Sanding "Squire" off the headstock

digitalscream

prowla said:

However, the "advice" given in this instance appears to be ignorant of the facts, ie. that Fender themselves will sell you a Fender neck explicitly to put on a Squier guitar; all of the opinions and bluster in the world cannot change that fact.

Further on the authority of legal advice in general; if legal advice was absolutely deterministic and infallible then there would never be any court cases, as there would never be any argument. (Which of course does not imply the suggestion that therefore all legal advice is bad.)

Anyway, as I've said it's not my site and I don't set the in-site rules; however this particular ruling and the law of the land are not one and the same.

Fender will sell you those things for replacement of Fender parts.

Also, Fender don't set the law. It should be absolutely self-evident that Fender selling spares for their own guitars is an entirely pointless example, because it's entirely irrelevant.

As for legal advice...for three entirely unrelated lawyers to give me the exact same advice, which also fits with my interpretation of it and Action Fraud's interpretation...if you believe that all those entities don't understand the law of the land properly and it's just their opinions, then it's clear that nothing will change your mind. For everybody else on the planet, though, it would imply a 99.9% chance that you're wrong.

thegummy

There's no point continuing this argument; on a privately owned website the owner can have any rules he wants. If he hated the colour blue he could ban the sale of blue guitars so there's nothing to argue on that front.

Outside this website though, just talking about the law of the land, @prowla makes some totally valid points that aren't comical or dubious at all.

Even on this site itself though, it's definitely not "simple". There are areas of ambiguity because it's not just the case that guitars can only be sold with the factory neck and body; there are exceptions to that so it's on a scenario by scenario case whether something is allowed or not.

Personally I'll just stick to either selling wholly original guitars or just parts on here to avoid any problems.

prowla

digitalscream said:

prowla said:

However, the "advice" given in this instance appears to be ignorant of the facts, ie. that Fender themselves will sell you a Fender neck explicitly to put on a Squier guitar; all of the opinions and bluster in the world cannot change that fact.

Further on the authority of legal advice in general; if legal advice was absolutely deterministic and infallible then there would never be any court cases, as there would never be any argument. (Which of course does not imply the suggestion that therefore all legal advice is bad.)

Anyway, as I've said it's not my site and I don't set the in-site rules; however this particular ruling and the law of the land are not one and the same.

Fender will sell you those things for replacement of Fender parts.

Also, Fender don't set the law. It should be absolutely self-evident that Fender selling spares for their own guitars is an entirely pointless example, because it's entirely irrelevant.

As for legal advice...for three entirely unrelated lawyers to give me the exact same advice, which also fits with my interpretation of it and Action Fraud's interpretation...if you believe that all those entities don't understand the law of the land properly and it's just their opinions, then it's clear that nothing will change your mind. For everybody else on the planet, though, it would imply a 99.9% chance that you're wrong.

Fender will sell Fender branded necks to fit to Squier instruments. 

That is a fact. 

It’s impressive that you speak for everyone else on the planet, though. 

prowla

thegummy said:

There's no point continuing this argument; on a privately owned website the owner can have any rules he wants. If he hated the colour blue he could ban the sale of blue guitars so there's nothing to argue on that front.

Outside this website though, just talking about the law of the land, @prowla makes some totally valid points that aren't comical or dubious at all.

Even on this site itself though, it's definitely not "simple". There are areas of ambiguity because it's not just the case that guitars can only be sold with the factory neck and body; there are exceptions to that so it's on a scenario by scenario case whether something is allowed or not.

Personally I'll just stick to either selling wholly original guitars or just parts on here to avoid any problems.

Yes; I’ve made the point that the site rules are valid. 

UnclePsychosis

prowla said:

 

Fender will sell Fender branded necks to fit to Squier instruments. 

That is a fact. 

Yes.

Fender will sell you a neck. You can do what you want with it. Including put it on a Squier body. Fender may even advertise that it fits on a Squier body. That's cool.

