The "John Hall Question" thread yanked?

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 8:23 pm

It is identified as a Bartolini in the subject line so no one could think it was a Rickenbacker product. If it said pickup for Rickenbacker it would be a different case I would think, would be misleading.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 8:24 pm

It is identified as a Bartolini in the subject line so no one could mistake it for a Rickenbacker product. If it said pickup for Rickenbacker it would be a different case I would think, would be misleading.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:12 am

It says Rickenbacker in the title. According to the Ebay policy you can only use the brand name of the company that made the product you are offering. In this case, the title should be "Bartolini Pickup". In the body of the auction it can say "fits Rickenbacker bass". The rules are clear as to how the title and body can be used. Though it is quite clear what is being offered here, this one is technically a violation.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:34 am

I am truly glad, Ted, that you finally "got it". I thought we were going to have to translate it to Swahili or whatever you speak there.

It's a technical violation to be sure. But they've also gone to some trouble to respect the trademark by using the "Circle R" and very carefully describing it as a Bartolini brand product. Furthermore, it's a reputable firm with significant feedback.

Being in a decidely gray area and favorably disposed to this seller's honesty and their careful trademark treatment, we'll let it live.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:00 am

That basically was my point. The intent is clear as to what is being offered, and also who makes it.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:33 am

I have been guilty of the same violation. I sold some Duncan pickups a while back where they were described as "Seymour Duncan pickups for Rickenbacker bass". I was not aware of the policy at the time. I guess my auction could have been removed but fortunately was not. Like most Ebayers I abide by two policies: Pay for what I win and be honest about what I sell. Maybe the honest wording in my auction is what kept it alive? Ignorance of the law is no excuse but I am guessing that only a few people have actually read the keyword spamming policy. Before yesterday, I have had no cause to even know it existed.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:46 am

here's one that obeys the rules ...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=4713&item=3773396441&rd=1

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:49 am

Bob, it is still a violation of the policy. It does not matter how clear the description or title is. In the end it is John's call and he simply has opted to not excercise his right at this time.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:51 am

Jeff: How did you even find that one?

jeff_ulmer · Post by **jeff_ulmer** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:27 am

Finding an auction for a third party guitar part that followed the rules would be next to impossible, which I guess is the point.

jeff_ulmer · Post by **jeff_ulmer** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:29 am

>here's one that obeys the rules ...

Except that the item itself violates Ric's trademarks and dress.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:43 am

how did I find it ... accidently ... looking for something else ...

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:11 am

Ted I realize that but I think some of these things have to come down to a judgement call on the manufacturers part. They could waste a lot of time by going after every little violation. A lot of the auctions on ebay have little violations of some sort.