Trademark infringement was Decals

[Wimblees@AOL.COM]

In my earlier post, I refereed to an article I read about Steinway frowning 
on rebuilders rebuilding their instruments. An informed source called me this 
afternoon and gave me some insight to this whole episode. 

In the January '99 Journal, there is an article written my Morgan Malino, a 
lawyer, responding to an article in the June 1997 issue of the Journal, 
written by a lawyer from Steinway. 

Mr. Mailino writes: "It seems that the article (June97) was nothing more than 
a marketing ploy for large manufacturers of musical instruments. Throughout 
there article is the suggestion that rebuilders of musical instrument who do 
not use replacement parts supplied by the original instrument manufacturer 
(termed "o.i.m in the article) may be subject to legal action. I, however, 
would recommend that rebuilders continue to use factors of price and quality 
when making their purchasing decisions and not be frightened unto making bad 
choices." 

Mr. Malino goes to say:  "The gravamen of trademark infringement suits has 
always been consumer confusion. A rebuilder who has honest advertising and 
truthful disclosure should not have to be concerned with the threat of a 
trademark infringement suit. ... A showroom, for example, which has both new 
and rebuilt models on display without any reference to which is which could 
be potentially harmful to a trademark owner. The typical consumer may then 
associate inferior qualities of the reconditioned instrument with the o.i.m., 
thereby harming the o.i.m reputation. The June article suggests that to 
prevent such confusion rebuilders are required to disclose: (1) the nature 
and extent of the work done; (2) the absence of any association between 
themselves and the o.i.m.; and (3) dispel any notion that the o.i.m is the 
guarantor of the goods. ... The relevant legal standard is that a rebuilder 
must prevent likelihood of confusion on the part of a typical purchaser as to 
source, affiliation or sponsorship."

I would suggest that if you have the Jan '99 and the June 97 Journals at 
hand, that you read them. 

A personal comment:

Several months ago I posted a thread on the claim Steinway makes about the 
increased value of their instrument. Their web site points out that the value 
of a new Steinway is worth almost 200% more than the value of a new Steinway 
10 years ago. I pointed out that the same was true for any other instrument. 
The local Steinway dealer advertises on the radio that the value of a 
Steinway actually increases with age. This is just not true. 

Now Steinway is trying to make consumers believe that a Steinway not rebuilt 
in their own factory, by "factory trained rebuilders," using genuine Steinway 
parts, is not worth anything. Furthermore, they seem to be implying that 
rebuilders who are using parts other than Steinway parts, could be held 
liable for trademark infringemtns, and they are even suggesting that a 
rebuilder who puts a Steinway Decal on a rebuilt Steinway could also be held 
liable for trademark infringement. As Mr. Malino said: "The most disturbing 
part of the article is the suggestion that all of the above imagined 
trademark abuses could be rectified if the rebuilder uses parts distributed 
by the o.i.m. There is absolutely no authority anywhere to support this 
point." 

Ladies and gentleman, what I may regret what I am about to say, but it has to 
be said. With no malice towards the Steinway company for the quality of the 
product they produce, but it is my opinion that this "grandstanding" by 
Steinway on the value of their instruments, and their empty threats of liable 
for trademark infringement, could in fact, land Steinway in a lot of hot 
water. None of the claims it is making can be held up in court. Not only are 
the claims untrue, but if they did insist on pressing charges, a rebuilder 
could file restraint of trade against Steinway, and probably have a better 
chance of winning. And now that the company is publicly traded on the New 
York Stock Exchange, if word got out the Steinway was being sued by 
technicians, or another manufacturers, for false advertisement or false 
trademark infringement, the value if their stock could plummet even lower 
than it is now. 

Again, I have no problems with the quality of Steinway pianos. But in my 
opinion, that in advertising and in promoting its own image, the company is 
not sounding like the quality instruments they are making. 

The members of the PTG, and the PTG as a whole, should stand together to 
combat any threats by Steinway for trademark infringements. This includes not 
only the rebuilders, but also our suppliers of parts, decals, strings, etc.. 
As far as I know, no other manufacturer has taken this stance. We are all 
perfectly legal, and within our rights, to rebuild Steinways, Baldwins, 
Yamahas, or any other used pianos, as long as we clearly represent ourselves 
to our customers. 

Willem Blees