FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

[dominus]

Had an eBay listing pulled where I was selling some used Squier necks with the logos sanded off. For those who've been here for a while, you've seen a number of Squier Strats that I refinished and I removed the logos from the necks to make them look cleaner. (I *never* added a Fender logo to pretend they were something that they weren't.) I've been going back and forth with an employee of Fender:

I received an E-Mail from eBay for a listing being removed. We sell
Squier parts. We don't make parts, and there are no counterfeit parts
being sold here.

We are in receipt of your email dated November 10, 2015. Fender
Musical Instruments Corporation ("FMIC") owns a variety of trademarks
including, but not limited to FENDER(r), STRAT(r), STRATOCASTER(r),
SQUIER(r), and the distinctive shapes of those guitars and their
headstock designs, and others, which are registered with the United
States Patent and Trademark Office, and worldwide, thereby prohibiting
you, or anyone else, from manufacturing, selling or advertising items
for sale, as new, that contain FMIC's trademarks.

As you explained to us in your email, you do not manufacture your own
guitar parts for resale. Instead, you state that you sell SQUIER(r)
parts for resale purposes. However, since there is no decal on the
headstock, it lead FMIC to believe that this product is not a resale
of an authentic > FENDER(r)/SQUIER(r) guitar. Please provide us with the serial number,
or other evidence of its authenticity, and we will look into this matter further.

So I took some pictures showing the backs of the necks with the serial numbers and attached them, and a few with the logos still on them.

Attached are pictures of the necks before the logos are removed. The people that buy
necks from us prefer them to not have logos.

Also, your statement contains the term "as new", when these were specifically listed
as used, so the listing probably shouldn't have been reported in the first place.

The reason the listing was reported to eBay is because there was no decal on the
headstock, which led FMIC to believe that this product is not a resale of an
authentic FENDER(r)/SQUIER(r) guitar. Please be aware that you cannot alter or
modify an authentic FENDER(r)/SQUIER(r) headstock, this includes removing the logos,
regardless of what your customers may prefer. If you sold an authentic
FENDER(r)/SQUIER(r) neck (with decal and serial number) and clearly indicated that
it's used (and no FENDER warranty applies), then FMIC would have no objection.

As I stated previously, these were clearly listed as used Squier necks. I'm not sure WhyTF she's arguing with me. I did notice that there's job openings in Scottsdale. I'm almost tempted to apply there and point out some policy idiocies in the application. As for not being able to modify headstocks, that's bullsh_t.

 

[BloodRose]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

I can definately understand since Im sure people try and pass off Squiers as Fenders and such.. But, you are clearly claiming used and Im sure are being forthcoming that it's a Squier being used. So they are being overzealous in your case..

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

I had a listing pulled a while back for a used and relic'd Charvel neck with the Fender headstock. Was told it was not a Fender logo and that I was violating the Fender Headstock Trademark. Went through several rounds of e-mails and phone calls with the good folks at eBay before someone figured out Charvel was not only owned by Fender now but was also making guitars with Fender headstocks...smh

In your case I do not understand the problem, you are clearly indicating that they are used Squiers with the logo removed...the serial number on the back would prove the identify as Squiers. If you were slapping Fender Logos on them then yeah...but you aren't.

Can't modify them? My problem here is the inconsistency, there are tons of relic guitars on the market (eBay, Reverb, Guitar Center, etc.) that everything from the headstock to the tone knobs have been altered/modified. How come Fender is not going after them?

 

[Wattage]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

It happens

Meatloaf's publishers/lawyers had 2 companies pull some of my music off the Internet and threaten me with some pretty severe stuff because we had a song with a similar name. Took me 3 months and threat of legal action on my end before it ended. They never even listened to the music....this is the modern world

 

[Surgeon]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

I see both sides although I'd side with you. They want to avoid somebody claiming (and selling) the necks are genuine squier/fender when they're not, prevent counterfieting.

I'm not saying that I agree with them, just that it appears to me a very zelous cas of this.

 

[chadd]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

If they don't attempt to enforce their trademark, they can lose it. that means they are going to go overboard from time to time

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

I can see how an international manufacturing concern might perceive removing headstock logo decals as the first stage in making it possible to apply a different decal in an attempt to defraud unsuspecting purchasers of pre-owned instruments.

I can also imagine that, in blindfold testing, many purchasers might not detect much difference between necks manufactured on CNC machines located in a variety of countries around the globe. This, in turn, might cause some potential customers to wonder why they previously paid as much money as they did to obtain the expensive versions.

