Re: [CR]Forgery

I find this a bit much George.  I'm all in favor of reproduced decals, an d I suspect that cyclists have always had parts pantographed to dress up th eir frames.  I'd guess the Colnago or Bianchi pantoed parts actually pr oduced by or for those companies was always much less than half the total n umber of such parts, even "In the Day".

Legal technicalities aside, IMHO, manufacturers who will not provide authen tic period decals themselves, and almost none do, have no legitimate compla int against others who do provide them.  They might perhaps have a succus sful legal complaint, but legal and legitimate are two different things.  Fortunately most companies have the good sense to simply ignore nonauthori zed products which they have no desire to produce themselves.

I rather think decals, pantoed parts, etc. should be treated like land is treated in many states under a legal concept called "adverse possession".   This concept more or less amounts to "use it or lose it".  Under th is doctrine, if someone occupies and uses a parcel of land openly and for s ome legally specified period of time, and the person holding title to the l and makes no attempt to reoccupy it, collect rent, etc. then the occupant m ay claim title to it my virtue of occupation and use.  The social concept here is that society is best served when resources are used rather than ne glected.  I'd say the same applies to period decals - if the trademark ow ners will not produce them, then others should be encouraged to do so.  I ronically, it seems a similar concept can actually act in opposition to its intended purpose in regard to copyrights and trademarks like we are discus sing.  Evidently, some courts may consider that a company failing to take action against copyright/trademark infringements has abandoned the copyr ight.  Thus a company might occasionally harrass producers of repro decal s, not because they give a damn about them, but to protect their right to u se the trademark on current or future products.  I'm convinced that in th e rare instances when bike manufacturers have acted against items like repr o decals, this has been their motivation, rather than any fundamental objec tion to the production itself, which the companies have no interest in doin g themselves.

So the current situation of common but rather low profile reproductions of decals and some parts probably serves the interests of all parties by meeti ng the demand but not making the activity so conspicuous that companies wil l feel compelled to sue to protect their trademarks.

Regards,

Jerry Moos
Big Spring, Texas, USA