The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Valecnik wrote:

Amberola 1-A wrote:I have examples of both Shawn's earlier brown wax and later white wax cylinders, and although they function well and look good, they don't have the finished look of original cylinders. I would suspect that a person shelling out 1-6 thousand for records would know the difference if good pictures were posted in the listing and if they bought w/o pictures, then the shame is upon them.
I haven't seen any of Paul Baker's cylinders. Does he somehow mark them to prevent confusion?

Bill

I did not know PB was also making cylinders? Could you elaborate?

Years ago when he made those excellent C, K, & H reproducers he had his initials, "PB" stamped at either the beginning or the end of the SN as I recall. Otherwise they could easily be mistaken for very clean originals.

Sorry Bruce, I meant Paul Morris in the UK.

Bill

Paul Morris's blanks - at least the ones I've seen - are marked.

My concern was sparked by a comment on Shawn's website where Jerry Fabris states that Shawn's blanks cannot be told from the originals.

George P.

. The blanks I make go through constant improvement, they are better than the batch proceeding it, even after making thousands I find better ways of molding, and more accurate equipment. My blanks are easy to identify, they have finer spiral ribs than regular. EDISON blanks, and they are longer too, my earlier blanks are smooth bore, I have not seen smooth bore BW except for 1889 blanks, by 1890 they all had. Spiral cores. P.M. Blanks have no marking on them either, they look like Columbia brown moulded records without the title, his composition. Is also similar, to a Columbia excet less aluminum, to make them recordable.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2718185

Another one that will get the roosters, here crowing. Looks like Victor Talking Machine Co. is back in Business!!!

edisonphonoworks wrote:http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2718185

Another one that will get the roosters, here crowing. Looks like Victor Talking Machine Co. is back in Business!!!

The lack of originality is unfortunate, but I doubt if there's much chance of of this new entity's products being confused with those of the original.

George P.

edisonphonoworks wrote:http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2718185

Another one that will get the roosters, here crowing. Looks like Victor Talking Machine Co. is back in Business!!!

My question is this: why would you want to "get the roosters crowing"? That sounds like antagonization to me, especially given that you resurrected this nearly 4-year old thread to do so...

HisMastersVoice wrote:

edisonphonoworks wrote:http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2718185

Another one that will get the roosters, here crowing. Looks like Victor Talking Machine Co. is back in Business!!!

My question is this: why would you want to "get the roosters crowing"? That sounds like antagonization to me, especially given that you resurrected this nearly 4-year old thread to do so...

Not to mention this issue is also posted by Shawn in the "Music" section. I agree with George, I don't think there will be any confusion with those of the original... .

I was seeing if there was a double standard. From what I see there is. Antagonize. Well I think that you guys antagonize me. I try to post fun things, and bring about a different perspective and then they are turned into bitter things. You all remind me of dealing with little children! Shawn Borri, North American Phonograph Company, NO Shawn NO! Victor Talking machine by a wealthy person, Yes Yes Yes! By the way I am gong back to my North American Label on the blanks. I don't need to apply for a trade mark, as I have a common law trade mark. By the way I sell world wide. Also had a Tax ID number with the name from NY. I had to obliterate things in my attachment, as you are not to fully photograph one of these papers. In case someone on here would copy and use it.



If you use your trademark in connection with goods you sell, you can gain legal protection of your trademark through the common law instead of registration.

These rights are only upheld in the geographic area where you sell the goods. Federal registration of the trademark rights is always recommended since it will result in additional rights that are not covered by common law.
Can the Same Trademark Be Used in a Different Area?

At common law, your trademark rights only cover the geographic region you are selling your goods in. So someone else in another region can typically use the same trademark as long as they do not market in your territory. If you choose to expand into another region where someone else is using your trademark, that person might be able to stop you from using the trademark in that region (even if you came up with the trademark first).

Common law trademark rights are also limited to geographical areas where the trademark is being used. For example, if the special brand of soap sold under the name “Bubbles” is sold only in California only, then the trademark right to the name “Bubbles” exists only in California and no other geographical area. So, if another person sold soap under the name “Bubbles” in the state of Nevada without the knowledge that there is an existing trademark name in California, there would be no trademark infringement.

However, if the person in Nevada wanted to sell the Bubbles brand nationwide through all the states including the state of California, it would be discovered that California already has a existing brand named under the Bubbles trademark and that person would be unable to sell their product in the California market.
What If I Just Discovered I Have Been Using Someone Else's Common Law Trademark?

You can keep using the trademark if you can show that you had no knowledge whatsoever of the existing trademark. A court is more likely to let you keep using the trademark if your use is in a different region or for a different type of product.

Shawn,
As far as I am concerned, more power to you for thinking to use the North American name and trademarking it... you preserved a lost art and the name associated with it. If you hadn't, someone with "money" probably would have.

I appreciate your ability to re-invent a process that was not easy to duplicate without an extensive lab and millions of dollars. Your long time interest in the process has made you an undisputable authority on the subject of wax cylinders even though you do not have an MIT doctorate in chemical engineering. I think that fact, along with your "shoestring" budget irritates and causes jealousy in those people who believe that only those with the "proper" background should be experts on any particular topic.

As far as "honoring" or not honoring Edison with your use of the name, Edison (in my opinion) was a ruthless robber baron who squashed or took credit for other people's work just like any other successful "businessman" of that time or the present, so no honor is necessary to convey. He was who he was... not a saint or role model/hero. Thanks for all of your perseverance and contributions to this hobby...

Starkton wrote:


Take my advice, drop your false claims and stick to "New North American Phonograph Co." and "Shawn Borri Phonograph Works". This makes good reading, does yourself justice, and at the same time doesn't muddy the waters for researchers and laymen who are interested in historical contexts and names, or intend to work with it.

Take my unsolicited advice and look over your posts before you hit SEND because you're coming off as an ass.