Crimeny, they sure are a sensitive bunch. Already threw me out (apparently) from the yahoo! Union_Pacific group.
I sent an email to Union Pacific Investor Relations, whining about the $5 per set licensing fee on Kato F3 sets. They replied that making a profit was secondary to protecting the logo. Right.
I want to add I have worked for a sporting goods firm for over 20 years. Our logo is a very "high image", attractive design featuring an eagle. I spent a lot of time working with the Trademark and Patent attorneys protecting the mark and also was involved in licensing it to coffee cup, t-shirt, baseball cap, sweatshirt etc etc etc makers. I know what is possible and what isn't, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that license agreements to protect a mark do NOT have to cost ANYTHING. If the agreement is to protect the mark, it protects the mark. If it is to make money, it makes money. If it is to do both, it does both. Union Pacific is doing both.