RE: UP, a simple solution.

True but...

What if all the other roads see how easy it is for UP to do this and do the same thing?

Then we all pay 5% more or buy undecorated.

It was interesting when I helped Athearn do the CalTrain Bombadier commuter cars. Got some photos, Athearn decided to produce them, so I put them in contact with CalTrain marketing which said, "Great. What neat publicity. Thanks!" to Athearn. As a thank you (from me since Caltrain also was a great help in getting me access to the yard for photos), I gave one of the production cars to my contact there. They love it.

Why can't other roads see the PR value in this? Oh well, marketing is generally not rocket science. I'll bet the roads don't even cover their marketing time with the fees generated, and the blanket permission upon request would cost about 90% less. Sigh.

Ed.

in article snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com, MrRathburne at snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote on 1/7/04 11:00 AM:

If it's their legal right, then so what?

Kent in SD

"I want to be the candidate for the guys with Confederate flags on their pickups too."

--Howard Dean, running for president of the Confederate States of America

Actually, as far as UP is concerned, a Final Solution might be better.

I suppose they wish to charge a fee for using the name Credit Moblier too!

Regards,

DAve

It's that very stupidity and general corporate legal bloody- mindedness of the UP stance that annoys me. Marketing as practiced is indeed not rocket science, and the practitioners are certainly not rocket scientists; more like NASA and Thiokol management types. If only they were aboard when the seals blew.

Personally, I'm pretty much fine by the UP name to be charged, since it is still in operation, but adding the D&RGW, C&NW, MoPac, etc to that list, of which are fallen flags would be like me deciding that after I gave somebody money and told them it was free, then to go back a year later and ask for that money back... that's the logic I see in it... NONE

Thanks

Brandon

snipped-for-privacy@aol.comSPAMnot (Two23) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m20.aol.com:

Believe me, just because it is legal doesn't make it good policy.

It can be argued that they lost that right by not doing anything about it for 100 years...

Paul A. Cutler III

Hmmmm,

Coke is in the soft drink business. Try selling a Coke box car, Coke HO billboard, Coke key chain, Coke condom , etc without their permission.

Or do a Disney character series of box cars and tell Disney it's none of their business.

Methinks they'd disagree.

Mike Tennent "IronPenguin"

But of course those aren't models, are they? Awaiting your links to prototype photos of the Diet Coke boxcar or the Pluto reefer . . .

case ui.Name = "RecordCreated": case ui.Name = "LastChange":

So what? Nice. Is it their legal right to BAN any use of ALL roadnames on products? So what, no more decals, or decorated cars? And why not have ACF ban the use of any of their car shapes? No more hobby so what.

So what is a saying for losers and quitters.

But what does being a "model" have to do with it?

It's the trademark that would seem to matter.