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:
formatting link

Reply to
Mark Mathu
Loading thread data ...
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:
HTH, Stevert
Reply to
Stevert
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.
Reply to
Jon Miller
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":
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
Reply to
Stevert
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 *************
Reply to
Pac Man
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 *************
Reply to
Pac Man
Hah hah hah.. Good one....
CSX Trademark licensing
formatting link
BNSF Licensee Information
formatting link
____ Mark
Reply to
Mark Mathu
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
Reply to
Paul Newhouse
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.
Reply to
Steve Caple
WP, Rio Grande, SP, ... I think I'm missing one or two? You seem to be confusing trademark protection with general good business practices. It is only one business practice.
Don't confuse protecting ones trademark with doing so in a sensible way. Don't confuse protecting ones trademark with charging vasts sums of money. Protecting ones trademark is wise, how it is done may not be.
Don't confuse my claim that protecting ones trademark(s) is responsible with any kind of defense of other practices by UP or others. As with many things, good ideas can be implemented poorly that doesn't make the idea itself bad.
Paul
Reply to
Steve the Other
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:
"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. "
Reply to
Mark Mathu

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.