Something Non-Controversial :-)

I've gotten bored with George Sellios, and don't really want to beat
on another Malcolm Furlow thread either, and I've already said what I
think a model railroad is.
So how about Bob Hundman's August Mainline editorial?
It's about the UP licensing fiasco. It's well written, and this one
time I pretty much am with Bob 100%. Maybe a few elements of degree
here or there I could quibble with, but for the most part he stated
the case very well. It really comes down to two points:
1) He disputes, and I think rightfully so, UP's claim to any of the
fallen flags trademarks it no longer uses.
2) He does not dispute UP's right to it's current trademark, only the
one-sided licensing agreement, and in particular questions its
validity because UP is profiting without investment.
I predict this will be settled, favorably for the model RR industry,
within six months. The only ones who will probably be unhappy will be
the handful of manufacturers who were part of the "first wave of
surrender", who will end up looking pretty silly.
Some things are worth a little fight, even if the other side is
"right". Right and smart don't always go hand in hand.
Andy
-----------------------------------------------------------
formatting link
- Pre-Interstate Urban Archaeology
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reply to
Andy Harman
Loading thread data ...
I always understood 'trade marks' to be valid only in the trade they were registered for, so nobody else can use UP as their mark in the transport business. The model rly business is not the same trade, and neither are the manufacturers using UP as their trade mark, that is Athearn etc. Possibly there can be a claim under copyright law but I still see a model as in principle the same as a photograph, just in 3D. Are UP claiming royalties from book publishers and Trains magazine?
Here in the UK when our brave new privatised railway operators tried this licensing scam our Model manufacturers fell over themselves to sign up in the hope of getting benefit from 'exclusive' deals. As a result the concept has yet to be challenged, even in principle let alone in court which is effectively ruled out by costs.
Keith Make friends in the hobby. Keith Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Reply to
Keith Norgrove
WOW!!! I hadn't realized that two weeks had already passed since we last dispensed Model Railroader Law.
Lets see now, rmr has been at this pretty much non stop since late November 2002. Is anything new?
Nope.
CTucker NY
Reply to
Christian
The CNW did keep the fallen flags active, they had some MOW boxcars that were lettered for the various predessor roads.
There cars were converted in the 1980s with new paintjobs.
Also every now and then we will see CGW cars in service
snip
-Hudson
Reply to
Hudson Leighton
I would not see that as keeping trademarks active, MOW cars are not carrying customers goods and reporting marks are not the same thing as trade marks. To keep a trade mark active would you not have to do business in that name. If they advertised for business in that name and included it on the invoice it would be active but need never appear on any cars. Keith
Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.
Reply to
Keith Norgrove
Keith,
A key element in protecting the rights to these logo's is using them. The insurance company that is what is left of Penn Central has put PC, NH, PRR & NYC logo's and histories in their annual shareholder document. Someone tried to take the PRR keystone logo a few years ago by incorporating themselves as the PRR company; claiming that over 17 years had passed and there was no active protection of the logo. That same person then tried to shake down manufacturer's for license fees. That is when the current owner of PC rights gave him a 'cease & desist' order, using the shareholder annual report as proof that they were protecting the rights to the logo's. So, the bottom line is not that you need to display the logo on a revenue car. There are many other avenues tha twill satisfy the courts.....
Jim Bernier
Keith Norgrove wrote:
Reply to
Jim Bernier

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.