Diamond,
Please read my previous comments again and if you still don't understand, read on.
I never said that the act of using a trademark without a consent from the owner, which the fakai manufacturers are doing, is not an illegal activity. I actually commented that it is indeed illegal. The point in discussion is not about whether such activities are illegal, but whether it was appropriate to associate the term "criminal" to a newcomer's guitar.
It is up to the consumer to decide whether he/she wants a brand name knockoff. In the current case, Wicked Tone was happy to have the guitar and it is safe to guess that he wanted it. Even after finding out that the guitar was a fake.
Let's talk about what Tokai did in the past according to your reasoning.
Tokai infringed the trademark "Les Paul" owned by Gibson and produced guitars that surpassed the originals. I am certain that the use of the trademark significantly contributed to the sales. That led to loss in income for Gibson. Lawsuits were filed and either they negotiated to an agreement or Tokai lost the case, officially becoming a "criminal". Even if the former were the case, it is clear that Tokai breached the trademark law and resulted in loss of income for Gibson. I wonder how much market share they lost due to Tokai but I bet it it was/is pretty big. Possibly larger than the loss to Tokai due to current fakais, judging from the lack of lawsuits by Tokai against fakai manufacturers and that Tokai is having a hard time just completing their current backlog of orders. So from all this, it is reasonable to conclude that Tokai could possibly be a bigger "criminal" according to your logic. Diamond, you are selling and endorsing a "criminal", who initiated the whole chain reaction of making fake Les Pauls (according to your logic, of course). True that Tokai put their name on the guitars, but the fact that they used the trademark "Les Paul" on their guitars that are identical in design to that of Gibson (which was not protected for some odd reason), should add up to an act of crime according to your logic. Kinda like a terrorist group claiming they committed a certain act of terror. Claiming does not justify the "crime".
If you did not think you comments would offend Wicked Tone, my comments should definitely not offend you. While I found that comments by Special K had valid points, I cannot find any in yours. :roll: :roll: