CSX Follows UP Example

The the new MR has an ad from Atlas on the inside cover promoting some new engines. I noticed that there were footnotes indicating that
some of them were under license from CSX. Perhaps Atlas has been doing this for a while but it's the first time I've seen it. A search of the CSX web site turned up this licensing agreement for model trains sold for profit: http://www.csx.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.launch&target=http://www.csx.com/share/csx/corporation/trademark/docs/For-Profit_License_Agreement-REF21386.pdf (A separate license agreement is there for model trains sold not-for-profit. I guess that's for clubs cars?) Like UP, CSX is laying claim to the former roads which they now own: Atlantic Coast Line, Baltimore & Ohio, Chesapeake & Ohio, Louisville & Nashville, Seaboard Air Lines, Clinchfield, Chessie Systems, New York Central, Seaboard Coast Line, and Western Maryland. So the question is, how many people who were boycotting models of anything UP claims to have title to while now add these railroads to their "Not On My Railroad" list?
--
Rick Jones
Remove the extra dot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

com/share/csx/corporation/trademark/docs/For-Profit_License_Ag
Wait for BNSF to throw their hat into the ring?
fl@liner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

About BNSF - Licensee Information: http://www.bnsf.com/aboutbnsf/license.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

There's a big difference between the UP and CSX methods. UP's agreement called for all manufacturers to submit a production model (not a mock-up) to UP's legal department for approval (meaning that if they every said no, said manufacturer would be in deep doo-doo), and that they wanted either 5% of the model's value or a percentage of the total company's net sales. IIRC, CSX only asks for a flat, low-cost fee covering many models (but they could have changed it). If this remains the case, CSX's policy is fall less onerous than UP's, requiring no new pricing structure and/or accounting policies. Amtrak, BTW, is another issue. They have sold the production rights to the Acela Express to Bachmann only, and all paint schemes Phase V and later were sold to Walthers. If you look, even on Overland boxes for Genesis locos, it says "Copyright Walthers" in small print.
I'm so glad I model the New Haven, where this problem does not exist...
Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven *************
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dear folks:
Hmm...if anybody wants to paint equipment for my Sparta Railroad they may go ahead and do so. Freight cars are box car red with 'SPAR' or 'SPARTA' reporting marks and a number in white, and sometimes a white 'S' with a box around it. Start repainting your CSX and UP cars today!
N.B. This is not a pitiful attempt by a poverty-stricken short line at grabbing per diem charges...not at all.
Cordially yours, Gerard P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pac Man wrote:

Depends on your definition of "low cost" I guess. $.80-1.00 per model, plus manufacturer's overhead for complying with the licensing terms, might be considered rather stiff by other people especially for a low cost plastic kit. That's for runs up to 500 pieces. Over 500 is "to be determined". That's for one trademark. Licensing multiple marks reduces the overall cost per mark.
--

Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| I'm so glad I model the New Haven, where this problem does not exist...
At least until some Metro North lawyer goes, "Hummmm . . . ."
CTucker NY
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

exist...
Nah, it's not M-N. They don't own squat of the New Haven (except the RoW). Remember, in 1969, Penn Central was forced to buy all operating assets of the New Haven...but not the whole shebang. The NH was never merged into the Penn Central (which still exists as American Premium Underwriters). I know for a fact that the NH was still a seperate entity into the 1970's (I have copies of the court documents to prove it), and the rumor is that the NH's corporation had dwindled down to a single lawyer's office the midwest by the 1980's, handling the long term leases and any other loose strings still around. It's certainly possible that the NH corporation was simply dissolved as the issues were wrapped up, meaning that all NH logos are now in the public domain. I also know that the NHRHTA (est. 1961) had received permission from the NH corporation to use any and all NH logos for their own use (according to the Pres. & CEO of the NHRHTA), so I'm not too worried about it.
Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven *************
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What happens if you take a plain vehicle and hand paint the R.R. markings on it? You ain't selling the vehicle so you ain't making any money from it. Regards, Bill.

