Music Trade Review
Issue: 1921 Vol. 73 N. 10 - Page 3
Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
THE
MUJIC TRADE
VOL. LXXIII. No. 10
Published Every Saturday by Edward Lyman BUI, Inc., at 373 4th Ave., New York.
Sept. 3, 1921
Single Copies 10 Cents
$2.00 Per Year
Protecting the Trade-Marked Name
T
H E opinion of the General Counsel of the Music Industries Chamber of Commerce that a retail dealer
cannot be restrained by a manufacturer from using the name of a trade-marked product in his adver-
tising of used instruments, provided the dealer does so legitimately and without questionable intent, is
interesting from a number of angles.
There is no question but that names of pianos and talking machines of wide reputation have been used
quite frequently by unscrupulous retailers for the purpose of misleading the public directly, or at least with the
view of bringing in inquirers to whom can be sold other and cheaper goods designed to give the retailer a larger
profit. So widespread has this practice become in connection with the advertising of used, and even new,
talking machines that newspapers in New York and elsewhere have refused to take advertising mentioning the
names of well-known makes unless the advertiser could show he actually had instruments of that make on hand
to sell.
The use of well-known trade-marked names as bait is not in any sense new. Department stores and
others who make a practice of cutting prices on new goods always use the names of popular trade-marked lines
in their advertising, and it frequently happens that dealers in musical instruments who have the agency for
select lines of products simply use those lines for the purpose of luring the public into their stores, where they
may be sold cheaper instruments bearing the dealer's own name and offering less value to the purchaser but
higher profit to the dealer.
The old practice of advertising used pianos of reputable makes at particularly low prices without stat-
ing plainly that they were second-hand has practically gone by the boards, largely as the result of efforts of
various advertising organizations and better-business bureaus. The use of a trade-marked name in selling
used instruments, however, still proves repugnant to many manufacturers, and there are cases where they offer
to take over from general dealers, not on their lists, all used instruments of their make, providing they may be
obtained at a fair valuation.
There are some who believe that the featuring of a trade-marked name in the advertising of used in-
struments really reverts to the benefit of the manufacturer by giving publicity to the fact that his products
are held in high esteem by both the trade and the public. Certain it is that this construction may be put on most
of such advertising, because only in very rare instances are names of used instruments published unless they
have such a standing.
The manufacturer of a high-class product has certainly cause to be nattered, whether he likes it or not,
by the fact that in using his trade name in the advertising of used instruments the dealers thereby acknowl-
edge not only the standing of his product in its own trade field, but the recognition of that standing by the
general public. If the mentioning of a name will serve to interest a prospect and bring about a sale, then that
name has an unquestioned value.
From the legal point of view, it appears that a manufacturer having sold his product in the open market
parts with the title thereto, and the purchaser thereof, having acquired that title, has a certain right to do with
the product as he sees fit. No less an authority than the United States Supreme Court has frowned upon any
system of licensing that is designed to permit the manufacturer to retain title to his product after it has been
disposed of in the regular course of trade and for the regular price.
As it stands now, there are plenty of laws on the statute books to afford the manufacturer protection for his
trade-marked name against attempts that may be made to feature it in misleading or fraudulent advertising,
or to discredit it through unfair business methods. Fortunately the manufacturer is not compelled to depend
entirely upon the trade-mark law for such protection.
THE
MUJIC TRADE
VOL. LXXIII. No. 10
Published Every Saturday by Edward Lyman BUI, Inc., at 373 4th Ave., New York.
Sept. 3, 1921
Single Copies 10 Cents
$2.00 Per Year
Protecting the Trade-Marked Name
T
H E opinion of the General Counsel of the Music Industries Chamber of Commerce that a retail dealer
cannot be restrained by a manufacturer from using the name of a trade-marked product in his adver-
tising of used instruments, provided the dealer does so legitimately and without questionable intent, is
interesting from a number of angles.
There is no question but that names of pianos and talking machines of wide reputation have been used
quite frequently by unscrupulous retailers for the purpose of misleading the public directly, or at least with the
view of bringing in inquirers to whom can be sold other and cheaper goods designed to give the retailer a larger
profit. So widespread has this practice become in connection with the advertising of used, and even new,
talking machines that newspapers in New York and elsewhere have refused to take advertising mentioning the
names of well-known makes unless the advertiser could show he actually had instruments of that make on hand
to sell.
The use of well-known trade-marked names as bait is not in any sense new. Department stores and
others who make a practice of cutting prices on new goods always use the names of popular trade-marked lines
in their advertising, and it frequently happens that dealers in musical instruments who have the agency for
select lines of products simply use those lines for the purpose of luring the public into their stores, where they
may be sold cheaper instruments bearing the dealer's own name and offering less value to the purchaser but
higher profit to the dealer.
The old practice of advertising used pianos of reputable makes at particularly low prices without stat-
ing plainly that they were second-hand has practically gone by the boards, largely as the result of efforts of
various advertising organizations and better-business bureaus. The use of a trade-marked name in selling
used instruments, however, still proves repugnant to many manufacturers, and there are cases where they offer
to take over from general dealers, not on their lists, all used instruments of their make, providing they may be
obtained at a fair valuation.
There are some who believe that the featuring of a trade-marked name in the advertising of used in-
struments really reverts to the benefit of the manufacturer by giving publicity to the fact that his products
are held in high esteem by both the trade and the public. Certain it is that this construction may be put on most
of such advertising, because only in very rare instances are names of used instruments published unless they
have such a standing.
The manufacturer of a high-class product has certainly cause to be nattered, whether he likes it or not,
by the fact that in using his trade name in the advertising of used instruments the dealers thereby acknowl-
edge not only the standing of his product in its own trade field, but the recognition of that standing by the
general public. If the mentioning of a name will serve to interest a prospect and bring about a sale, then that
name has an unquestioned value.
From the legal point of view, it appears that a manufacturer having sold his product in the open market
parts with the title thereto, and the purchaser thereof, having acquired that title, has a certain right to do with
the product as he sees fit. No less an authority than the United States Supreme Court has frowned upon any
system of licensing that is designed to permit the manufacturer to retain title to his product after it has been
disposed of in the regular course of trade and for the regular price.
As it stands now, there are plenty of laws on the statute books to afford the manufacturer protection for his
trade-marked name against attempts that may be made to feature it in misleading or fraudulent advertising,
or to discredit it through unfair business methods. Fortunately the manufacturer is not compelled to depend
entirely upon the trade-mark law for such protection.
Future scanning projects are planned by the International Arcade Museum Library (IAML).