However if you fit that neck onto a Squier body and then sell the complete assembly then you are technically breaking the law no matter how much you protest otherwise. You might think its stupid (it almost certainly is) but its a completely different scenario to Fender selling you a standalone spare part for your own personal use.

thegummy

I don't know the law to know one way or another but if it really is illegal to sell it even when being completely open about what it is, it's a really silly law imo.

I can't think of any other thing that would parallel the situation. It definitely doesn't parallel a counterfeit rolex or designer shirt - that would be if a guitar with nothing to do with fender had a fender logo on it.

But with a fender neck, the part with the logo on it really is made by fender.

As was pointed out, the law isn't really black and white like that, it would come down to a specific case if it went to court.

I think it could be argued reasonably that it's common knowledge that bolt on guitars have their necks and bodies swapped and that it can't reasonably be assumed that the logo on the headstock indicates the manufacturer of every other part of the guitar.

And then if pickup swaps are okay then it's very much a guitar specific idea that the body has to match the headstock but other parts don't have to. I can't imagine anything written in law could include that logic.

Just out of interest, does anyone know what details a fender serial number is linked to? Would the body colour be noted in the database?

Dan_Halen

Not sure why one would think it’s a silly law. I think it’s a perfectly reasonable one. If it says ‘Fender’ on the headstock then it needs to be a Fender, built buy Fender. That way, the vast majority of buyers (who aren’t forum reading, detail obsessed guitar nerds) get what they think they are buying.

All these “but what if” or “what about this particular situation” arguments are what’s silly. The law doesn’t go granular on stuff like this because it’s just too niche. If you think it’s daft, list your bitsa as a Fender on Gumtree or whatever, lawyer up (with at least 5/6 figures in the bank), win in court and then you’ll have the legal precedent behind you to crack on and ask the forum to change their rules.

thegummy

Dan_Halen said:

Not sure why one would think it’s a silly law. I think it’s a perfectly reasonable one. If it says ‘Fender’ on the headstock then it needs to be a Fender, built buy Fender. That way, the vast majority of buyers (who aren’t forum reading, detail obsessed guitar nerds) get what they think they are buying.

All these “but what if” or “what about this particular situation” arguments are what’s silly. The law doesn’t go granular on stuff like this because it’s just too niche. If you think it’s daft, list your bitsa as a Fender on Gumtree or whatever, lawyer up (with at least 5/6 figures in the bank), win in court and then you’ll have the legal precedent behind you to crack on and ask the forum to change their rules.

If you need even more explanation of why I think it's a silly law, it's as simple as because it stops someone buying something they know exactly what they're buying and still want to buy it.

One doesn't need to be a forum reader to understand that a "partscaster with fender neck, Squier body and seymour duncan pickups" won't have a fender branded body.

Until you have your day in court and your own legal precedent then your interpretation is the same as anyone else's.

Dan_Halen

Except it’s not. My interpretation aligns with what is currently legal so no precedent needed. Yours doesn’t.

Not sure why you care so much anyway? Got a partscaster you can’t sell or just passing the time getting annoyed over hypotheticals?

prowla

Dan_Halen said:

Not sure why one would think it’s a silly law. I think it’s a perfectly reasonable one. If it says ‘Fender’ on the headstock then it needs to be a Fender, built buy Fender. That way, the vast majority of buyers (who aren’t forum reading, detail obsessed guitar nerds) get what they think they are buying.

As already pointed out, Fender will sell you a Fender branded neck to put on a Squier guitar.

Dan_Halen said:

All these “but what if” or “what about this particular situation” arguments are what’s silly. The law doesn’t go granular on stuff like this because it’s just too niche. If you think it’s daft, list your bitsa as a Fender on Gumtree or whatever, lawyer up (with at least 5/6 figures in the bank), win in court and then you’ll have the legal precedent behind you to crack on and ask the forum to change their rules.

Nobody is suggesting that selling a partscaster with a Fender neck as a Fender is legal.

Dan_Halen said:

... and ask the forum to change their rules.

As pointed out, the forum rules can be set to what they like - no red guitars if they please.

