I’m inclined to believe that it’s not just “not respecting the proportions” but rather manufacturers putting a fake logo to create the appearance of safety. From your link:
“The Commission was also aware of fraudulent misuse of the mark on products that did not comply with the standards, but that this is a separate issue.”
I’m inclined to believe that it’s not just “not respecting the proportions” but rather manufacturers putting a fake logo to create the appearance of safety. From your link:
“The Commission was also aware of fraudulent misuse of the mark on products that did not comply with the standards, but that this is a separate issue.”
Why would you be inclined to believe that manufacturers of non-conformant products would be intentionally using a nonstandard version of the mark instead of the correctly-proportioned one which they can use just as easily?
And why haven’t you edited your comment to remove that image making the false claim that a CE mark with nonstandard proportions is a “China Export Symbol”?
It was already deleted, you probably just have it cached.
And sorry but I have no idea what you’re trying to say in your paragraph. Regardless of why we’re literally looking at one in the OP. Which is, as if I need to repeat this, a literal suicide device.
And sorry but I have no idea what you’re trying to say in your paragraph.
Let me try rephrasing it: Why do you think a manufacturer of a non-conformant product (who wants to be perceived as conformant) would intentionally use a nonstandard version of the mark, instead of the standard one? Note that the standard mark is not a certification or proof of conformance of any kind; it is merely a way for the manufacturer to affirm that they are conformant. It is illegal to sell non-conformant products in the European Economic Area regardless of if they carry the standard CE mark or not.
Regardless of why we’re literally looking at one in the OP. Which is, as if I need to repeat this, a literal suicide device.
Did you think we’re looking at an actual non-conformant product, and that it used a non-standard CE mark to deceive consumers? I thought it was pretty clear we were looking at a satirical fake product, and I assume the non-standard version of the CE mark was used unintentionally. If it was intentional, it was certainly not to deceive consumers but perhaps could have been an overcautious artist worried about trademark infringement.
I’m inclined to believe that it’s not just “not respecting the proportions” but rather manufacturers putting a fake logo to create the appearance of safety. From your link:
“The Commission was also aware of fraudulent misuse of the mark on products that did not comply with the standards, but that this is a separate issue.”
Why would you be inclined to believe that manufacturers of non-conformant products would be intentionally using a nonstandard version of the mark instead of the correctly-proportioned one which they can use just as easily?
And why haven’t you edited your comment to remove that image making the false claim that a CE mark with nonstandard proportions is a “China Export Symbol”?
It was already deleted, you probably just have it cached.
And sorry but I have no idea what you’re trying to say in your paragraph. Regardless of why we’re literally looking at one in the OP. Which is, as if I need to repeat this, a literal suicide device.
Let me try rephrasing it: Why do you think a manufacturer of a non-conformant product (who wants to be perceived as conformant) would intentionally use a nonstandard version of the mark, instead of the standard one? Note that the standard mark is not a certification or proof of conformance of any kind; it is merely a way for the manufacturer to affirm that they are conformant. It is illegal to sell non-conformant products in the European Economic Area regardless of if they carry the standard CE mark or not.
Did you think we’re looking at an actual non-conformant product, and that it used a non-standard CE mark to deceive consumers? I thought it was pretty clear we were looking at a satirical fake product, and I assume the non-standard version of the CE mark was used unintentionally. If it was intentional, it was certainly not to deceive consumers but perhaps could have been an overcautious artist worried about trademark infringement.
FWIW i looked it up and the image in the post is an artwork titled “electric bath duck for suicidal tendency” created in 2001 by Nicolas Gaudron while he was at the Royal College of Art in London.
It was a brief meme in 2007, being featured on wired.com via ohgizmo.com via ubergizmo.com via gearfuse.com via haha.nu (this was back when there was more of a culture of attributing sources of things on the web). In 2011 it appeared on whokilledbambi.co.uk, and in 2016 it made it to /r/rubberducks.
deleted by creator
Just like your comment showing deleted until I reply to it. It’s a know Lemmy quirk.