oh I see. well then nope. best to leave it without decals to avoid any infringement issues.
you could have one created if it's for personal indulgence, but when you sell it - that's where the issue would arise.
Hang on, there.
Just as I posted earlier on this thread:
The minute you apply someone else's trademark to merchandise,
WITHOUT the trademark owner's consent, you've created a fake.
If selling fakes on GC is to be banned, we have to be clear on the
above principle: as clear as the law on trademarks already is.
A brand's cachet and marketability, and thus the manufacturer's profit, can
be harmed by the unauthorized appearance of a trademark on articles of
shoddy quality --the manufacturer alone determines what's good enough,
to earn the right to bear its trademark/brand. Kaya nga merong licensing.
No matter how renowned a luthier, if he hasn't a license to apply someone
else's registered trademark/brand, he can't do so legally. Fake 'yun, even
if it's for just one customer.
Same goes for an individual faking a guitar via decal "for their own use",
especially if they post an image online --kasi, again, it publicly harms the
cachet/marketability of the trademark/brand, as described above.
Some guitar fora ban images of illegally-branded guitars, period.
It doesn't matter whether the guitars are for sale or not, because said
fora wish to avoid any appearance of encouraging trademark violations,
which have nothing to do with whether the article is for sale or not:
A brand illegally-applied is made illegal by mere application, not by reselling
an article so-branded. [1]
This has bearing on what GC actually intends to accomplish with any new
"branding" rule. See below:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
So if the spirit of this rule is to prevent the "seller" from jacking up the value of his/her guitar by redecalling then one could still still sell the redecalled guitar by accurately telling the original specs of the guitar without even mentioning the decal (such as the PRS copy above). That way he does not give an incorrect representation of the product he sells.
I don't think that's the "spirit", but I may be wrong.
At minimum, the spirit of GC's emerging "rule", is to save GC harmless from
any legal exposure wrt trademark violations; to wit, serving as a venue for
the selling of fake goods. To that minimal extent, for so long as GC wasn't
aware that any goods sold are/were fake (by dint of a seller excluding any
images of illegal branding), GC's legally in the clear. For now.
At maximum, the rule can aim to proactively-prevent trademark violations
within GC's online turf, as "the right thing to do". This might only be done by
REQUIRING all sellers to show images of their merchandise, showing where
brands/decals normally appear. This might be very difficult to implement, as
it would likely lead to much heavier bandwidth consumption, thus increased
forum costs and retarded server performance, which latter is remedied only
at greater cost. If GC owners are willing to eat said cost increases, as well
as a drop in Classified's postings, then they can require sellers (I'd hesitate
to label them more formally as 'vendors') to post said 'branding' images.
GC may be better off with a minimal "don't ask, don't tell" stance: if a seller
reveals trademark violations, or if GC members ferret it out and report it to
GC staff, then GC must act; but GC may not be able to afford REQUIRING all
sellers to post "branding" images and/or videos.
JM2.
[1] Brand-owners (the manufacturers) are very tolerant of alterations made to
their merchandise (witness the healthy modification market), but have always
jealously guarded their trademarks. As major manufacturers become publicly
owned, this jealousy will only intensify: shareholders often brook nothing that
harms company profits (thence share price and dividends).