But calling people crooks because they have a Fender neck paired up with other parts is unwarranted.

UnclePsychosis said:

prowla said:

 

Fender will sell Fender branded necks to fit to Squier instruments. 

That is a fact. 

Yes.

Fender will sell you a neck. You can do what you want with it. Including put it on a Squier body. Fender may even advertise that it fits on a Squier body. That's cool.

However if you fit that neck onto a Squier body and then sell the complete assembly then you are technically breaking the law no matter how much you protest otherwise. You might think its stupid (it almost certainly is) but its a completely different scenario to Fender selling you a standalone spare part for your own personal use.

Where does the law say that? (No, not specifically mentioning Fender, but what law coves that scenario?)

Dan_Halen

prowla said:

Dan_Halen said:

Not sure why one would think it’s a silly law. I think it’s a perfectly reasonable one. If it says ‘Fender’ on the headstock then it needs to be a Fender, built buy Fender. That way, the vast majority of buyers (who aren’t forum reading, detail obsessed guitar nerds) get what they think they are buying.

As already pointed out, Fender will sell you a Fender branded neck to put on a Squier guitar.

Dan_Halen said:

All these “but what if” or “what about this particular situation” arguments are what’s silly. The law doesn’t go granular on stuff like this because it’s just too niche. If you think it’s daft, list your bitsa as a Fender on Gumtree or whatever, lawyer up (with at least 5/6 figures in the bank), win in court and then you’ll have the legal precedent behind you to crack on and ask the forum to change their rules.

Nobody is suggesting that selling a partscaster with a Fender neck as a Fender is legal.

Dan_Halen said:

... and ask the forum to change their rules.

As pointed out, the forum rules can be set to what they like - no red guitars if they please.

But calling people crooks because they have a Fender neck paired up with other parts is unwarranted.

UnclePsychosis said:

prowla said:

 

Fender will sell Fender branded necks to fit to Squier instruments. 

That is a fact. 

Yes.

Fender will sell you a neck. You can do what you want with it. Including put it on a Squier body. Fender may even advertise that it fits on a Squier body. That's cool.

However if you fit that neck onto a Squier body and then sell the complete assembly then you are technically breaking the law no matter how much you protest otherwise. You might think its stupid (it almost certainly is) but its a completely different scenario to Fender selling you a standalone spare part for your own personal use.

Where does the law say that? (No, not specifically mentioning Fender, but what law coves that scenario?)

Again, bored and arguing hypotheticals for the sake of it? Or do you actually have a bitsa you can’t shift?

If you want to play dumb games, you show me the law that says it’s ok to sell them then we can just close the thread and call you the winner.

As for calling people ‘crooks’ - no one has said anything of the sort. Are you calling Digital Scream a liar when he says he’s had legal advice from people who, unlike you, actually know what they’re talking about with this stuff?

Otherwise, you could just accept that maybe you’re wrong. Or not. Maybe time to let it go regardless.

thegummy

Dan_Halen said:

prowla said:

Dan_Halen said:

Not sure why one would think it’s a silly law. I think it’s a perfectly reasonable one. If it says ‘Fender’ on the headstock then it needs to be a Fender, built buy Fender. That way, the vast majority of buyers (who aren’t forum reading, detail obsessed guitar nerds) get what they think they are buying.

As already pointed out, Fender will sell you a Fender branded neck to put on a Squier guitar.

Dan_Halen said:

All these “but what if” or “what about this particular situation” arguments are what’s silly. The law doesn’t go granular on stuff like this because it’s just too niche. If you think it’s daft, list your bitsa as a Fender on Gumtree or whatever, lawyer up (with at least 5/6 figures in the bank), win in court and then you’ll have the legal precedent behind you to crack on and ask the forum to change their rules.

Nobody is suggesting that selling a partscaster with a Fender neck as a Fender is legal.

Dan_Halen said:

... and ask the forum to change their rules.

As pointed out, the forum rules can be set to what they like - no red guitars if they please.

But calling people crooks because they have a Fender neck paired up with other parts is unwarranted.

