Music Trade Review

Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
THE MUSIC TRADE REVIEW
TWENTY-SECOND YEAR.
REMEW
EDWARD LYMAN BILL,
EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.
J . B. S P I L L A N E . MANAGING EDITOR.
EMILIE
Executive Staff
:
FRANCES
BAUER,
THOS. CAMPBELL-COPELAND
WALDO E. LADD
GEO. W. QUERIPEL
A. J. NICKLIN
PnTOfflal Every sitnrflay at 3 East 14th street, New YorK
SUBSCRIPTION (including postage). United States, Mexico
and Canada, $2.00 per year ; all other countries, $4.00.
ADVERTISEMENTS, $2.00 per inch, single column, per
insertion. On quarterly or yearly contracts a special discount
is allowed. Advertising Pages $50.00, opposite reading matter
REMITTANCES, in other than currency form, should be
«ade payable to Edward Lyman Bill.
Entered at the Neiv York Post Office as Second Class Matter.
NEW YORK, JAN. 12, 1901.
TELEPHONE NUMBER, 1745--EIQHTEENTH STREET.
On the first Saturday of each month The
Review contains in its ' Artists Department"
all the current musical news. This is effected
without in any way trespassing on the size or
service of the trade section of the paper. It has
a special circulation, and therefore augments
materially the value of The Review to adver-
tisers.
STENCILING AND TRADEMARKS.
INDIVIDUALS and firms who have ar-
ranged with certain piano manufactur-
ers to supply them with instruments bear-
ing a specific trademark, are not in the re-
motest sense manufacturers. They are
merely vendors and jobbers, associated
with that department of the business
which we term legitimate stencilling.
We have always held that there are two
distinct branches of stencilling—legitimate
and illegitimate. The former relates di-
rectly to the exploitation of certain wares
with other than the manufacturers' names
upon them, but with a definite and trace-
able source of origin as far as responsibil-
ity is concerned.
A dealer may contract with a manufac-
turer to supply him with a certain number
of instruments bearing his own name, or
some particular trade mark which he deems
suitable, but in no way infringing upon
the names of reliable makers. This busi-
ness is perfectly legitimate and the dealer
himself stands sponsor for the instruments
which he sends forth under his own par-
ticular brand.
Should defects materialize, he must
make suitable provision to remedy them,
but in following this business he is tread-
ing on very thin business ice, for really
with the name of the manufacturer con-
cealed, he is working along narrow lines
which are bound to be harder rather than
easier as time rolls on, because arrayed
against him he will have dealers who ad-
vertise instruments bearing only the man-
ufacturer's name, and the educational
work which dealers of this kind will carry
on will go a long way towards the nul-
lification of the worth of the trademark
which the other man hopes to establish in
his particular locality.
The work, however, as far as legitimacy
is concerned is all right, but it is creating
a kind of bottomless piano pit, for the
manufacturer who supplies him may also
supply half a dozen others in the same
city under as many different names, and,
as a rule, it is instruments of such origin
as these that are placed on the block and
slaughtered, by offering them at any old
price, having no fixed value whatsoever.
In one place they may be sold at $90,
another at $125 and $150, and the robber
dealer has sold them as high as $300.
Dealers who continue to work along
these lines are contributing to their own
business ruin, and manufacturers who
supply them are banking purely on the
present, for they are creating no business
future for themselves, as far as a value to
their own patronymic as applied to pianos
is concerned.
The great names of the industry could
not have been built up even among what
we may term the medium class makers,
had they branded pianos indiscriminately.
There is another line just as legitimate
as far as the ethics of trade are concerned,
and one we do not think will ever become
a large factor in the distribution of pi-
anos.
There are a number of men who have
made arrangements with certain manu-
facturers to supply them with instruments
bearing their own names or trademarks
they posing as real manufacturers, when
as a matter of fact they are in reality pure-
ly jobbers. Some of these men use their
own special designs, and have incorporated
in the instruments some patents of their
own thus giving them an individuality.
Still they cannot in such a field, rank as
manufacturers.
They are, to be exact, engaged in that
department of stencilling which we term
legitimate, but their position is far from
a certain one in trade affairs.
TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENTS.
TN the evolution of the industry such a
jobber is bound to be extinguished com-
pletely, no matter if for the present he
may have personal friends who will buy
from him on account of his name or trade-
mark being associated with the wares which
he offers.
It is difficult indeed to understand what
kind of consistency actuates the conductor
of a publication which damns stencilling as
a business, yet openly supports men who
are engaged in such enterprises.
The illegitimate side of stencilling which
is allied with fraudulent and dishonest
methods is where stencillers imitate some
of the great names of the industry, thus
trading upon the name and reputation es-
tablished by others, like "Pickering,"
"Steinberg,"—and there are a number of
"Steinberg" pianos sold in this country
to-day—"Becker" and "Webber."
There are indeed a few men who will
aid and abet such dishonest transactions
by sending forth even in the "private
house" sale scheme pianos bearing such
stencils. In this connection we may refer
to an item which the news department of
The Review contained last week relative
to the granting of an injunction perma-
nently restraining C. D. Blake & Co., Bos-
ton, from issuing pianos bearing the sten-
cil of "G. A. Miller," or "Miller." The
obvious intent of this concern was to trade
upon the great name and reputation of the
Henry F. Miller pianos. The names were
similar and could be easily confounded by
those not well informed as to the initials
of the original piano Miller. That such
was the intention of the Blake firm, to con-
fuse the public in this particular, was the
opinion of the courts as will be seen by the
granting of a permanent injunction.
The Miller concern deserve all credit for
prosecuting this infringer upon their prop-
erty rights in the courts of the law. Had
they been content to sit calmly by and
have another trade upon their name and
reputation the belief would have gained
ground in other parts of the country that
such methods could be carried on without
molestation by the injured parties.
The Henry F. Miller concern did not
acquiesce in this obvious attempt to appro-
priate a part of their property rights, and
the result is seen in the legal opinion
handed down, and which must have a de-
terring effect upon those who are carrying
on just that class of work in other sections
of the country.
Those who attempt to trade upon the
good reputation fairly won by others should
not be dealt with over gently; and it would
seem as if Boston has been giving an ex-
cellent account of itself in matters which
are of general benefit to the trade during
the past few months.
I T is probable that there may be a number
of important cases similar to the Miller
brought bsfore the courts during the pres-
ent year. From all recent legal decisions
it is plain that the courts are inclined to
curtail the operations of name infringers.
They look upon a name as applied to cer-
tain wares as amounting to something
more than a mere patronymic. It becomes
a property of the most valuable kind, and