Overland T55?

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

Thanks... that makes sense to me. ____ Mark

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.

And besides, it's a cheesy car.

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

According to reports on the Atlas Forum, it was Tower Hobbies that forced Overland to change "Tower 55" to "T55".

Paul A. Cutler III

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

Let us not forget that UP had some type of reorganization and fired some lawyers. Then UP dismissed the whole idea.

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

Hah hah hah.. Good one....

CSX Trademark licensing

Dismissed the whole idea? No, UP has a licensing program in place:

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

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.

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

decorate a few diseasels for PR purposes - e.g. the Katy scheme.<

And UP doesn't make MRR equipment!

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. "