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
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC