--- The concern might be not that there is a misuse of the trademark, but rather that the --- product might fail causing a rider to slip off the hoods ( as they split or slip), and --- claim serious injury. Campagnolo in this case has no control over the quality and --- construction over these hoods.
That's one concern, but only one. Another takes two forms:
-- if the company still exists (in Campy's case) it causes confusion as to source.
-- if the company no longer exists, it still pollutes history by confusing historic goods with phonies. I'd have to think more about the possibly applicable legal labels there. False advertising maybe -- a subject for private lawsuits and FTC action, not trademark infringement. If you call a part "Pops Brennan" and its not Pops Brennan, it's deceptive and I see no cute or legal or moral way around that -- except maybe (only maybe) putting in readable print on the part "unauthorized copy".
--- Their lawyers might well tell them that they could be exposed to --- lawsuits (costly, even when you win), and damages, on the theory --- that they negligently allowed their logo to be used on a substandard product.
Yes. Also, Campy could lose control over their trademark by not "policing" unauthorized users of it. They're very foolish to not try to shut down such things, or at least to try.
-- Additionally, Campagnolo's counsel may have the attitude that the trademark must be -- vigorously defended everywhere, and against any unauthorized user. -- It seems that Campy's -- recent clothing marketing strategy reflects this approach, as they have severely -- restricted licensing in that area.
Exactly! The "policing" concept at work.
-- Personally, I hope they look the other way
Well, in that you and Steve N appear to be in the bicycle mainstream. I see two lines of discussion here, legal and aesthetic:
- THE LEGAL LINE: Whatever else can be said about non-authorized non-original parts, the facts that:
--- a TM registration has expired, or --- "freedom of expression", or --- the authorized owner of a trademark doesn't feel like licensing a particular use
are simply no defense to selling parts or decals that look like they're from the original source, but are not. A disclaimer ("unauthorized reproduction") might help, but in my view is not enough -- there's still too big a chance someone will be deceived by them (on the original purchase, or on resale). In fact, it seems to me deception is the POINT. And I have little patience discussing such things with non-lawyers.
- THE AESTHETIC LINE: I have a personal preference for genuine antiquity. I can see the idea of replacing parts with authentic originals, or even replacing them with completely modern parts in the quest for better function with no pretense to originality. Anyone can do with their own bike what they want. But to me the scratches, incompleteness, the chipped paint are part of the beauty, the magic, of an old bike. It's like a relic of a saint: if it's not real, it's not magic. I'd much rather own a certain C.Butler bike I know from the 1930's with incomplete paint and half a decal than a perfect restoration. Replacing parts is fine with me, but if it says "Campy" it better be Campy.
But on the aethetic line I claim no special authority, and probably most on CR will disagree with me, and more power to you all. I'm a bicycle newbie, and maybe a bicycle idiot.
But just don't try to tell me that a decal or bicycle part that looks genuine but is not from (or authorized by) the original source is LEGALLY justified: that's just wrong.
- Charles
===================== Charles B. Kramer New York, NY owner of a CylcArt prettified Masi and a very very unauthentic absurdly upgraded Viscount with a carbon fork and gobs of shiny silvery reflective tape (makes it go faster!)