http://www.csx.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.launch&target=http://www.csx.com/share/csx/corporation/trademark/docs/For-Profit_License_Agreement-REF21386.pdf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...but you are using their logo. That's where the rub is.
It's like the people who duplicate a CD and give it to their friends. "I'm not making any money by doing that, so it's legal," they will tell you. But... you are depriving the artist of a sale, therefore costing him/her potential revenue.
dlm

http://www.csx.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.launch&target=http://www.csx.com/share/csx/corporation/trademark/docs/For-Profit_License_Agreement-REF21386.pdf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That's an interesting question.
--
+GF+

"I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

with the 'licensed' heralds on them? Are you then liable to pay a license fee to the R.R.?< I understand if any of them are UP you do<VBG>.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.csx.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.launch&target=http://www.csx.com/share/csx/corporation/trademark/docs/For-Profit_License_Agreement-REF21386.pdf
It's a pity that the MR industry is so pitifully poor, otherwise in court they probably could have won.
As I recall from my courses in business law (oh so long ago), a general rule of copyright/trademark law is that a copyright that is not defended against long term open and notorious use can not be enforced at a later date.
Since the logo designs of the various RR lines have been used openly for decades by the MR industry without issue, it is highly unlikely that any court would side with the RR's against the model makers and would agree that an implied license was in place.
Unless, of course, that there was some hidden agreement in place over all these years that allowed for the current changes to license.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| It's a pity that the MR industry is so pitifully poor, otherwise in court | they probably could have won.
Atlas, Athearn, Walthers and so forth are not all that small. And have lawyers. You can bet they didn't look to UseNet for their legal advice. And, we don't know what terms they /really/ negotiated. You can bet its not the terms spelled out on UP's site three years ago when all this started.
| As I recall from my courses in business law (oh so long ago), a general rule | of copyright/trademark law is that a copyright that is not defended against | long term open and notorious use can not be enforced at a later date.
Oh so long ago, that was so. Congress changed all that in 2000 giving perpetual ownership to "famous" corporations. There isn't any amount of UseNet harrumphing that will take precedence over an act of Congress.
CTucker NY
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 14:37:05 GMT, Christian wrote:

Er, uh, as in the congress of the cow? (in the Kama Sutra, I think). Or, in keeping with the Bush-Delay axis, the congress with the goat.
--
Steve
* Not affiliated with the Roper Report *
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, let's see . . . at last report, the Union Pacific claimed to "own" or "control" the rights to the names, slogans and logos of some 1800 predecessor "fallen-flag" railroads -- and wants licensing fees for the use of every one of them.
How many of those 1800 "famous" railroads can YOU name?
JR Hill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Jim, 'fess up: Where did you see that report that claims 1800 predecessor railroads?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
CTucker wrote:

You are referring to the 'Anti-Dilution Act' or whatever it is called, I think. I think this act does deserve whatever comparisons to the bovine or capelline world Mr. Caple wishes to make (and boy, did I ever have to dig for that second Latinism). I think it is a doomed law anyway, because it is too obviously a violation of our freedom of speech, and because guaranteeing superior protection to something 'famous' is absurd. Still, if its purpose is to prevent the "lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services..." couldn't it be proved that the decoration of railroad models with UP or CSX graphics helped STRENGTHEN this capacity of the trademark? I bet it could.
Cordially yours, Gerard P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The following is an direct quote from an email message sent by Brenda Mainwaring, the UP's Director of Corporate Relations and licensing maven:
"With some 1,800 constituent railroads, we just can't list all of them. Any railroad that became part of the Union Pacific, in whole or in major part, would fall under our licensing agreement."
Despite subsequent inquiries to Ms. Mainwaring, she's so far been unable to provide a list of the "Famous" 1800. My own list of UP predecessors has never gotten much higher than 600, 99% of which most folks have probably never heard of.
JR Hill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/13/05 9:23 PM, in article 42ae3dee$1 snipped-for-privacy@newspeer2.tds.net, "Jim Hill"

Although "major" parts of the Rock Island system became property of CNW, SP, and others assimilated by the Borg, the Borg cannot claim rights to the Rock Island herald and other marks; these are still held by Maytag Corporation. This may change soon with the recent sale of Maytag to a group of investors.
--
Brian Ehni



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.