Ebay problem. You guys have got to read this.

To the contrary. He would get hits from bidders that include "airfix" in their search words.

This tactic is called 'key word spamming' and is against eBay policies but they don't seem to enforce it. Too busy chasing down petty complaints from Sikorsky and/or any images of the Swastika (Nazi or otherwise), I suppose.........

I remembr bringing my dad's Mosin-Nagant 1891/30 to school for the WW2 segment of our history class. It was OK ... as long as I kept it IN MY LOCKER until class!

They also let ... no, make that expected ... us to bring our own shotguns for Trap and Skeet shooting. 'Course. I grew up[ in rural Missouri.

Dean

Well, that's not quite the issue. Ford built your car. You now want to sell your car. Clearly Ford cannot object to the advertizing because that would be saying that they did not authorize their own workers to badge, style, build and sell this car in the first place. Sikorsky's argument is different. It is not in the business of manufacturing plastic model kits, so when another company, without permission, badges a product with Sikorsky's name or logo, this is taking advantage of said service marks or trademarks in order to assist in the marketing of the unauthorized product.

However, if Sikorsky intends to complain with regard to a specific product, they have an obligation to do so within a reasonable time. Sometimes this period is defined by a statute of limitations, beginning from the date of wrong (in this case, unauthorized marketing); other times, the reasonableness of the time is strictly a determination for judge or jury. In the latter case, principals of equity apply, such as expectations that wronged parties will promptly pursue remedies after such wrongs are reasonably discoverable. I have no idea if there is or ever has been a statute of limitations covering this question (it would most likely be federal if it exists at all). In the absence of same, if a kit has been so badged and sold for more than ten years, Sikorsky ought to be equitably barred from interfering with anyone's business relating to said product. The issue presumably arises anew with each new Sikorsky-badged kit from anyone, so if Sikorsky chooses to pursue the matter with new kits, they may be entitled to more success. There is one other little fly in the ointment for Sikorsky, however: failure to enforce a trademark vigorously can cause it to be voided entirely. If it comes out that Sikorsky has been dilatory in protecting its rights with regard to some kits, it's entire trademark stance in the model aircraft area may be rendered ineffective.

Mark Schynert

Heh. I wish someone had the bucks to stand up to Sikorsky on this issue. I doubt that even Revell-Monogram would be willing to go to the mat, though. It would be cheaper to pay up and pass the costs on to us.

That's pretty much what I said in the first paragraph.

Tom

[post snipped]

I also see that where I work - one contractor uses their logos all over various government PowerPoint presentations and nobody blinks an eye. I work for a different contractor and we never use our corporate logo on government work - we use the specific agency's logo.

On some DOD contracts the DOD doesn't own the rights to the pubs. It depends on the specific contract.

I'm not aware of any Navy pubs with copyright, but I have seen tech pubs from other services that were copyrighted because they were basically manufacturer pubs printed exclusively for government use, and I've also seen tech pubs which contained blocks of copyrighted text that came from copyrighted pubs and which the USG was authorized to use.

That's another whole issue, where the government in a contract uses stuff that belongs to companies which are deemed as proprietary, sensitive, etc. What is proprietary may also be trandemarked and/or copyrighted, for example technical manauls may contain both proprietary information and also be copyrighted. Normally government users are made aware of the nature of the corporate info and are required to protect it per the contract.

My original point though was that it is no longer safe to say that anything produced by the US government is copyright-free. It seems that any and all variations are now possible.

John Hairell ( snipped-for-privacy@erols.com)

was AMT that

down

And as luck would have it I was in the local hobby shop today and there sat a re-release of the old AMT Hogan's Heroes Willys Jeep kit. The shop owner was my source for the story on the AMT-Chrysler flap way back in the 80s. I asked him if that was the Jeep that Chrysler nixed back in the 80s. He was surprised I remembered that and yes that was the kit that Chrysler sat on.

WmB

To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net

Well,

The interesting thing here is that Boeing handles all the "licensing" rights for Sikorsky, which I believe is a Boeing subsidiary.

For those not in the "know" right now, both Boeing and Northrop-Grumman are in the beginnings of licensing such things as model kits of their aircraft (and in the case of N-G, even ships built in shipyards now owned by them!)

A reading of Northrop Grumman's website can show you all the aircraft types and ships that N-G claims rights ownership to, it's almost staggering.

As for Sikorsky's interfering with a private, non-commercial sale, I really think (though not a lawyer) that they really reached too far. After all, if such were legal, then there would go every single classified ad for any consumer product. I would wonder if the individual pulling this off ever stopped to realize that it was a one-off sale of existing product, not someone making a new model kit?

I do suspect that as this all unfolds, we will see legal statements on model kits of aircraft, pretty much the same as you see on model car kits.

As for the AMT proposed reissue of the old Hogan's Heroes Jeep in the late

1980's, that was as much a case of AMT not seeing the kit being worth a hefty guarranteed royalty, Jeep being one of the hotter automotive properties in licensing, at that time. It is also quite likely that there was not really much of an advance order book on that model kit then, either. Generally those are the reasons for a kit announced, then not released. In all my years of building (and selling model kits), I cannot recall a single instance where the real car's maker refused to allow an otherwise decent kit of one of their products onto the market.