UnclePsychosis said:

prowla said:

 

Fender will sell Fender branded necks to fit to Squier instruments. 

That is a fact. 

Yes.

Fender will sell you a neck. You can do what you want with it. Including put it on a Squier body. Fender may even advertise that it fits on a Squier body. That's cool.

However if you fit that neck onto a Squier body and then sell the complete assembly then you are technically breaking the law no matter how much you protest otherwise. You might think its stupid (it almost certainly is) but its a completely different scenario to Fender selling you a standalone spare part for your own personal use.

Where does the law say that? (No, not specifically mentioning Fender, but what law coves that scenario?)

Again, bored and arguing hypotheticals for the sake of it? Or do you actually have a bitsa you can’t shift?

If you want to play dumb games, you show me the law that says it’s ok to sell them then we can just close the thread and call you the winner.

As for calling people ‘crooks’ - no one has said anything of the sort. Are you calling Digital Scream a liar when he says he’s had legal advice from people who, unlike you, actually know what they’re talking about with this stuff?

Otherwise, you could just accept that maybe you’re wrong. Or not. Maybe time to let it go regardless.

Do you not realise that you're pointing out that others are arguing this for the sake of it when you're doing the same thing?

And you're actually asking for law you be quoted that specifically allows this when you can't quote a law that forbids it?

If you don't quote a law that covers this then you're wasting your time repeating how right you think you are, that doesn't have any value to anyone else.

If there is a law that prohibits this, quote it. Unless, of course, you've never actually read such a law and are sure that you've guessed correctly.

The idea of asking for a law that specifically allows it is idiotic - I don't believe anyone could be under the impression that ever single item which is legal to sell is specified under law. It doesn't work as a white list, it works as a black list.

Dan_Halen

thegummy said:

Do you not realise that you're pointing out that others are arguing this for the sake of it when you're doing the same thing?

And you're actually asking for law you be quoted that specifically allows this when you can't quote a law that forbids it?

If you don't quote a law that covers this then you're wasting your time repeating how right you think you are, that doesn't have any value to anyone else.

If there is a law that prohibits this, quote it. Unless, of course, you've never actually read such a law and are sure that you've guessed correctly.

The idea of asking for a law that specifically allows it is idiotic - I don't believe anyone could be under the impression that ever single item which is legal to sell is specified under law. It doesn't work as a white list, it works as a black list.

You're a really odd fellow.

Yes I do realise I'm doing the same thing - that was the point ffs. I was demonstrating out the ridiculousness of this 'show me the law' - if that's your default position then why don't you do it it. The law isn't a blacklist - that's utter crap and it doesn't work like that.

Even the owner of this forum has had actual advice from real legal people - not you 'bloke on the internet who likes to think he's right' and you still argue the toss.

thegummy

Do you think that when the first electric guitar was imported to this country it was illegal to sell and they had to wait until the law was amended to add electric guitars to the list of things that are legal to sell?

When LSD was first invented it was legal to take and sell - not because anyone in charge of the law thought it was fine at first, it just hadn't been made illegal yet.

Hence it's not automatically illegal to sell a partscaster with a fender neck just because it doesn't explicitly state that it's legal. It would only be illegal if there was a specific law that forbade it.

I don't know if there is such a law or not. Anyone who can't understand this logic need not reply, especially if it's just with a childish insult.

If anyone does know of a law that covers it, please do share as it would be useful to know the legality of selling such things outside this forum.

Dan_Halen

thegummy said:

Do you think that when the first electric guitar was imported to this country it was illegal to sell and they had to wait until the law was amended to add electric guitars to the list of things that are legal to sell?

When LSD was first invented it was legal to take and sell - not because anyone in charge of the law thought it was fine at first, it just hadn't been made illegal yet.

Hence it's not automatically illegal to sell a partscaster with a fender neck just because it doesn't explicitly state that it's legal. It would only be illegal if there was a specific law that forbade it.

I don't know if there is such a law or not. Anyone who can't understand this logic need not reply, especially if it's just with a childish insult.

If anyone does know of a law that covers it, please do share as it would be useful to know the legality of selling such things outside this forum.

There are people in this thread that have told you it is illegal. There are people in this thread that have told you they have had genuine legal advice from different sources to tell them the same. There is endless anecdotal evidence out there for you to look for and make your judgement.

Or, and this is just an idea, maybe go look up the law yourself. There’s a tool called google. It’s quite useful.

What sort of mental world do you live in where you tell others they’re wrong (with nothing to support that claim other than your own opinion) then demand they prove to you they’re right?

Again... unless you actually have anything useful to add, maybe time to let it go?

prowla

Dan_Halen said:

prowla said:

Dan_Halen said:

Not sure why one would think it’s a silly law. I think it’s a perfectly reasonable one. If it says ‘Fender’ on the headstock then it needs to be a Fender, built buy Fender. That way, the vast majority of buyers (who aren’t forum reading, detail obsessed guitar nerds) get what they think they are buying.

As already pointed out, Fender will sell you a Fender branded neck to put on a Squier guitar.

Dan_Halen said:

All these “but what if” or “what about this particular situation” arguments are what’s silly. The law doesn’t go granular on stuff like this because it’s just too niche. If you think it’s daft, list your bitsa as a Fender on Gumtree or whatever, lawyer up (with at least 5/6 figures in the bank), win in court and then you’ll have the legal precedent behind you to crack on and ask the forum to change their rules.

Nobody is suggesting that selling a partscaster with a Fender neck as a Fender is legal.

Dan_Halen said:

... and ask the forum to change their rules.

As pointed out, the forum rules can be set to what they like - no red guitars if they please.

But calling people crooks because they have a Fender neck paired up with other parts is unwarranted.

UnclePsychosis said:

prowla said:

 

Fender will sell Fender branded necks to fit to Squier instruments. 

That is a fact. 

Yes.

Fender will sell you a neck. You can do what you want with it. Including put it on a Squier body. Fender may even advertise that it fits on a Squier body. That's cool.

However if you fit that neck onto a Squier body and then sell the complete assembly then you are technically breaking the law no matter how much you protest otherwise. You might think its stupid (it almost certainly is) but its a completely different scenario to Fender selling you a standalone spare part for your own personal use.

Where does the law say that? (No, not specifically mentioning Fender, but what law coves that scenario?)

Again, bored and arguing hypotheticals for the sake of it? Or do you actually have a bitsa you can’t shift?

If you want to play dumb games, you show me the law that says it’s ok to sell them then we can just close the thread and call you the winner.

As for calling people ‘crooks’ - no one has said anything of the sort. Are you calling Digital Scream a liar when he says he’s had legal advice from people who, unlike you, actually know what they’re talking about with this stuff?

Otherwise, you could just accept that maybe you’re wrong. Or not. Maybe time to let it go regardless.

Well, you seem to be happy to argue the hypotheticals...

You're the one who's saying you can't, so you must have a law to refer to, or maybe you don't and you are resorting to aggression because you know you haven't a clue?

Saying that people are breaking the law is indeed calling them crooks.

Don't try and twist my words - I never called him a liar; you are making things up.

I am happy to accept I am wrong, when I am; however, there is no law which says you have to remove original manufacturers marks when you fit their parts to ones from others.

Again, show me the law which says you have to and I will consider myself educated.

Dan_Halen

"Saying that people are breaking the law is indeed calling them crooks.

Don't try and twist my words - I never called him a liar; you are making things up."

Priceless. Putting words in my mouth and crying when it's done to you in consecutive sentences. That's some impressive work there.

If you've genuinely got nothing better to do (and clearly you haven't), maybe look up counterfeit goods. Whether you declare it when selling or not is neither here nor there - unless you have the permission of the manufacturer to have that logo on the headstock then technically it isn't legal. Not a 'tribute' or a 'replica' or any nice way of putting it - it's a counterfeit and it's infringement of a trademark. Why can you not grasp this simple concept?

