[milandro]

:Rant: I don't have any problem with Chinese horns as long as they don't pretend to be anything else than they are. :soapbox:

A friend has a " Martin" alto, clearly made in China and today I see this Chinese copy of a Yanagisawa being sold by a charity shop as being a " Martin" 3000 , which is clearly not! I've emailed them but probably they won't believe me

 

[1saxman]

Someone has trademarked 'A. Martin' as a brand. There's nothing wrong with that and nothing wrong with letting the seller know that it is not a vintage 'Martin'.

 

[Pete Thomas]

I find that quite funny, not The Martin But A Martin

What next, instead of Martin handcraft we'll see Martin Footcraft.

If owners let trademarks go, then they have gone and up for grabs.

AFAIK Martin was sold to Leblanc who was sold to Conn Selmer so if anyone does still have that trademark registered it would be them. If it is still current then they could go after the manufacturer (not so easy) but certainly they could stop any sales within the US.

However presuming Conn Selmer do still own the trademark, they can manufacture and market - doesn't matter whether it's China or Somaliland.

NB: You probably couldn't get around trademark infringement by just using A.Martin instead of Martin.

Who can be bothered looking up the trademark registry? milandro I hope.

 

[lostcircuits]

I find that quite funny, not The Martin But A Martin

What next, instead of Martin handcraft we'll see Martin Footcraft.

If owners let trademarks go, then they have gone and up for grabs.

AFAIK Martin was sold to Leblanc who was sold to Conn Selmer so if anyone does still have that trademark registered it would be them. If it is still current then they could go after the manufacturer (not so easy) but certainly they could stop any sales within the US.

However presuming Conn Selmer do still own the trademark, they can manufacture and market - doesn't matter whether it's China or Somaliland.

NB: You probably couldn't get around trademark infringement by just using A.Martin instead of Martin.

Who can be bothered looking up the trademark registry? milandro I hope.

The only TM registered is the Rex and Alice A. Martin foundation, I tried with and without space after the A.
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:zl3pw3.2.2

For Martin alone there are a bunch of entries but nothing that pertains to saxophones, the only musical instruments are Martin Guitars

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4806:zl3pw3.4.45

 

[adamk]

Over a hundred old piano names were sold in the 80s, now made in various Asian countries.

 

[1saxman]

Plus this particular horn looks to be 30 yrs old and I have never seen another one bearing that name. It would be a total waste of time to pursue anything on it. Why don't you guys leave such things up to the owners of any name brands that are infringed?

 

[lostcircuits]

Plus this particular horn looks to be 30 yrs old and I have never seen another one bearing that name. It would be a total waste of time to pursue anything on it. Why don't you guys leave such things up to the owners of any name brands that are infringed?

Precisely. And if somebody by the name A. Martin uses his/her name, then TM or not, unless it is a "Design Mark" that is copied then there is no recourse. One of the differences between patents and trademarks is that if you are not using the trademark to sell goods, you lose the right to the trademark. So if Martin wind instruments stopped selling instruments branded with the name or TM, they would forfeit the rights to it.

It is a slightly different situation for some brand names, some well known examples are Bugatti and Maybach or Duesenberg.

 

[milandro]

there is nothing to purse just people to inform.

on a different note (has nothing to do with the saxophone world but with trademarks so don't extrapolate!)

trademarks infringements may be very delicate a question and often times people haven't been able to use their name . Years ago there was the matter involving two fashion designers, Valentino (Garavani) and Mario Valentino .
the matter still goes on, but having the same Name or Surname doesn't guarantee you win in matters like this

https://www.fashionlawreview.com/2020/03/20/valentino/

 

[lostcircuits]

Well, in this case it was the ornamental design of the V Rockstud that was the main problem in conjunction with only using the last name as brand whereas Valentino Gravani and Mario Valentino can co-exist even in the same consumer space.

 

[milandro]

exactly but there are many more examples , like when the Arena ( the stadium in Amsterdam) opened the doors they sued a small hotel that was called Arena too which had existed way before

 

[bruce bailey]

Leblanc owned the Martin name since about 1971 and AFAIK, they haven't used it for years AND Leblanc was absorbed by Conn-Selmer so I assume the usage is long dead.

 

[lostcircuits]

Leblanc owned the Martin name since about 1971 and AFAIK, they haven't used it for years AND Leblanc was absorbed by Conn-Selmer so I assume the usage is long dead.

