In article ,
Keith Williams wrote:


No, a Ford sticker. Mazda light trucks are made in Ford plants in
the US. The 'B' series trucks are Ford Rangers. I suppose it
would freak you out to know that Volvo and Jaguar are also Ford and
Saab (the cars, anyway) are GM.

Well, I did know that Ford bought Jaguar a number of years ago. They
didn't try to hide the fact, though, and although there may have been
some personnel and structural changes, Jag remains a largely autonomous
company, and the cars they put out don't say FORD on them.

But I'm not talking about a theoretical brand sticker, I'm talking about
a real one. I've purchased things from Omega, and other companies, for
that matter, that *literally* have the real manufacturer's sticker
*underneath* the distributor's sticker.


We used to manufacture a surgical monitoring instrument for a well-known
international corporation. In order to distribute the instrument in
Europe, the thing had to be manufactured in Europe. We stuck the
appropriate label on the units bound for Europe, attesting to that. When
they got there, people there installed the 9 volt battery. Voila. Made
in Europe.

So you're as crooked as those you bitch about. BTW, the US has
laws against such nonsense and I'm surprised the EU doesn't as
well.

Maybe. But I'm a contract manufacturer, and I've learned to do things
the way the customer wants them done. If I told my customers my moral
and political and environmental beliefs, let alone my product design
philosophies, I wouldn't have a job. That could certainly be considered
pragmatic or hypocritical, depending on one's perspective.

Now, though, you seem to be contradicting yourself, by calling that
practice "nonsense" and illegal. What's your real position? Hard to
debate the issue if you keep shifting it.


I think things ought to be accurately labeled, and that not doing so
constitutes fraud. That's my opinion, of course, and you're welcome to
share it or hold some opposing belief.

Re-branding is not fraud. You think Sears shouldn't be allowed to
sell "Die-Hard" batteries or "Kenmore" appliances?

Those are trade names that, AFAIK, have *always* been owned by Sears.
That's like saying, Do I think Toyota shouldn't be allowed to call its
cars "Camry." I don't see the relation here at all. That's not
rebranding, that's trademarking.

But you're right, rebranding isn't fraud, legally, in most cases.