Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum Problem getting Steinway fallboard and soundboard decals?

I don't claim to be an expert on Trademarks. I know that they can be graphic or written. It's easy to search the trademark database online:

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/

Age and style of decals aside, Steinway has an active live word mark on "Steinway." My understanding is that means that they own the right to say who can use "Steinway" on what, when and where. I'm pretty sure that they've never stopped using the word "Steinway."

I can see a reasonable rationale for restoring an existing physical instance of the trademark which they produced. Producing your own new instances of the Steinway trademark is likely a very different thing altogether. Clearly, DU had to have a license to do so, and they apparently will no longer have a license to do so.

One may argue, "you're restraining me from using your trademark." I suspect that their answer will be, "yes, we are."

But we can make our own.

If I meticulously paint over the shadow marks from the original decal when I refinish the fallboard (to restore what was there originally), am I infringing on Steinway' trademark?

Pwg

Don’t know what to make of this. There must be more to this than we have be told about.
The tone of this thread is that Steinway Is trying to to stop or make it harder to rebuild old Steinways so as to not have competion for the new piano. Yet as far as I know they will sell you ( not cheaply) just about every part that goes into a Steinway for rebuilding except the plate and soundboard including the logo but in brass inlay. That doesn’t sound like a company that is trying to restrict rebuilding. That sounds like a company knowing they can make a lot of money selling expensive parts. Now if they were to cut off the selling of “Genuine Steinway Parts” to us all that would be a bold move that would tell us something.

What I know Steinway is trying to stop is people in the trade using the Steinway name in thier websites and advertising. You see companies list the pianos brands that have for sale and you see Steinway listed because it is a draw.. Maybe you see a little asterisk that takes you to a tiny word hidden in the add that says “ used”.

Also techs advertise that they are “Steinway Trained”or “Steinway Certified” for the sole reason to imply their rebuilding shop is some how connected to the factory. The people who post on this list seem to be above doing this but there are shady techs and stores out there that will and I think that’s who Steinway is going after. How this thing with Decals Unlimited fits into all this I don’t know.

Well, remember that back in the early Teflon days, Steinway made the decision to keep everything proprietary. Whoever was responsible for THAT decision probably regretted it later, yet the damage was done. Protectionism only works up to a point.

Pwg

There are probably several thousand instances where non-company rebuilders installed the soundboard decal on a new soundboard of their own manufacture in the past and as far as I know the company has never attempted to enforce the copyright claim. Some of these pianos were sold by Steinway dealers in the past. I doubt if Decals Unlimited needs permission from Baldwin or Chickering or Bechstein to sell soundboard decals for rebuilt pianos to rebuilders.

Just because Rolls Royce can stop someone from selling a Rolls Royce logo to be installed on non Rolls vehicles does not mean they can stop someone from selling reproduction logos for old R.R. Decals Unlimited is selling reproduction soundboard decals to be used to restore the appearance to original. It is a finishing detail, Steinway does not own the original appearance of the soundboard.

And companies are limited in how many copyright versions of trademarks are allowed. Steinway stopped using the soundboard decal and that ends control except when someone claims the work was done by Steinway. Steinway cannot claim damages to their copyright because someone restores the original look to an old piano unless they believe the copyright entitles them to "own" the exclusive right to rebuild Steinway pianos. That claim would most certainly be considered a restraint of trade.

There have been all sorts of Technicians who describe themselves as "Steinway Technicians" in advertising who do not work for the company. This is a fraud that the company should stop tech's from engaging in.

So I wonder if, when I wear my "Steinway & Sons" work apron (which would imply to any innocent onlookers that I was an "authorized" Steinway technician, unless of course they specifically ask me: "Have you been trained at the Steinway factory and been sent out by Steinway?"), would I then be infringing on Steinway' s trademark (even though THEY [Steinway] sold me the apron) since I have not been "authorized" by Steinway to officially represent them?

Hmmm.

Pwg

Trademarks, copyrights, and patents apply to different concepts, and they confer different rights.

I totally agree. Maybe the current owner of Steinway since 2013, Mr. Paulson's hedge fund takes intellectual property more seriously than prior management.

I would be very wary of expressing any opinion on law on a forum. I would be even more wary of following advice given on a general forum.

Actually none of this matters to me as I am a sovereingn citizen and as such no laws apply to me.

What is a sovereingn citizen?

Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in this country, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States. [Wikipedia].

Google it

Pwg

Sounds more like a rampant narcissist...

I'm guessing that Philip was just being sarcastic. Most folks here know that he's not a U.S. citizen. Nor does he live in the U.S.

Perhaps. I've also wondered if perhaps because their largest market--or at least most burgeoning--plays fast and loose with intellectual property rules, that maybe they are battening down the hatches on this stuff to try to fight it world-wide.

I know a number of regulars here earn portions of their income rebuilding Steinways, and I hope it all works out ok for them. In the meantime, however, I'm just going to go back to my position of there being a lot of wishful thinking going on here (plus some silly false bravado). Again, I would not want to be the first "test case" in this regard. Steinway has the resources to steam-roller anyone who wants to fight. And more power to them: these are their trademarks to do with as they wish.

Yes, just teasing.

So the solution (as i see it) is simply to learn how to apply the current issue brass "decal" that Steinway sells and apply it to any Steinway we restore. Bummer for DU but added pain for us.

Pwg

Alternatively, Steinway owners could buy the appropriate decal now and save it, in the event there is refinishing. If I owned a Steinway, that is what I would do

The shelf life is two months on a DU decal. Not that this is etched in stone as I have applied them well past their expiration date (because I didn't know it). However, it definitely does get more difficult as it ages. Unfortunately stocking up is not a viable option. It will prove to be a big waste of money.


The current issue brass decal is admittedly elegant, and not that much more money in the aggregate. I have no idea though precisely how to install it. But if someone does, please publish the instructions.

Pwg

Retsacnal,
So if a company does not use a style of decalomania that includes their brand name for some 90 years they can then start restricting it after all that time lapse? I always thought you had to defend your trademarks to keep them. Besides the company logo is the lyre. I am talking about the soundboard decal not the fallboard decal. If they can start restricting use of a discontinued decal why couldn't they also require non-Steinway rebuilders to grind all the logo and brand names off the casting? Does Steinway have the right to tell piano owners how their used Steinway should look? I really don't see how this squares with consumer, trade and property rights laws.