Overland T55?

This is strictly a question about T55 products from Overland, it's *not* a loaded question about the future of the company...
... but tonight I got an email from Overland Models about the upcoming train show in West Springfield, Mass. on 1/26-1/27. In the message, it says: "For plastic enthusiasts, we will have an in-show special on our few remaining in-stock T55 Products models."
Has anyone heard rumors that Overland is ending the T55 line? Or why would Overland use the phrase "few remaining in-stock" to describe T55 products?
I'd ask Overland directly, but I figure the reply would be subject to more spin than the no-pretense replies I'd see on rec.models.railroad.
____ Mark Mathu The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Mathu wrote:

Mark, From what I understand (and this is third-hand info), another company had an issue with them using the word "Tower" in their name, resulting in a change to T55.
Apparently, they are clearing out merchandise with the old name on the packaging while awaiting legal clearance to proceed with the new name: <http://www.t55products.com/news/?cat=1
HTH, Stevert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks... that makes sense to me. ____ Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I once had a question about a car company using a certain name when another company also used that name. I was told as long as they are in different businesses it's ok. What's the difference here?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think my example was that GM sells a Buick model called the Lucerne. This is also Safeway's brand name for it's dairy products. I was told this is perfectly ok.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:45:28 -0800, Jon Miller wrote:

And besides, it's a cheesy car.
--
Steve

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

Yup, it's hard to mistake moo juice for a motorcar. Lucerne is also a city in Switzerland, a lake, a hotel in New York, and who knows what all else. Not much chance of confusing any of them, I'd think.
But let's say another company in the hobby and model industry had previously trademarked "Tower".
Couldn't happen, right? Well, guess again!
Look about half-way down this page, in the left-hand column, under "Satisfaction Guaranteed": <http://www.towerhobbies.com/
And there is (or was?) an actual railroad "Tower 55" in Texas, and even a video about that tower with the same title. Could either of those have been be trademarked or otherwise protected, and their owners merely discouraging infringement?
So, while your Lucerne analogy is certainly valid in it's own context, it may not apply when the "infringees" and the "infringers" believe their spaces overlap in the consumer's mind. Remember the UP licensing fiasco just a few short years ago?
Disclaimer: I have no idea whether any of these entities challenged T55 over their former name. I have simply outlined what I believe may be some possibilities.
Stevert
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

According to reports on the Atlas Forum, it was Tower Hobbies that forced Overland to change "Tower 55" to "T55".
Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven *************
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

UP is the only RR to blatantly go after their own publicity and public relations arm with a licensing program (5% of every model sold with UP or any of it's predecessors on it, or 5% of all a company's income; also approval must be granted for every UP model made, but it has to be a production model not pre-production, etc.). IOW, they went after model railroaders and train buffs. For this, they deserve a certain amount of scorn. That they have since repented should be taken into consideration, tho' it took MTH's battle-hardened lawyers (and a UP CEO change) to accomplish this. Other RR co.'s also have licensing agreements, but they are more of the "$1 per year" for the rights, or in the case of Amtrak they sold the rights to all new paint schemes to Walthers (and Walthers did grant permission to Overland to make Amtrak Phase VI's Genesis locos). UP is the only one that had a completely unreasonable licensing program going.
Paul A. Cutler III ************* Weather Or No Go New Haven *************
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Let us not forget that UP had some type of reorganization and fired some lawyers. Then UP dismissed the whole idea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dismissed the whole idea? No, UP has a licensing program in place: http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/licensing/index.shtml
____ Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No matter what they say they were denied applications for some of the older names. Not sure how many and how far it went. All they want to do now is to make sure no one prints t-shirts with bad names, etc. Notice how that site specifically mentions Model Railroaders. It's been my understand that not a single letter has gone out to a MRR manufacture if they have ignored them!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are plenty of sources which say the contrary -
"Union Pacific said in an October letter to model-train manufacturers that it wants a fee paid for use of any historic logos of railways gobbled up in the past by the company, including the Southern Pacific, the Western Pacific, the Chicago & North Western and the Denver & Rio Grande" Source: <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/07/BUGJ73H8FO1.DTL&type=business
"M.T.H. Electric Trains and Union Pacific Railroad are pleased to announce that they have amicably settled the trademark infringement case that UP filed against M.T.H in Omaha, Nebraska federal court. " <http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/releases/heritage_and_steam/2006/1108_mth.shtml
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/07/BUGJ73H8FO1.DTL&type=business
Published December 2003

November 2006
Union Pacific has also decided to change its trademark-licensing program so that model railroad manufacturers will no longer have to pay a royalty, and will enjoy a perpetual license to use Union Pacific trademarks and paint designs on model railroad products.
UP realized that it would get the crap kicked out of itself in court and came to their senses:
http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/releases/heritage_and_steam/2006/1108_mth.shtml
It's difficult to retroactively protect your trade and copy rights.
Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, the dates were clearly stated in those links.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:52:20 GMT, Pac Man wrote:

Anyone know how much the former CEO walked away with for his sterling work? n
--
Steve

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

More of them walk away with more money then we can even dream about, even the ones that go to jail!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hah hah hah.. Good one....
CSX Trademark licensing http://www.csx.com/?fuseaction=media.tlic
BNSF Licensee Information http://www.bnsf.com/aboutbnsf/license.html
____ Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If companies don't protect their trademarks and such they lose them. Requiring some formal agreement is a product of the legal system. Not to have a policy would be stupid of these companies. I believe UP backoff of their rather draconian approach to something a bit more reasonable but, I could be wrong.
Paul
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 08:44:31 -0000, Paul Newhouse wrote:

The only thing UP has done with the Fallen Flag "trademarks" has been to decorate a few diseasels for PR purposes - e.g. the Katy scheme.
--
Steve

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.