UP and lawsuits

The following from the defense which I read to mean Lionel for example has been using this for 75 years, just one example.
------------------------------------------ Fifth Affirmative Defense 103. Plaintiff has abandoned the “Union Pacific ”word mark,and all or part of one or more of the marks pleaded in the Complaint ,by permitting the uncontrolled use thereof by numerous third parties over many years, and, through naked licensing. -----------------
The follow mean in my non lawyer thoughts that Union Pacific is simply two words without any particular reason to make it distinctive. ---------------------- Sixth Affirmative Defense 104. Plaintiff ’s “Union Pacific ” word mark, and all or part of one or more of the marks pleaded in the Complaint , are not inherently distinctive, and are not entitled to protection against dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). ---------------------------------------------------
and it goes on and on -------------------------- Seventh Affirmative Defense 106. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive or monetary relief under any circumstances for Defendant ’s activities within Canada, or in other countries abroad, where Plaintiff does not hold trademark rights, and/or which are not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. ------------------------
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What is naked licensing?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Got me, someone who's a lawyer will have to reply to this one! This from the net;
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/naked.html
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ahhh... it sound like they were licensing UNION PACIFIC but not actually following through to insure that it was being used by outside parties in a way that wasn't harmful; in effect they weren't protecting the trademark against misuse -- and therefore could be considered as having quit using the trademark.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mike Hughes wrote: [...]

A trademark has real monetary value ***, and its owner does not want its value diluted by similar trademarks in similar or competing businesses. The courts have upheld the principle that a trademark infringes on another trademark owner's rights if used in such a way as to "cause confusion in the mind of the buyer" (or words to that effect.) Thus, using a trademark similar to UP's in the transportation business would be clear case of infringement. For example. suppose you founded a trucking company, and called it Utica Pacific Transport. Sofar, not much of problem. But suppose you mark your trucks using UP's red lettering on a yellow background to spell out "Utica Pacific": you would be in trouble. If you used "UP" in red on a yellow background, you'd be in real trouble.
Whether a model or toy train actually infringes on UP's trademarks is not clear. Rulings on how far trademark protection can extend beyond a company's core-business have been ambiguous. IMO, UP is going too far, since no one would confuse a toy or model train with the real thing. OTOH, with the advent of sponsored models for collectors (eg, Coca Cola, John Deere), UP's rights may well be infringed. Also, railroad companies have sponsored or produced calendars and other publications in the past. UP's explanation seems to be that they don't want cheesy or sleazy models decorated for UP, nor do they want a substandard publication showing their trains. A judge could well agree with them, if it gets that far.
Of course, maintaining trademark rights and charging licensing fees is not the same thing. UP could license its trademarks for free, and charge the costs of the paperwork to advertising. But I suspect some careerist s.o.b. somewhere deep in the bowels of the organisation saw an opportunity to rise above the s**t in which he wallowed, and proposed licensing as a moneymaker. Now UP is stuck with paying his salary and the costs of his office staff....
***Footnote: Here in Canada, Nestle has dropped the original makers' names on its chocolate bars, but still marks them Mars, Coffee Crisp, KitKat, etc. On some specialty items intended for niche markets, it's even kept the original maker's name, eg, Cadbury's Dairy Box, sold AFAIK only at Christmastime. Good illustration of the value of a trademark, I think. Good chocolate bars, too :.)
HTH
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No... you'd own the copyright to the photos you took.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
??? If it is that simple, then why can't I take a picture of a picture that was taken by a professional photographer? Even if it is for my personal use.
dlm

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan Merkel spake thus:

Who said anything about prohibitions on reproduction for personal use? Anybody can walk into a self-service copy shop and copy whatever pictures they want for their personal use. (You just can't copy stuff like money, passports, driver licenses, etc.; you know, the kind of stuff you suspect in the back of your mind you shouldn't copy anyway.)
Sheesh, the level of ignorance about copyright law and licensing is waaay high.

--
Every American is full of Cheney's buckshot.

- Sign on the Grand-Lake Theater, Oakland, CA, Feb. 14, 2006
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Have you tried to copy (for personal use and backup) a DVD lately?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:11:08 GMT, "Dan Merkel"

Because such a photographer (like Nils) will have copyrighted the photo.
--

"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement
of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mountain Goat spake thus:

You can still take a picture of the picture; you just can't sell, distribute or publish it. You can frame it and put it on your wall if you like.
--
Every American is full of Cheney's buckshot.

- Sign on the Grand-Lake Theater, Oakland, CA, Feb. 14, 2006
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think that would be "birdshot". Of course you maybe right.Cheney may prefer to hunt birds with buckshot, you know .........shock and awe and all that. Bruce
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

prefer to hunt birds with buckshot, you know < A couple of questions. First is that in many states lead shot is not allowed so was the load in Dick's gun steel? Second the news reported his gun as a 28 gauge. While I have a 410 I'm not aware of a 28 gauge shotgun. I do know that bird shot is probably available in any bore size including a 22!
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:07:44 -0800, Jon Miller wrote:

It's slightly smaller than a 20 gauge - bore a little over 1/2 inch, compared to a 20 ga being over 5/8 inch - but substantially larger than a .410 (which for a change is known by its actual bore measurement, rather than how many round balls of that bore could be made from a pound of lead) which would be somewhere around a 68 gauge.
So a 28 ga is not as common as a 12 or 20 ga; when I was a kid there were a fair number of 16 ga shotguns around, but they're relatively uncommon these days, too.
A 28 ga might be considered a little wimpy, but then what do you expect from a gang that avoided combat, if not military service altogether in Cheney's case, while becoming expert in accusing others of being "soft on defense"?
--
Steve

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Steve, I understand 28 gauge is excellent for a load of chickenshot. Bruce
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:36:12 GMT, Bruce Favinger wrote:

Well, there's certainly a lot of that in Tejas.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Caple spake thus:

Hey, remember Johnny Winter?
"There's so much shit in Texas, you're bound to step in some."
--
To the arrogant putzes at NBC:

Do we call the country Italia? Is its capital Roma?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 19:05:29 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote:

Naaah, sorry, by that logic we'll be calling Livorno "Leghorn" - something only a bunch of pig ignorant arrogant Royal Navy types could have come up with. Never too late to broaden your horizons.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unfortunately its spread out all over the county.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A 28 gauge is a finesse gun... it's no wonder Steve isn't familiar with it.
--
Evaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all cars
by the example of Yugos.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.