Union Pacific Sues Athearn & Lionel

Union Pacific claims that Athearn and Lionel are commercially using their trademarks. Their trademarks are their property.

Reply to
Mark Mathu
Loading thread data ...

in article bZuvc.76432$ snipped-for-privacy@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com, Mark Mathu at snipped-for-privacy@mathu.com wrote on 6/2/04 6:15 PM:

Maybe it could, but it is more likely that t-shirt makers would do some sarcastic thing about UP than for Athearn or Lionel to do so, if UP were to scrutinize those uses more than, say, Athearn's, it would be justified.

And maybe the coffee mug industry could claim the same rights as Athearn et al: they've been freely using the UP and other logos for years without an enforcement activity on UP's part. If the court rules that any of these marks are in the public domain, the UP loses big time. But they have chosen this path, as Athearn and Lionel have chosen theirs. It is not up to the lawyers and the courts to sort it all out

Reply to
Edward A. Oates

in article v1vvc.76433$ snipped-for-privacy@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com, Mark Mathu at snipped-for-privacy@mathu.com wrote on 6/2/04 6:20 PM:

Unless they've allowed them to pass into the public domain.

Reply to
Edward A. Oates

You are mixing up terms here, you say "just", but we are talking "legally". Two very different conept. What a fair outcome would be is that ANY product that bears the UP name or logo should have to pay the fee, BUT not the markings/logos of what people refer to as "Fallen Flags" because those have been discontinued by UP.

Reply to
<Will

But how much justice can Lionel and Athearn afford? Bruce

Reply to
Bruce Favinger

I not taking anyone's side on this issue. You are correct when you say that justice and legality are two different things. A legal outcome can often be just but it can also be dependant upon money, skillful lawyers, and the disposition of whoever hears the case. All three parties involved are businesses and since lawyers are involved I think its safe to assume that idealism and principal at not major factors. If the money is as insignificant as many have concluded then what the hell is going on? Bruce

Reply to
Bruce Favinger

It is Neil Young not Diamond. Get your facts straight

Reply to
Marty Hall

"U.P. sues model train manufacturers over logos"

From the Omaha World-Herald Thursday, June 3, 2004

formatting link
Significant points: 1.) The lawsuit is over logos still in use. 2.) A Lionel official declined to comment on whether it had ever sued over trademark infringement under its licensing program.

Reply to
Mark Mathu

The fallen flag marks are by any sane standard long lost to the public domain. As for Uncle Pedophile's current marks and slogans I really don't care as I like neither them nor diesels, but I think their approach has exemplified the stupidity born of arrogance so typical of the modern corporation and its lackeys.

Down with the running dogs of greed!

Reply to
Steve Caple

If they did, bet they weren't suing a transportation company!

Reply to
Steve Caple

This is what the lawsuit is about.

Reply to
Mark Mathu

So which are you proposing? Just scrutinizing -- or specifically prohibiting?

Reply to
Mark Mathu

I am not going to argue this with you because you will not listen. Athearn and Lionel are challenging the claim of UP to the exclusive right to use and control certain items. UP has opted to defend their claim.

Just because you claim something does not make it so. You must be able to prove your claim. It is not up to me to prove that it is false, proof is your burden to bear as the claimant. Unless you can show proof, your claim can be ignored.

Athearn and Lionel have, in effect, challenged the claim of UP as being spurious. UP must now bear the burden of defending their claim and proving the truthfulness of it. If they fail to so do, then the claim will be dismissed and invalidated. If they succeed, The model railroad industry is in dire straits. Rather than type all night, I will refer you to this web site with whose author I share my sentiments completely.

formatting link
It is not a simple matter and there is no simple solution. There are precedents and issues that extend to a time before any of us were born. This issue will be a long time in the courts and the decision is not likely to please any faction.

Captain Handbrake

Reply to
Captain Handbrake

That is a part of the puzzle. The money is a trivial sum, but ceding control of the business to a strongarm partner is an issue. Once UP has control they can dictate what models can be made, when and by whom. Others will follow suit and you will only be able to purchase what the railroad companies will allow you to purchase. Think not? You'd better think again. Go read what Andy Harman wrote in his web site:

formatting link

Captain Handbrake

Reply to
Captain Handbrake

No doubt about that -- I used the word "claim" in my two-sentence message only to explain the UP side of the disagreement. "Claim" has a bit of ambiguity in it, and that's why there is a lawsuit. What I wrote (above) is the heart of the UP's claim.

But as I stated yesterday - I think the law is on the side of Union Pacific on this one.

Reply to
Mark Mathu

Why do you think this is so?

Regardless of the outcome, I feel that the MR industry has a bright future.

Reply to
Mark Mathu

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 23:55:18 GMT, Captain Handbrake@Atlantic Coast Line.com purred:

most certainly they are using the marks wrongfully. UP OWNS those symbols and others are profiting from them. It has nothing to do with what business any of them are in. If some company wanted to make a KFC marked train shouldn't they pay the company to use their markings and name? When a business changes hands the name and the "good will" which accrues to it has a dollar value and one must recompense the owner of said name for its use. This is an issue of the value of their property and others using it for profit.

And what mechanisms are those? Since Lionel and Athern did not respond to UP's requirements to use their property court is the only way to decide the issue.

In all likelihood given past decisions UP will win this one.

cat

Reply to
cat

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 08:06:11 GMT, Captain Handbrake@Atlantic Coast Line.com purred:

You have it reversed it is UP making the challenge to Athern and Lionel for stealing their property. It will be up to Lionel and Athern to prove they legally have possession of UP's intellectual properties.

Oh, bull. The trademark thing is not causing any legitimate harm. In fact it will be a help to smaller companies when it comes time to defend their names and designs from pirates since there will be a clear decision on the issue for lower courts to go by.

And I suppose he is an intellectual properties attorney? He isn't? Oh well then he is not the source you should be looking to. find an attorney, any attorney and you will have a much better chance of a useful comment than a layman. Copyright and trademark are among the most complex issues in law and have pitfalls the layman has no comprehension of.

cat

Reply to
cat

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 07:27:42 GMT, Steve Caple purred:

No but they did sue a kid using his own name, "Lionel", when he tried to start a self named band. They have VERY aggressively defended their name numerous times. They know they are improperly using another company's property because they have sued others for doing the same with their property. The idea that they can only sue other transportation companies is spurious. Their name and trademark is theirs regardless of what it appears on.

cat

Reply to
cat

The difference is that Lionel has defended their marks SINCE THE BEGINNING. This is what you are supposed to do when you are issued a trademark.

Union Pacific has not defended anything SINCE THE BEGINNING. They are just starting to in 2004.

That part I'm sure will be shown in court. Defending your mark is part of having a trademark. You must show you have used the mark and defended it. Lionel can say, whether you agree with it or not, that they have defended it. Just like Microsoft did to that kid in Canada last year. Union Pacific can not claim that fact.

Charles

Reply to
Charles P. Woolever

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.