However, we both know you're not going to look up anything. Just whine. So, because you and old Gummy Boy are clearly too bone-idle, let me do it for you. Now, there's every chance that the below might not be current or right. I'm no lawyer. However, unlike you, I've at least made an effort.

You can read the below, look at the website and interpret it your own way decide you're not actually breaching anything. If so then good luck to you and, chances are, just selling your precious bitsa for an extra couple of hundred will make it all worthwhile. Doesn't make it right though and if you're up in court I'm sure the defence of 'I told him it was a fake' when that's not actually the only law broken will stand you in good stead.

--------

The Trade Marks Act 1994 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/contents

"Offences (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/part/III)

92Unauthorised use of trade mark, &c. in relation to goods.

(1)A person commits an offence who with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor—

(a)applies to goods or their packaging a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, or

(b)sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire or distributes goods which bear, or the packaging of which bears, such a sign, or

(c)has in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business any such goods with a view to the doing of anything, by himself or another, which would be an offence under paragraph (b).

(2)A person commits an offence who with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor—

(a)applies a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark to material intended to be used—

(i)for labelling or packaging goods,

(ii)as a business paper in relation to goods, or

(iii)for advertising goods, or

(b)uses in the course of a business material bearing such a sign for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper in relation to goods, or for advertising goods, or

(c)has in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business any such material with a view to the doing of anything, by himself or another, which would be an offence under paragraph (b).

(3)A person commits an offence who with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor—

(a)makes an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, or

(b)has such an article in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business,

knowing or having reason to believe that it has been, or is to be, used to produce goods, or material for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper in relation to goods, or for advertising goods.

-----------

10Infringement of registered trade mark. (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/section/10)

(1)A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which it is registered.

(2)A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign where because—

(a)the sign is identical with the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, or

(b)the sign is similar to the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark is registered,

there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the trade mark.

(3)A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade[F1, in relation to goods or services,] a sign which—

(a)is identical with or similar to the trade mark, F2...

F2(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

where the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign, being without due cause, takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.

[F3(3A)Subsection (3) applies irrespective of whether the goods and services in relation to which the sign is used are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered.

-------

Also, it could very well be argued that your guitar is counterfeit as it literally satisfies the dictionary definition -

From the Cambridge dictionary - 

"counterfeit

 

something that is made to look like the original of something else, usually for dishonest or illegal purposes:

This watch may be a counterfeit, but it looks just like the original."

Dan_Halen

The above is admittedly mainly for applying your own logo.

As for the Fender neck onto a Squire body. The headstock is the default location for manufacturers branding on a guitar. The implication therefore is that the public could confuse the guitar with a genuine Fender. Regardless of your advert declaring all etc etc the guitar itself would be viewed as counterfeit and that’s the bit you get in trouble for. 

I can’t be arsed looking up everything for you and am now on my mobile. However, there’s a small guitar company from the US who are taking manufacturers to court on the basis that other guitars could be mistaken for theirs and therefore it constitutes a breach. They’re called Gibson and you might of heard of them?

Edit - point being that if Gibson feel even the likes of Dean have a legal case to answer then a Squier body branded with Fender in the place everyone looks (headstock) is going to be an issue. If your Squier with a Fender neck is less likely to be confused for a real Fender than a Dean is a Gibson then maybe you have a point. Or, maybe not. 

prowla

Dan_Halen said:

"Saying that people are breaking the law is indeed calling them crooks.

Don't try and twist my words - I never called him a liar; you are making things up."

Priceless. Putting words in my mouth and crying when it's done to you in consecutive sentences. That's some impressive work there.

If you've genuinely got nothing better to do (and clearly you haven't), maybe look up counterfeit goods. Whether you declare it when selling or not is neither here nor there - unless you have the permission of the manufacturer to have that logo on the headstock then technically it isn't legal. Not a 'tribute' or a 'replica' or any nice way of putting it - it's a counterfeit and it's infringement of a trademark. Why can you not grasp this simple concept?

