Union Pacific Sues Athearn & Lionel

As always, you get as much justice as you can afford.

Steve Caple wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@netnews.comcast.net:

So then my initial observation ("isn't that tantamount to rigging the jury") WAS closer to the truth than I suspected ...

Oh well ...

Excellent! Can you provide the name and citation of a case holding that "external utilization" makes a trademark enforceable "in all areas"?

Interesting. Can you give me an example of such a case?

Sure. The UP's Bob Turner made that claim when interviewed by CBS News last December. I'd be happy to provide you with a copy of the tape or a transcript if you like.

Of course they could. That's the whole point. They could also represent that their line of models was made by (or for) the Union Pacific railroad -- a claim that no one else can make, and which no other company DOES make.

The Olde Reprobate

I don't believe it, Marty finally said something I agree with. I say, make up your own line. One of the fellows in our train club calls his model RR, the Nome Valley Lines. He custom letters all his rolling stock. I will be re-lettering all my rolling stock with "Credit Valley".

Or thought it was implied by what was written there.

Boy, that is sure dumb, doesn't he know that jury rigging is done all the time in the USA. That is how their system works. It is supposed to be a jury of your peers, but lawyers always work it that it is a jury who thinks the way the lawyers think, not the defendents.

The USA, best judicial system money can buy.

Yes, it was, but any American will argue you all day over semantics.

wrote in news:_Rjwc.6669$ snipped-for-privacy@read1.cgocable.net:

Hey, I thought us Dutch had that perfected ... guess you guys inherited SOME heritage from us after all :-D

So the jury insultants pick some really mallable personalities and the UP attorneys try to mold them with some bizarre reasoning!? It's worked in the past.

Paul

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 19:35:45 GMT, DaveW purred:

Far from it. You are thinking criminal trials. In my experience when a civil, action opts for a jury, they want a larger settlement than a Judge is likely to give.

cat

Gosh, I am tempted to copy that into my tagline files for future use. :-{)

As evidenced by the OJ trial and acquittal.

No. That means getting folks that may be sympathetic to your way of thinking. Or, minimize those that aren't. Neutral folks may sound good, but can be unpredictable.

Interesting that it's supposedly a "Jury of your Peers". I doubt an Inner City Gang Banger's peers are elderly white-bread suburbanites...

:D

Kennedy

That's easy to say if you're an impartial observer, but if you're fighting for your life, or trying to get what you consider justice, it's a fair concept. Just as if you were on trial because of an accident involving kids, you wouldn't want a jury full of soccer Moms. Alternately, if you were suing a big corporation for damages, you wouldn't want a jury comprised of CEOs....

Kennedy

Rick Jones wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

Feel free to use it. Here is another one: "Religion, politics, and economics are three subjects in which everybody, his brother, and their dog think themselves expert. And, the less that they really know, or the drunker they are, the more that they think they know."

But isn't this a BIG Corporation suing a little business:-) Donald

It having been noted that:

It was suggested that:

Perhaps, but other factors are involved. There are strict time limits for requesting a jury trial -- and if you don't make a timely request, you'll have waived your right to a jury. As a result, at least ONE of the parties usually makes such a request. If both sides later agree to waive a jury, the case can be heard by the court (FRCP Rule 38).

In this case, there's a pretty good reason for the UP to ask for a jury trial . . . the case is pending in federal court in Omaha.

The Olde Reprobate

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:51:04 -0500, "Jim Hill" purred:

I hadn't noted the venue. Indeed, If I were UP I would want a jury from that area, too.

cat

On 06 Jun 2004 01:52:18 GMT, Kennedy (no longer not on The Haggis!) purred:

Exactly. It is just experts assisting on the system used in every jury trial. The theory is it gives you a better chance than if the regular attorney (who is not a behaviourist or psychologist which is part of who the consultants are) picks the jury. Otherwise it is the procedure followed in all trials, just jury selection just in this case the attorney has the benefit of expert advice on who to challenge.

cat