I don't know how you think you know the intentions of the makers - they've never told me.
If you can can offer some viable alternative motive, that does not involve willful ignorance of trademark law, then I am all ears, er..eyes. I still feel this is a safe inference. And I do hope for your sake that with such a cavalier attitude toward trademark infringement your professional life does not rely on branding or reputation in the marketplace.
Here's an alternative. They are actually a musical charity who think that every guitarist should be able to have a Les Paul - even the poorest.
Fine if they want to put a Les Paul
style guitar in the hands of a player for an affordable price. Agile does this quite admirably without having to resort to forgery. Let them label the guitars appropriately and play on.
And your second paragraph flat out contradicts itself. Nothing more to say there.
Not in the least. I have maintained from the beginning of the discussion that my issue is with the use of the Gibson logo and open book headstock. If they want to call it something else and change the look of the headstock I could care less if they sell a million of the things. As they are now, masquerading as a Gibson, they are at the minimum unethical.
Don, I am all for healthy discourse and the community spirit of being able to agree to disagree, but these guitars are in fact illegal (despite the fact that you can order them and have them shipped to you, yes they are illegal in the United States (
18 U.S. Code § 2320 - Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services) and Gibson does its best to shut down offenders as fast as they can but there are too many criminals out there wishing to make a buck off of their reputation and history) and diminish the actual Gibson brand. You and I may be able to spot a fake easily but there are many people who want a Les Paul that can't and if their first experience with a "Les Paul" is one of these things then Gibson may lose a potential client both up front and down the road.
