Music Trade Review
Issue: 1912 Vol. 54 N. 2 - Page 5
Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
THE
N
MUSIC TRADE
O one can read the order of Judge Kohlsaat in the decree
handed down in Chicago, and published in The Review
of last week, without feeling that by it not only have Chickering
& Sons scored a legal victory in name protection, but that it is a
decision as well which must have a far-reaching effect upon the
future use of trade names in the piano industry.
It certainly clears up all of the underbrush of doubt regarding
name protection in this trade, and name protection in the piano
world is a very vital issue, for in no industry have family names a
greater value in relation to the business than in piano making.
That the name of Chickering possesses great value must be
conceded by all men who have even the most superficial knowledge
of conditions in the music trade industry. It has been before the
trade and public since 1823, and millions of people are acquainted
with its history in connection with the growth and development of
musical knowledge in this country.
The value of such a name is difficult to estimate in dollars and
cents, but all will agree that it is worth a great deal of money.
In other words, the hundreds of thousands which have been
spent in advertising that name for many decades means nothing else
than that the name possesses a great property value, difficult to
estimate, but undeniably vast.
It must also be considered that if another piano bearing the
same patronymic without explanatory words upon its fall-board
be put forth it, to a certain extent, by a confusion of names, dimin-
ishes the selling value of the original Chickering.
In other words, the public naturally associates the single name
of Chickering with the piano product, and if there be two pianos
bearing the name of Chickering in the field confusion must exist,
and the decree handed down by Judge Kohlsaat at once clears
away all doubt as to the legal interpretation of the original injunc-
tional order given to the firm of Chickering & Sons.
The judge says in interpreting the injunction, "that every
use of said name of 'Chickering' or 'Chickering l>ros." on the fall-
board or elsewhere on their piano, or in advertising, should and
shall in close proximity thereto be accompanied by equally promi-
nent words or other means which shall be sufficient to advise, and
advising, any intelligent person dealing with defendants or with
such persons handling defendants' pianos that the piano is not the
original and well-known'Chickering piano made by complainants."
The learned judge further says "that the use of the phrase,
'The only Chickerings making pianos,' and other phrases similar
thereto, is an evasion and a violation of clause 5 of the injunctional
order."
The court then gives sixty days for the defendants to make such
changes and apply such markings in and upon all pianos which
they have heretofore placed upon the market in violation of clause 3
of said injunction.
Then, thirty days from the date of order, the defendants shall
cause to be called in and cancelled all advertising matter which they
have at any time put forth in violation of the injunction as above
defined and interpreted by the court,
REVIEW
This decree, which constituted a great victory for Chickering
& Sons, was printed in full in The Review of last week, but it is of
such importance and has such far-reaching effect upon the entire
industry that the subject itself demands added comment.
This action, following close upon the decree of the court sitting
in Cincinnati regarding the use of the name Knabe, clarifies the air
very materially concerning the attitude of legal tribunals as to the
use of family names in a confusing manner.
Some may say that such decisions inflict a hardship upon the
men who are prevented from engaging in a business wherein they
cannot use their names without restrictions which would seem to
hamper their business advance.
At the first blush that may seem to be true; but we must con-
sider that family names reach a position where as trade-marks they
are worth vast sums, for much money and time has been expended
to build these names into great property assets, and is it not fair
that the men who have expended that money, or who by purchase
have acquired the name values, should be protected in an enjoy-
ment of the fullest privileges thereof?
Every man has a right to engage in business, but when the use
of his name has the tendency to confuse the public or to interfere
with the property rights of others, then it is right that there should
be restrictions in order that property interests may be safeguarded.
Pianos if put forth from different sources bearing the same
patronymic may be used to deceive the public, and the courts pro-
pose that the public shall be protected.
Proceeding further along this line, in last week's Review there
was a record of an action which was brought against the Heine
Piano Co., of San Francisco, by the attorneys representing the
American Piano Co.
The Heine Piano Co. was one of the first retail houses in the
country to put forth the Cincinnati product of Knabe P>ros. Co.,
and in its public announcements it warned the public that the Cin-
cinnati Knabe "is the only genuine instrument."
From a recent circular issued by Knabe Bros. Co. we lift the
following excerpts: "We are prepared to absolutely guarantee any
representatives of the Knabe Bros, piano immunity against any
attacks on the part of the American Piano Co., and if perchance
suit should be brought, which we doubt, will defray any and all
expenses."
The San Francisco proceedings embody deep interest for the
entire trade, because they show that the American Piano Co. pro-
poses not only to protect its own representatives in the various parts
of the country from any loss by name juggling, but it proposes to
strike directly at the dealers who exploit instruments in a manner
which is intended to mislead the public regarding the names owned
by the American Piano Co.
Name protection is indeed a matter of vital interest, and if there
be no protection afforded w T hat is the incentive to create valuable
properties out of family names?
