Haha, I like it too. I really liked the Volksamp branding. Actually, I always felt Volksamp may have been the conceptual precursor to First Watt, but I’ve never verified that with the Man up the Beach.
I had an Aleph 30 that had some of the volksamp branding on it, though it was labeled as a Pass. Definitely FW form factor. Loved that amp. Think I’m just an Aleph fan boy...
So long as you don't make money selling it, I do not see why you can't label the onesie home brew amp you keep with a registered trademark logo. But I am no lawyer, and cannot say that with certainty.
......I like "PASS DIY" myself.
As written numerous times "Blame Pa", and so I will. He made me do it
Here is the real deal......as I remember a court case a few years ago (But we still need to respect the "Wishes" of Nelson).........You can make and sell and post stickers using a trademarked logo as long as the logo owner is not also making and selling stickers. (Can't understand why PASS is not offering these logos for sale and donating the proceeds to a worthy charity ) IE: you can't make NFL bumper and window stickers because the NFL is engaged in this endeavor. Many companies welcome the exposure. Especially with todays social media where EVERYTHING is a photo or video. Huge exposure potential. And there is not a court on planet earth that would hold a manufacturer of a kit any more or less libel because you affixed a sticker of the supplier on it.
I prefer him doing less work and live much longer
that's a big pile, what people always expected him doing
@Rbertalotto
I do not think you've stated anything resembling the "real deal". Please provide a link to the court case you remember. Either cite statutes and case law in relative jurisdictions or stand aside, please. Your recollection of a case and its applicability to the situation you propose holds no water with me.
Your statement, "You can make and sell and post stickers using a trademarked logo as long as the logo owner is not also making and selling stickers.", is technically correct. A person certainly could. However, the law is on the side of the trademark holder. If pursued (qualifiers of jurisdiction notwithstanding), the person would likely be told to stop and likely would have to pay damages. A person can step into the path of a train with the certainty of impact; is it wise to do so?
Your premise may be along the lines of; "It's okay as long as you don't get caught"; or "No one will care enough to sue you for it.". If so, I have nothing further to add to the discussion.
I attempted to understand the context within which I assume you intended, and I ignored your substitution of libel for liable. Feel free to disagree. Saying that I'm a nincompoop may or may not be libelous, and you may or may not be held liable for such a statement. 🙂
I do not wish this to be harsh or contentious. I wish you all the best, and I believe your intentions are good. If you think that I have misinterpreted anything you've stated, I am happy to be corrected and amend any statements I've made accordingly.
I do not think you've stated anything resembling the "real deal". Please provide a link to the court case you remember. Either cite statutes and case law in relative jurisdictions or stand aside, please. Your recollection of a case and its applicability to the situation you propose holds no water with me.
Your statement, "You can make and sell and post stickers using a trademarked logo as long as the logo owner is not also making and selling stickers.", is technically correct. A person certainly could. However, the law is on the side of the trademark holder. If pursued (qualifiers of jurisdiction notwithstanding), the person would likely be told to stop and likely would have to pay damages. A person can step into the path of a train with the certainty of impact; is it wise to do so?
Your premise may be along the lines of; "It's okay as long as you don't get caught"; or "No one will care enough to sue you for it.". If so, I have nothing further to add to the discussion.
I attempted to understand the context within which I assume you intended, and I ignored your substitution of libel for liable. Feel free to disagree. Saying that I'm a nincompoop may or may not be libelous, and you may or may not be held liable for such a statement. 🙂
I do not wish this to be harsh or contentious. I wish you all the best, and I believe your intentions are good. If you think that I have misinterpreted anything you've stated, I am happy to be corrected and amend any statements I've made accordingly.
