eric vaxxine wrote
There is no Coca in Coca Cola and there hasn't been any for decades.
Would Ford be allowed to market a car as a Ford V8 despite
actually having only a V4 engine in it?
It depends on your definitions. If you're saying there's no cocoa leaf products in Coca Cola then I think that's wrong. If you're saying there's nothing in there that would be considered a narcotic then you're right. Coca Cola wouldn't be available in super markets if that were the case.
I recall a car company (can't remember) who marketed cars as 2.0, 2.5 etc even though they had smaller engines because, they said, they were equivalent in performance to a 2.0, 2.5 etc.
You have to be careful what you construe from a name and what you think is being promised. Gibson haven't had anything to do with Orville Gibson or a member of the Gibson family for some time. Fender don't have anything to do with Leo Fender any more. George Lowden lost control of the Lowden brand for a while. CF Martin, however, have kept the connection to the Martin family intact and a gentleman by the name of Martin is involved in running the company.
"Rover" is basically a badge-engineered brand now. "Lamborghini" is owned by VW-Audi and has lots of Audi tech in it.
Loads of examples. "Cream Soda" doesn't have any cream in it. and I would think that a lot of "beef", "chicken", "chilli" etc chips just have stuff that tastes vaguely like whatever word they put on the packet.