have hanging on there wall,so any way,its in my wood shop now,being prepared for to be worked,im gonna do some graphical stuff on it,carveings n such,by the time i am done,it wont be the same guitar anyway,(only paid $50 for it ) so its perfect for a carveing project


http://www.myspace.com/window100