However, we both know you're not going to look up anything. Just whine. So, because you and old Gummy Boy are clearly too bone-idle, let me do it for you. Now, there's every chance that the below might not be current or right. I'm no lawyer. However, unlike you, I've at least made an effort.

You can read the below, look at the website and interpret it your own way decide you're not actually breaching anything. If so then good luck to you and, chances are, just selling your precious bitsa for an extra couple of hundred will make it all worthwhile. Doesn't make it right though and if you're up in court I'm sure the defence of 'I told him it was a fake' when that's not actually the only law broken will stand you in good stead.

--------

The Trade Marks Act 1994 - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/contents

"Offences (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/part/III)

92Unauthorised use of trade mark, &c. in relation to goods.

(1)A person commits an offence who with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor—

(a)applies to goods or their packaging a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, or

(b)sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire or distributes goods which bear, or the packaging of which bears, such a sign, or

(c)has in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business any such goods with a view to the doing of anything, by himself or another, which would be an offence under paragraph (b).

(2)A person commits an offence who with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor—

(a)applies a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark to material intended to be used—

(i)for labelling or packaging goods,

(ii)as a business paper in relation to goods, or

(iii)for advertising goods, or

(b)uses in the course of a business material bearing such a sign for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper in relation to goods, or for advertising goods, or

(c)has in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business any such material with a view to the doing of anything, by himself or another, which would be an offence under paragraph (b).

(3)A person commits an offence who with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, and without the consent of the proprietor—

(a)makes an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for, a registered trade mark, or

(b)has such an article in his possession, custody or control in the course of a business,

knowing or having reason to believe that it has been, or is to be, used to produce goods, or material for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper in relation to goods, or for advertising goods.

-----------

10Infringement of registered trade mark. (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/26/section/10)

(1)A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which it is registered.

(2)A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade a sign where because—

(a)the sign is identical with the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, or

(b)the sign is similar to the trade mark and is used in relation to goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark is registered,

there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the trade mark.

(3)A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the course of trade[F1, in relation to goods or services,] a sign which—

(a)is identical with or similar to the trade mark, F2...

F2(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

where the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign, being without due cause, takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark.

[F3(3A)Subsection (3) applies irrespective of whether the goods and services in relation to which the sign is used are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered.

-------

Also, it could very well be argued that your guitar is counterfeit as it literally satisfies the dictionary definition -

From the Cambridge dictionary - 

"counterfeit

 

something that is made to look like the original of something else, usually for dishonest or illegal purposes:

This watch may be a counterfeit, but it looks just like the original."

You do like to argue, don't you?

Yes, I know what the law says re. Trademarks and Counterfeits. There is not a word there which says that you have to remove the original manufacturer's factory-applied logo from an item.

prowla

Dan_Halen said:

The above is admittedly mainly for applying your own logo.

As for the Fender neck onto a Squire body. The headstock is the default location for manufacturers branding on a guitar. The implication therefore is that the public could confuse the guitar with a genuine Fender. Regardless of your advert declaring all etc etc the guitar itself would be viewed as counterfeit and that’s the bit you get in trouble for. 

I can’t be arsed looking up everything for you and am now on my mobile. However, there’s a small guitar company from the US who are taking manufacturers to court on the basis that other guitars could be mistaken for theirs and therefore it constitutes a breach. They’re called Gibson and you might of heard of them?

Edit - point being that if Gibson feel even the likes of Dean have a legal case to answer then a Squier body branded with Fender in the place everyone looks (headstock) is going to be an issue. If your Squier with a Fender neck is less likely to be confused for a real Fender than a Dean is a Gibson then maybe you have a point. Or, maybe not. 

Yay - the penny has dropped! You are arguing about applying a fake logo, which is a different matter and is irrelevant.

As has already been stated (with a link), Fender will sell you a Fender branded neck to fit to a Squier guitar.

"I can’t be arsed looking up everything for you" really means you can't find the information; of course, you can't, because it doesn't exist.

The Gibson/Dean thing is a different matter entirely and is irrelevant.