If folks realised that they could have as much fun on a Squier VM instruments with US pickup and electronics upgrades as on, say, an American Special series instrument costing more than twice as much money, the profitability of the FMIC would be compromised.

 

[firebirdguy72]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

genuine squier

Lol

 

[Myaccount876]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

If they don't attempt to enforce their trademark, they can lose it. that means they are going to go overboard from time to time

This.

In the original ad, were there pictures of the serial number proving the necks to be a genuine part? If not, then FMIC was perfectly within their right to pull the ad. They're concerned that someone may be selling some other neck, but advertising it as "Squier/FMIC/etc" with the excuse 'it doesn't have the logo because it was sanded off'. This is different from relicing, because you're altering the trademark decals and trying to sell it, not just beating the crap out of the guitar yet keeping it intact. If you had definite proof that the neck is the product advertised (like the serial number) posted in the original ad, then they would be going overboard.

 

[Christopher Caruana]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

It happens

Meatloaf's publishers/lawyers had 2 companies pull some of my music off the Internet and threaten me with some pretty severe stuff because we had a song with a similar name. Took me 3 months and threat of legal action on my end before it ended. They never even listened to the music....this is the modern world

They're blowing smoke up your a$$. They can't claim copyright infringement because you can't put a copyright on the title of a song

 

[Wattage]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

They're blowing smoke up your a$$. They can't claim copyright infringement because you can't put a copyright on the title of a song

Sorry they thought I released a version of his song, I should've been clearer.

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

This is different from relicing, because you're altering the trademark decals and trying to sell it, not just beating the crap out of the guitar yet keeping it intact. If you had definite proof that the neck is the product advertised (like the serial number) posted in the original ad, then they would be going overboard.

My problem with this is I've seen relics online where the serial number and country of origin were removed/no longer legible by the relicing. I understand where Fender is coming from (think about all of the $30 strat necks on eBay that Fender has no say or $ in) but in the case of the OP it seems overboard.

They're blowing smoke up your a$$. They can't claim copyright infringement because you can't put a copyright on the title of a song

Absolutely this! Tons of songs out there with even the same name.

Sorry they thought I released a version of his song, I should've been clearer.

Ah, that makes sense.

 

[dominus]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

My problem with this is I've seen relics online where the serial number and country of origin were removed/no longer legible by the relicing. I understand where Fender is coming from (think about all of the $30 strat necks on eBay that Fender has no say or $ in) but in the case of the OP it seems overboard.

That's pretty much the only thing I could think of. Fender doesn't want me selling off Squier necks for $30 a pop because they don't make any money off of it, so they try to hamper my sales. *eyeroll*

Seriously, they were listed as used Squier necks. No one is selling counterfeit Squier necks. There are ways to tell the difference between a Squier neck and a Fender neck, and counterfeiters would know all of them. (The spacing of the dots on the 12th fret, the shape and material used at the truss rod, the insert (or lack thereof) in the heel, etc.)

The E-Mails I got were just insulting.

 

[chadd]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

Just remember that the work is done by paralegals, most of whom don't have any actual knowledge of musical equipment. Their bosses aren't going to be upset if they are overzealous and have too many billable hours.

 

[frankfalbo]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

Fender is right and justified. Don't get me wrong, I want to support you and be on your side. But maybe the best way to think of it is that you buy a pair of Nike's, which obviously contain Nike's trademark swoosh on the side. You next proceed to take the Nike name off the shoes. You are now effectively selling a brand-less shoe that contains Nike's trademark.

Mighty Mite, Allparts, Warmoth, probably others all sell necks with "headstock licensed by Fender" type of message deeply burnt into the heel. And for this, they pay money. Once you sand the logo from a Squire (or Charvel, Fender, any other brand FMIC has chosen to use on their trademarked headstocks) its the equivalent of selling a non-Nike shoe with the Nike swoosh.

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

Fender is right and justified. Don't get me wrong, I want to support you and be on your side. But maybe the best way to think of it is that you buy a pair of Nike's, which obviously contain Nike's trademark swoosh on the side. You next proceed to take the Nike name off the shoes. You are now effectively selling a brand-less shoe that contains Nike's trademark.

Mighty Mite, Allparts, Warmoth, probably others all sell necks with "headstock licensed by Fender" type of message deeply burnt into the heel. And for this, they pay money. Once you sand the logo from a Squire (or Charvel, Fender, any other brand FMIC has chosen to use on their trademarked headstocks) its the equivalent of selling a non-Nike shoe with the Nike swoosh.

No offense, but I have to disagree with your logic here. He is not selling a non-Nike shoe with the Nike Swoosh, he is selling a Nike shoe without the Swoosh. If I scrape off the swoosh the shoe doesn't transform into a non-Nike...it will always be a Nike shoe.

