Re: US - CMO 10389, "Omaha Road" covered hopper, Hempstead, Texas, 07:29 April 8, 2005

Read it here -- their claim for licensing them IS NOT that the logos (trademarks) are still in use; their claim for licensing them is that THEY OWN the logos.

Brian, Because while we may be thinking about the UP claims in terms of legitimate or not legitimate they are probably thinking in terms of what is possible. Bruce

There's also some Rio Grande repaints, and at least one WP 50' boxcar with the "UP Overland Express" herald.

Please do not post binaries (aka pictures) to this group, rec.models.railroad. This is a text-only group.

Thank you.

Paul A. Cutler III Deputy Sheriff

That contradicts what Brian claims.

But it's not the first time.

Does the CMO hopper in the thread title have a herald? Nooooooooooooooo.

No it doesn't.

I fail to see how one car without a herald can be used to justify the statement: > They are NOT using the old HERALDS and PAINT SCHEMES. > How, then, can they legitimately claim license fees if their > claim is that they are still in use?

The UP's claim for licensing IS NOT that the logos (trademarks) are still in use; their claim for licensing them is that THEY OWN the logos. Is the UP trying to license models of the CMO covered hopper?

At the risk of really mixing things, that's pure dog in the manger chickenshit.

Are you saying they don't own the logos which they either developed, or purchased when they merged other railroads?

"Mark Mathu" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

I think the point is why should they be so tight-assed about the use of obsolete/retired logos they will never use again? Particularly when the model RR market is so (relatively) small.

Not so small when you add in t-shirts, coffee mugs, baseball caps, pens, china, sheets, pillow cases, clocks, watches and anything else that a logo can be slapped on and sold.

Ahh, Norman, look out, you'll run afoul of the Corporate Ownership is Everything Taliban.

Wonder what's going to happen to the retirement funds of United Airlines board and top executives? We know the regular employees are going to take it in the shorts, and what little they Do get we'll all be paying for via the PBGC. (Privileged Boards' Golden Chute?)

Same for Delta, I'm afraid.

They need to demonstrate a reasonably consistent history of defending their Trademarks. If they have let everyone use them for years without question then they *should* lose the right to control. How long they have neglected their ownership, and how much money an opponent will spend to demonstrate that, are critical factors. The fact that they haven't used the property is of much less importance.

Paul

Hey -- they own it, it's theirs, they can do what they want with it.

Assuming that it's true that they own it, you're right.

However, there is a VERY good case that the "fallen flags" trade/service marks have been abandoned, and thus are not only not theirs, but can be used for any purpose by anyone. Read the law for details.

Deciding who is right is going to be a matter of deep pockets.

It sure seems that we disagree on this topic (which is fine)... but based on your reply I can assume that you don't question the fact that the UP owns the logos in question?