TromboneChat

Interesting that the Chinese can actually advertise or describe their mouthpices (presumably a copy, faithful or otherwise) as a Bach Mouthpiece. I suppose with no copyright or patent rules in their country and very little international accountability you just do it and no one says anything. Old topic I know but this is ebay someone could complain to them...

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/364559386573 ... R-Tqu-7xYg

Perhaps I could have a loud and smooth sound if only I had a "trombone blowing nozzle"!

But, darn it, it doesn't post to the US!

This one's even better. It's a professional metal 7C, suitable for trumpet, trombone, French horn or saxophone.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/374724683084 ... media=COPY

JeffBone44 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 11:37 am This one's even better. It's a professional metal 7C, suitable for trumpet, trombone, French horn or saxophone.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/374724683084 ... media=COPY

"Features - Upright Bell Design, Compensating System"

Looks like they are letting AI write their descriptions.

Can the name "Bach" be trademarked? Vincent Bach, yes, I'm sure, but just Bach? Copyright and Patent would not apply to a brass mouthpiece, whatsoever, unless if you had an innovation that substantially deviated from normal brass mouthpiece design. Maybe the whirlpool feature in the throat of some Best Brass mouthpieces could warrant a patent, but just for that one feature. These, not so much.

I think in this case, only trademark would apply, and "Bach" might not fit the bill.

Youre almost certainly right. I bet everyone sees the Bach line though and thinks Vincent Bach, especially since they have copied the machining lines of 'Bach' mouthpieces. Maybe Fax shoud be more worried than V Bach!... Doug

Is it a "trademark" a "copyright" or a "patent"? Which one it is will matter to a court, and to a manufacturer. I suspect the name "Bach" would come under the protection of a trademark, but only if the company filed it as such.
If not, then maybe their symbol is trademarked but not the name itself? Who knows. I suspect that the mouthpieces in question are coming from an area that cares nothing about any of those things and are unlikely to abide by a "cease and desist" letter regardless of the legal classification.

Until a vendor or manufacturer complains about it, then it's fair game I suppose. In the ad there's no name or symbol visible on the mouthpiece or packaging, therefore I suspect there's little legal ground to stand on in the event the real Vincent Bach takes offense to it.

However, I feel that it's unethical to buy or sell such an item because it's deceptive at the very minimum. A consumer might believe they are getting the real thing at a discount price, but instead they are getting a shoddy rip-off that certainly will not perform as expected.

I do want to get me one of those 7C cup Saxaphone mouthpieces for $14. Used for prog-rock?

A Trade Mark is a Trade Mark and not a Patent or Copyright. The Bach Trademark includes the special font used for the name. Just the 4 letters is not Trademarked, and probably not eligible since there was a composer of the same name who lived 250 years ago.

I could make ersatz Smith Brothers cough drops but without the two faces on the box I'm not violating the trade mark.

So, naming your soda product "Coak" or "Cœke" and selling it, much like this "Bach" mouthpiece (pronounced "batch", I assume) is probably a bit unethical and misleading, if not actually illegal.

However, contrary to what we might like to believe, completely copying the contours of, say, a Bach 5G and selling it as a differently branded mouthpiece is not unethical. Obviously Patent law does not apply to something invented hundreds of years ago, but we can still think about it: Patent laws were made the way they were to protect consumers AND inventors/manufacturers. The inventor got to get a headstart and reap SOME reward from their invention, but the understanding was that after a certain amount of time, other competitors would be able to make the same product or improve on it, and compete in the market. So a copied 5G mouthpiece made better or more consistently by someone else is a very good thing. And the more people making it, the lower the price for the consumer, and the more choice they should have to pick the best quality. Bach doesn't get to guard their design forever. This is why some makers publish bogus specs on their site, even though this doesn't really do anything except give bad info to consumers.

Now, having an unnaturally cheap state owned industry compete in this market, trying to pass off cheap materials and whatnot and using some other company's brand name ... Yeah that is not good. If it was actually a high quality product, consumers win in the short term, but nobody will compete and the design development stagnates or deteriorates.

That is the gist of a lot of lawsuits over fake merchandise. There are (for example) fake Gucci handbags sold for very low prices often of wretched quality (and often made in the same factories). A lot of this junk shows up on Ali Express and sometimes even on eBay. There is a reason for Caveat Emptor (buyer beware). Sometimes they even copy the look of a trade mark -- look at Selman, for example.

BGuttman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 1:57 pm The Bach Trademark includes the special font used for the name. Just the 4 letters is not Trademarked, and probably not eligible since there was a composer of the same name who lived 250 years ago.

My first job was folding boxes at a famous pizza chain. During orientation, they made it very clear that the sugar company named Domino had sued them, forcing a name change from Domino's to "Domino's Pizza".

This seems to be the relevant Bach trademark:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=4694 ... atusSearch

I'm not sure I buy your argument that the font has to match. A quick search shows the database using the same fonts for Bach, Benge and Greenhoe. I think that means the words themselves are what is relevant.

But anyway, I don't know how relevant US trademark law is on UK eBay (with a Chinese seller?).

I worked in Russia for 10 years, most of the 1990's... they had no legislation whatsover regarding copyright or patents and so (just for example) there were loads of individuals buying a CD abroad and then sitting on their computer all day burning copies and then selling them for a similar amount inside Russia. There was nothing anyone could do to stop it and often the 'home produced' products would filter back into the western ecomonies but siince Russia didnt give a rats a*** about what the Wests legal system thought it didnt matter and nothing could be done. China is in exactly he same position, I guess its because the communist state owned everything until recently and there was no need for any internal protection.

I suppose at international level a country could take issue with the principal but that would amount to a trade war and that rarely does anyone any good... Doug

Trademarks are generally defined pretty narrowly. For one thing, you have to specify a category of goods and services to which it is to apply. I did a quick search of the US Patent and Trademark Office's database and came up with several trademarks for "Bach", "Vincent Bach", or "Bach Stradivarius" that are held by Conn-Selmer, but I don't see one that could be applied in this case. They do hold a trademark for "Bach", but it's for "Care items for musical instruments", not instruments or accessories.

So...
Deceptive? Absolutely.
Illegal? Nope.
DIshonest/unethical? That would depend on whether there was an actual intent to deceive. Maybe they think "Bach" is a type of mouthpiece rather than a maker? I wouldn't consider this an "out" for a company based in the USA, UK, EU, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, etc. - they should know better. But this is coming straight from China.

AtomicClock wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 6:06 pmThis seems to be the relevant Bach trademark:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=4694 ... atusSearch

That's the one for "care items"

JohnL wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 6:44 pm That's the one for "care items"

But also for "Brass wind musical instruments, mouthpieces and cases".

AtomicClock wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 7:14 pm

JohnL wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2023 6:44 pm That's the one for "care items"

But also for "Brass wind musical instruments, mouthpieces and cases".

I see that now; looks like the TESS engine I was using doesn't do well with multiple categories.

In that case, they are violating Conn-Selmer's trademark. Not sure what C-S can do about it. Going after the seller would be pointless; maybe they could get eBay to take action. As I understand it, failure to defend a trademark can lead to losing it.

As far as the font question?

The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font, style, size, or color.

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?c ... =23&page=1

I'd be surprised if C-S didn't have an employee (or a bot) trawling all the eBays and Amazons, flagging these shenanigans.