BOUTIQUE - Music Inc. Magazine

InsideSUPPLy
> Two Old Hippies
Acquires Breedlove Guitars
PAgE 26
> St. Louis Music
Distributes Suzuki in the States
PAgE 27
> Roland
Hosts dealers in Hillsboro, Ore.
PAgE 28
> Diamond Amplification
Gives troops the gift of music
PAgE 30
ManufacTurinG i By ZacH PHilliPS & franK alKyEr
TRADEMARK NIGHTMARE
C.F. Martin executives
got an unwelcome
surprise when they
arrived in Shanghai
for Music China
this past October: Another C.F.
Martin had set up shop in the
trade show hall.
The exhibit bore the Martin
& Co. logo, down to the tag line
“Est. 1833,” and featured dead
ringers of several best-selling Martin
guitars. And yet the company
had no relation to C.F. Martin.
“Like many other American
companies, C.F. Martin & Co.
Inc. has become the victim of
unauthorized registration of its
traditional trademark and of
counterfeiting of its products in
the People’s Republic of China,”
said a statement C.F. Martin released
after the international
trade show.
But according to Ron Bienstock,
a leading music industry
attorney and partner with
Bienstock & Michael, the Martin
double was within its legal
rights — at least in China.
BranD HiJacKinG
Unlike the United States, which
has a priority trademark filing
system, China has a first-tofile
trademark system (i.e. first
come, first served). In this case,
another company acquired the
Martin trademark in China by
C.F. Martin
deals with legal
‘corporate
identity theft’
in China
filing for it before the Nazareth,
Pa.-based guitar maker.
Attendees at Music China
claimed the alternate Martin
booth was run by Gomans Ltd.
of Hong Kong. That said, a Gomans
representative denied having
registered the Martin Guitar
trademark in question. It’s still
unclear who the principles are
that filed it.
Bienstock stressed that this
wasn’t counterfeiting. He called
it “five steps more destructive,
potentially” and likened it to a
company’s brand being hijacked.
“I want to be clear that this
is bigger than [counterfeiting],”
Bienstock said. “Counterfeit is
a company making exact copied
product. This is corporate identity
theft at the highest level in
the music instrument business.
“Some might say, ‘Knockoffs?
We’ve always had that problem.’
No. That’s not exactly the issue
now. This issue is we’re going to
have other brands being registered
in China in this method. That’s
not the way it was. Some companies
were counterfeiting before,
but these are not counterfeits in
China because they’re made under
the Chinese registration.”
C.F. Martin’s statement added
that the company’s legal counsel
has filed a petition with the
China Patent & Trademark Office
to cancel the other trademark.
Still, Bienstock said that China’s
trademark process is “pro-indigenous,
protective from outside
companies.”
“On our national level, this
is really very difficult,” Bienstock
explained. “We have a
very reluctant set of legislators
who don’t want to press China
too hard, considering that we’ve
just borrowed trillions of dollars
from them.
“So, they don’t want to press
them for [intellectual property]
recognition. But in a world
where we make products there
and all we have is our brand, if
they already have the manufacturing,
then if they register the
brand in China, they own the
brand, too.”
GET an iP PorTfolio
Bienstock said he believes this
trend could ultimately cost
companies with half domestic,
half foreign business as much as
a 30-percent drop in sales.
The bottom line: U.S. manufacturers
and suppliers, if they
haven’t already, need to get their
trademarks filed in foreign countries
with first-to-file systems as
soon as possible.
“An intellectual property portfolio
is essential for a branding
world,” Bienstock said. “We need
to own these marks. We need to
protect these marks. If this is not
accomplished in a cohesive plan,
music instrument companies have
to find new brands and marks
and looks.” MI
JANUARY 2011 I MUSIC INC. I 25