 

[Securb]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

Yes but you are removing the trademark but still using the name. The product has been altered and there for should not be sold as a Squire. This protects Fender from modders changing their product and still claiming it is a Fender. Case in point if I rewind and change the magnets on a set of Duncans should I still call them Duncans?

 

[frankfalbo]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

No offense, but I have to disagree with your logic here. He is not selling a non-Nike shoe with the Nike Swoosh, he is selling a Nike shoe without the Swoosh. If I scrape off the swoosh the shoe doesn't transform into a non-Nike...it will always be a Nike shoe.

You're not disagreeing with my logic. You're misapplying the analogy. The headstock and the swoosh are alike. They are trademarked imagery; trademarked shapes which are associated with their respective companies. I equated it to taking the Nike name off of the shoe. At that point the marketplace can't distinguish it from a counterfeit.

It's not up for debate whether Fender is right in this case. They would win easily if this entered the legal system. All we can debate here is whether Fender is being ungracious, controlling, whether they should be paying people to seek and destroy small time individual resellers, etc. But IF their position is that selling a Fender headstock without any logo AND without the licensed by Fender language somewhere else on the neck is a violation, you either obey or you lose. I'm not saying you have to like it, don't shoot the messenger

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

Yes but you are removing the trademark but still using the name. The product has been altered and there for should not be sold as a Squire. This protects Fender from modders changing their product and still claiming it is a Fender. Case in point if I rewind and change the magnets on a set of Duncans should I still call them Duncans?

In my opinion, rewinding and changing the magnets in a pickup is a completely different analogy...apples and oranges. A correct analogy would be removing the SD logo and selling them as Duncans with the logo removed.

The Backplate on Duncans I've used all said Seymour Duncan on it–the newer ones had the pickup model on it. The necks in question had the Serial Number un-altered–you can verify the item.

You're not disagreeing with my logic. You're misapplying the analogy. The headstock and the swoosh are alike. They are trademarked imagery; trademarked shapes which are associated with their respective companies. I equated it to taking the Nike name off of the shoe. At that point the marketplace can't distinguish it from a counterfeit.

It's not up for debate whether Fender is right in this case. They would win easily if this entered the legal system. All we can debate here is whether Fender is being ungracious, controlling, whether they should be paying people to seek and destroy small time individual resellers, etc. But IF their position is that selling a Fender headstock without any logo AND without the licensed by Fender language somewhere else on the neck is a violation, you either obey or you lose. I'm not saying you have to like it, don't shoot the messenger

If you are logically equating the Headstock to the Swoosh then I am disagreeing with your logic...I'm having a hard time following the analogy of the headstock as the Swoosh...the logo was removed, not the headstock. Taking the logo off does not diminish the authenticity of the actual item–the OP's necks are still Squiers regardless of the logo and putting a Fender logo on the necks would not change the fact that they are Squiers.

And just so we are on the same page, the OP mentioned that he left the Serial Number on the headstock...the Heel and Serial Number would verify and validate the OP's eBay posting. He is not passing these off as something they are not and he is not selling an item that can't be verified.

And I don't see how Fender is right in this case since the listings specifically said they were Squiers with the logo removed–the pictures of the Serial Number and Heel would be validity enough to show what happened. Had he removed the serial numbers then I would agree with you. When I had the issue with the Charvel neck I was selling the big issue with the law was misleading consumers. I don't see how the OP's listing would be deemed misleading when they are stating exactly what the item is.

If Fender is right in this case then legally you can't sell your vehicle when the emblem comes off. Doesn't matter that the VIN says its a Ford Truck, without the Ford Logo you can't sell it.


EDIT: I can understand Fender wanting to protect their Trademark, I just don't understand their reasoning in this particular case since the items in question are not altered beyond the point of being authenticated...and we are talking the Squier brand name here, not Fender.

 

[rgraf]

Re: FMIC (Fender) apparently has legal authority over what you do with their guitars.

That's pretty much the only thing I could think of. Fender doesn't want me selling off Squier necks for $30 a pop because they don't make any money off of it, so they try to hamper my sales. *eyeroll*

Seriously, they were listed as used Squier necks. No one is selling counterfeit Squier necks. There are ways to tell the difference between a Squier neck and a Fender neck, and counterfeiters would know all of them. (The spacing of the dots on the 12th fret, the shape and material used at the truss rod, the insert (or lack thereof) in the heel, etc.)

The E-Mails I got were just insulting.

@#$% them. Mung the name. 5quire ought to do it. Intellectual property rights is mind control.