Art Anderson

Uhm,

I beg to differ with you, John. The Jeep grew out of a design by American Bantam, it is true, but also out of a competing design submitted by Willys-Overland, Ford's design not being accepted. These were submitted persuant to an RFP from the War Department, each company designing and building their vehicle to the specs of the RFP. In short, these cars were the independent work of private companies, not the US Army Transportation Corps. Bantam, as history shows, lost out simply because they were far too small, and in such shakey financial condition, that they could not be counted upon to build their "Jeep" in the quantities that were expected (and indeed, far surpassed). Willys Overland's postwar quarrel was not over the design of the Jeep, they owned that, upfront, it was their car (Ford built them under license from W-O). The legal battle, which Willys-Overland won in the Supreme Court, was over their claim to the name Jeep, as applied to a motor vehicle.

A further illustration would be the GMC CCKW 6x6 truck. GM owns the design copyrights to that truck, as it was their design, built to a specification from the Army, not a US Army design. Even the term CCKW is copyrighted by GM, simply because that was their designation for the truck. Studebaker also built

6-bys, but, while their trucks were built to the same performance specs, they were Studebaker's own designs also.

I believe that a search will also show that aircraft designs fall in the same sort of category, their having been designed by the various companies to meet a set of performance specs, not actually designed by the particular military service.

Not all that sure about ships, however, as it sure seems to me that the Navy designs their ships themselves, then lets out the construction on bidding, or in the time of WW-II cost-plus, to the yards having the capacity and the construction time available.

Art Anderson

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (EmilA1944) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m25.aol.com:

Boeing might be handling licensing of the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche (don't know one way or the other), but Sikorsky itself has been part of United Technologies Corp. for a long time. UTC would be the parent company of every other helicopter Sikorsky has built.

Jeff Clark e-mail altered

[stuff snipped]

TC had lots of input into the design of trucks that became the deuce-and-a-halfs. Much of that derives from WW1 experience and subsequent experimentation in the '20s/'30s.

I think you are probably right - my memory was fuzzy and the jeep probably wasn't the right example to use. I still would argue that some designs are totally government-owned, even if they were produced by a private company, and some designs were made up in government design bureaus. It depends on the nature of the contract. Lots of weapons especially were government-designed and contractor-supplied.

How about the Chevy 1.5 ton trucks? I've read that that was a government design but it's basically a short-wheelbase, two-axle deuce-and-a-half, and it sure looks a lot like a short CCKW.

Regardless I'm willing to bet in some instances the government has owned the entire rights because they bought them. Also, I seem to remember that in the WWII period the government could appropriate designs that it deemed critical to national security without recompense to the legal owner. This happened on at least one crypto machine patent.

Yeah, the Navy did have an internal ship design bureau and that is a good example.

John Hairell ( snipped-for-privacy@erols.com)

Excuse me for butting in, but I heard once that the name "Jeep" was merely a nickname given to the vehicle by the Troops. It was a General Purpose vehicle, so it became a GP or Jeep. Why did W-O have to go to court to obtain the name? Or was the suit against another company and not the government?

-- John ___ __[xxx]__ (o - ) --------o00o--(_)--o00o-------

The history of things that didn't happen has never been written - Henry Kissinger

But a company can only impede your speech if there is a law that makes it possible for them, right? And legislature cannot pass such a law, as it would restrict free speech, right? (At least that's how it should be.)

We recently had a similar case of this madness here in Denmark, even. So it seems we are not immune.

A well-known Danish childrens-book author, Ole Lund Kirkegaard, wrote a book called "Gummi-Tarzan" many years ago. Recently, it had been transformed into a stage-play or musical; however Disney, which now owns the rights to Tarzan, sued the heirs of Mr Kierkegaard! These didn't fight back, alas, instead they settled on changing the title of the play to "Gummi-T". Some lawyers *really* just ought to be shot, even despite me being against death penalty in general.

Disgusting.

-Lasse

Well..here at least....anyone can "sue" anyone, for any reason. Now if it ever really goes before a judge/jury; is another question. But just the act of "trying" or "threatening" to sue is where the "nuissance" part comes in. The "attackee" still has to field a defense ($$$$$), just in case.

Also, looking back, were called 'peeps' as well, during the war, with some Vets calling the larger Dodge 1/2 tons 'jeeps' or 'beeps'

Always wondered if some sly model company couldn't have popped a kit of that based on the Ford built GPW rather than Willys MB, getting Fords approval rather than Chrysler. And do it in Navy Blue-Grey rather than OD for the boxart.

** mike **

Interesting thought. I'm curious as to the answer on that one myself.

WmB

To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net

Better still if Revell told Sikorsky where to go and then went and negotiated a license agreement with their competitors, refusing to ever deal with Sikorsky again.

The way it is going someone from the movie Blackhawk Down owes sombody some money.

g