Like I mentioned, you don't use it, you lose it. I had to provide evidence of use for the various TMs with my previous company every year. That is, a pdf of a website showing the goods offered under the trademark claimed or else some marketing collateral with a product announcement and showing the date of the release etc. It's like a Facebook relationship status: "It's complicated"

Here is a really good article on the legality of names and trademarks: https://www.hrfmtoday.com/2018/01/the-limited-right-to-use-your-own-name.html

 

[ZootTheSim]

exactly but there are many more examples , like when the Arena ( the stadium in Amsterdam) opened the doors they sued a small hotel that was called Arena too which had existed way before

Some years ago, Quality Inns launched a new budget hotel chain called McSleep. McDonalds sued them for ™ infringement and won, mainly because the QI hotels had a restaurant attached. Now McDonalds owns the prefix "Mc" in the US, though one expects that Boston area pubs might be exempt from litigation. :angel4:

 

[JayeLID]

Some years ago, Quality Inns launched a new budget hotel chain called McSleep. McDonalds sued them for ™ infringement and won, mainly because the QI hotels had a restaurant attached. Now McDonalds owns the prefix "Mc" in the US, though one expects that Boston area pubs might be exempt from litigation. :angel4:

They should have spelled it "MacSleep".
Stupidity on the part of QI legal department, really....any halfass corporate lawyer would know they were gonna step in it bigtime. Nice to see them earning their fat pay :faceinpalm:

 

[lostcircuits]

Or McSorleys in NYC. Anybody who is grandfathered in ... https://mcsorleysoldalehouse.nyc/

 

[Pete Thomas]

They should have spelled it "MacSleep".
Stupidity on the part of QI legal department, really....any halfass corporate lawyer would know they were gonna step in it bigtime. Nice to see them earning their fat pay :faceinpalm:

Lucky they didn't call it iSleep - Apple own the letter "i"

 

[lostcircuits]

Lucky they didn't call it iSleep - Apple own the letter "i"

Only for related technologies. A friend of mine owns icondoors so is that iCondoors or Icon Doors, Stephen Hunter published a book iSniper.

I find it more disturbing that Disney went after local fire departments for their fire danger signs using the silhouette of a bear. And Suzuki had to rebrand their LJ mini jeep because in Germany it would be pronounced Eliot. This is where the interpretation of TM law borders on nonsense

 

[bruce bailey]

There was a florist or flower seller (Texas?) who used "This Bud's for You" and got busted.

 

[turf3]

Anyway, shouldn't it be "Designed in Japan" if it's a Yanagisawa copy, or "Designed in France" if it's a Selmer copy, anyway?

Unfortunately the Chinese entities that do this kind of thing have the ability to disappear without a trace into their country where IP rights are honored only by lip service if at all, and then to re-emerge under new names with new products.

And the "Martin" trademark has never been all that tight anyway, as even when "Martin" was a viable entity there were "Martin Freres" clarinets where "Martin" was emphasized and not "Freres", and "Robert Martin" saxophones made by Dolnet, some of which (I owned one) didn't even have the word "Robert" on them - just "Martin Paris". I think Martin guitars and stringed instruments are and have always been clearly indicated as "C.F. Martin" which is quite distinct from Martin wind instruments - and anyway, C F Martin long predates Martin band instrument.

Maintaining a trademark when it's rarely used is really tough and requires constant vigilance. Thus some companies' well known aggressiveness even on products that are still in mass production - Scotch tape, Kodak, etc.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Anyway, shouldn't it be "Designed in Japan" if it's a Yanagisawa copy, or "Designed in France" if it's a Selmer copy, anyway?

Unfortunately the Chinese entities that do this kind of thing have the ability to disappear without a trace into their country where IP rights are honored only by lip service if at all, and then to re-emerge under new names with new products.

And the "Martin" trademark has never been all that tight anyway, as even when "Martin" was a viable entity there were "Martin Freres" clarinets where "Martin" was emphasized and not "Freres", and "Robert Martin" saxophones made by Dolnet, some of which (I owned one) didn't even have the word "Robert" on them - just "Martin Paris". I think Martin guitars and stringed instruments are and have always been clearly indicated as "C.F. Martin" which is quite distinct from Martin wind instruments - and anyway, C F Martin long predates Martin band instrument.

Maintaining a trademark when it's rarely used is really tough and requires constant vigilance. Thus some companies' well known aggressiveness even on products that are still in mass production - Scotch tape, Kodak, etc.

But also you have to take into account that a Trademark is often registered in a country or continent, not for the world.

Point being was Martin ever registered as a trademark in China. If not then whatever we think of the Chinese disregard for intellectual property may be less than relevant. It becomes relevant (I think) when offered for sale in a territory for which the Trademark is covered.

I have done trademarking and it is prohibitively expensive to cover every country, so often a company will look at the most likely territories and cover those. back in the day it may have been they thought no point in worrying about China.

These days it's very different in China. There are are a lot of more affluent and informed customers who prefer the prestige of top level European products to the disparaged Chinese products. So ironically Selmer may be manufacturing in China, the selling back to them.