THE
N
MUSIC TRADE
O one can read the order of Judge Kohlsaat in the decree
handed down in Chicago, and published in The Review
of last week, without feeling that by it not only have Chickering
& Sons scored a legal victory in name protection, but that it is a
decision as well which must have a far-reaching effect upon the
future use of trade names in the piano industry.
It certainly clears up all of the underbrush of doubt regarding
name protection in this trade, and name protection in the piano
world is a very vital issue, for in no industry have family names a
greater value in relation to the business than in piano making.
That the name of Chickering possesses great value must be
conceded by all men who have even the most superficial knowledge
of conditions in the music trade industry. It has been before the
trade and public since 1823, and millions of people are acquainted
with its history in connection with the growth and development of
musical knowledge in this country.
The value of such a name is difficult to estimate in dollars and
cents, but all will agree that it is worth a great deal of money.
In other words, the hundreds of thousands which have been
spent in advertising that name for many decades means nothing else
than that the name possesses a great property value, difficult to
estimate, but undeniably vast.
It must also be considered that if another piano bearing the
same patronymic without explanatory words upon its fall-board
be put forth it, to a certain extent, by a confusion of names, dimin-
ishes the selling value of the original Chickering.
In other words, the public naturally associates the single name
of Chickering with the piano product, and if there be two pianos
bearing the name of Chickering in the field confusion must exist,
and the decree handed down by Judge Kohlsaat at once clears
away all doubt as to the legal interpretation of the original injunc-
tional order given to the firm of Chickering & Sons.
The judge says in interpreting the injunction, "that every
use of said name of 'Chickering' or 'Chickering l>ros." on the fall-
board or elsewhere on their piano, or in advertising, should and
shall in close proximity thereto be accompanied by equally promi-
nent words or other means which shall be sufficient to advise, and
advising, any intelligent person dealing with defendants or with
such persons handling defendants' pianos that the piano is not the
original and well-known'Chickering piano made by complainants."
The learned judge further says "that the use of the phrase,
'The only Chickerings making pianos,' and other phrases similar
thereto, is an evasion and a violation of clause 5 of the injunctional
order."
The court then gives sixty days for the defendants to make such
changes and apply such markings in and upon all pianos which
they have heretofore placed upon the market in violation of clause 3
of said injunction.
Then, thirty days from the date of order, the defendants shall
cause to be called in and cancelled all advertising matter which they
have at any time put forth in violation of the injunction as above
defined and interpreted by the court,
REVIEW
This decree, which constituted a great victory for Chickering
& Sons, was printed in full in The Review of last week, but it is of
such importance and has such far-reaching effect upon the entire
industry that the subject itself demands added comment.
This action, following close upon the decree of the court sitting
in Cincinnati regarding the use of the name Knabe, clarifies the air
very materially concerning the attitude of legal tribunals as to the
use of family names in a confusing manner.
Some may say that such decisions inflict a hardship upon the
men who are prevented from engaging in a business wherein they
cannot use their names without restrictions which would seem to
hamper their business advance.
At the first blush that may seem to be true; but we must con-
sider that family names reach a position where as trade-marks they
are worth vast sums, for much money and time has been expended
to build these names into great property assets, and is it not fair
that the men who have expended that money, or who by purchase
have acquired the name values, should be protected in an enjoy-
ment of the fullest privileges thereof?
Every man has a right to engage in business, but when the use
of his name has the tendency to confuse the public or to interfere
with the property rights of others, then it is right that there should
be restrictions in order that property interests may be safeguarded.
Pianos if put forth from different sources bearing the same
patronymic may be used to deceive the public, and the courts pro-
pose that the public shall be protected.
Proceeding further along this line, in last week's Review there
was a record of an action which was brought against the Heine
Piano Co., of San Francisco, by the attorneys representing the
American Piano Co.
The Heine Piano Co. was one of the first retail houses in the
country to put forth the Cincinnati product of Knabe P>ros. Co.,
and in its public announcements it warned the public that the Cin-
cinnati Knabe "is the only genuine instrument."
From a recent circular issued by Knabe Bros. Co. we lift the
following excerpts: "We are prepared to absolutely guarantee any
representatives of the Knabe Bros, piano immunity against any
attacks on the part of the American Piano Co., and if perchance
suit should be brought, which we doubt, will defray any and all
expenses."
The San Francisco proceedings embody deep interest for the
entire trade, because they show that the American Piano Co. pro-
poses not only to protect its own representatives in the various parts
of the country from any loss by name juggling, but it proposes to
strike directly at the dealers who exploit instruments in a manner
which is intended to mislead the public regarding the names owned
by the American Piano Co.
Name protection is indeed a matter of vital interest, and if there
be no protection afforded w T hat is the incentive to create valuable
properties out of family names?
Future scanning projects are planned by the International Arcade Museum Library (IAML).