Sanding "Squire" off the headstock

prowla

A question...

Would it be illegal to sell this bass?

I previously sold this one - did I break the law?

Dan_Halen

Dude, I don't give 2 hoots about your guitars.

The law I pointed out was to prove the point of the entire thread, clue is in the title "Sanding "Squire" off the headstock" which I had repeatedly said you can't do, you and Gummy disagreed cannot do and you asked to be shown the law. I obliged.

Your selling of a guitar with a non original neck also falls foul of the law for reasons pointed out by myself and other that you continue to ignore. Selling a guitar that could 'confuse' the puiblic is currently the subject of some high profile legal cases which is exactly the situation you describe.

I have no more energy to waste on you. Stop being a child and look up the information yourself. I'm done.

prowla

Oh dear - you're getting all muddled about two (now three!) different points...

Dan_Halen said:

The law I pointed out was to prove the point of the entire thread, clue is in the title "Sanding "Squire" off the headstock" which I had repeatedly said you can't do, you and Gummy disagreed cannot do and you asked to be shown the law. I obliged.

Point 1: Counterfeiting

You are arguing with yourself on that one; nobody has said that counterfeiting the logo on a headstock is legal.

The laws covering that are clearly stated and I've linked to them in previous threads leading up to the "no fakes" rule being applied.

Dan_Halen said:

Your selling of a guitar with a non original neck also falls foul of the law for reasons pointed out by myself and other that you continue to ignore.

Point 2: Items bearing original factory-fitted logos.

So, having stated the above (which nobody is disagreeing with), you then conflate it into a different matter entirely.

The law you quoted does not cover this and does not require you to remove original makers marks from a component which you marry with another. You can't find law which covers it, because it doesn't exist.

As a demonstration that such a law doesn't exist (and indeed the opposite is the case), I have given a link which shows that Fender licence you to use Fender branded necks on Squier branded bodies. There is not a law which says you cannot follow the manufacturer's permitted terms of use.

Dan_Halen said:

Dude, I don't give 2 hoots about your guitars.

Point 2: (contd.)

Super - could it be because they demonstrate the faults in the argument that it is illegal to sell a guitar with one maker's logo'd neck and another's body?

(You did previously ask if I had instruments to sell, so make your mind up!)

Dan_Halen said:

Selling a guitar that could 'confuse' the puiblic is currently the subject of some high profile legal cases which is exactly the situation you describe.

Point 3: Company IP

You then further confuse yourself by introducing another matter completely; Gibson vs. Dean is a civil matter regarding the use of design styles.

It has nothing to do with attaching company original branded products together in accordance with the manufacturer's licensing terms & conditions.

Incidentally (indulging you in the off-topic meander) Gibson lost their case with PRS, so the fact that they have raised a civil case is irrelevant and whether the outcome will be in their favour is questionable.

Since the Gibson/Dean case is in the US and is between two US-based manufacturers, it is completely irrelevant to the matter of selling used items in the UK.

Dan_Halen said:

I have no more energy to waste on you. Stop being a child and look up the information yourself. I'm done.

Nice flounce!

(...with supplementary bluster to try and disguise the fact that you don't know what you are talking about.)

Dan_Halen

You've got issues. Lack of basic comprehension and deliberately mis-interpreting someones words amongst them. You've contributed nothing to this thread - just put your fingers in your ears, said 'I don't like it so I won't believe it... lalalalalalala' and then demanded that others (who aren't so ignorant) have to prove themselves correct to you for some reason. Like you're some authority rather than just a contrary timewaster on the internet with too much time on his hands.

It passed a couple of hours for me last night but, like I said, I'm done. Call yourself the victor if it makes you happy but any reasonable person will see through it.

prowla

A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

prowla

keyboard warrior:

a person who makes abusive or aggressive posts on the Internet, typically one who conceals their true identity.

Dan_Halen

You're being deliberately provocative now and literally contributing nothing. I suggest you stop being so obnoxious and such a coward.

@digitalscream or @Bridgehouse ;- this is deliberate baiting.

Bridgehouse

Thread closed. Modmins will look at this. Don’t be surprised if this thread disappears.