[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
RE: (erielack) Slgihtly off-topic...
OK, you historically minded types, who want to see old paint schemes revived because they look nice,
don't get it. As Will said, this is being done ONLY to make more credible (and it's a pretty sorry
attempt) UP's claim to "ownership" and "Trademark" status for the fallen flag marks being shown on
these locomotives. We had an exchange about this recently. UP is attempting to extort (yes, that
IS the right word) money from the model manufacturers, and decal makers, if they should have the
nerve to make models decorated for UP, or any of those roads you see there, as well as those shown
on their website.
http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/licensing/index.shtml
Scroll down a ways to see all the marks they're claiming. And to understand that they're serious
about this:
http://www.imclicensing.com/April_15_2005.html
The amounts UP requires aren't much, but that's not the point. A trademark, or a logotype, is
properly protected against someone else using the same mark on their equipment so as to cause
confusion about their product. I bought some shoes today, Bass Weejuns, to be exact. Now, nobody
else can use "Bass" or "Weejuns" . .. >>>>> ON SHOES<<<<< . . . because those are trademarks
belonging to the shoe company. Somebody can use "Bass" on a bottle of beer (Gee, somebody HAS!!)
but that's not a problem, because nobody thinks that the shoe company also makes beer. Right?
Now, nobody who's realistic thinks that the Union Pacific Railroad actually makes model trains.
Right? And especially, nobody thinks that the Western Pacific Railroad is still around, but now
they only make little trains, right? Rio Grande? Nope. Alton & Southern? Let's be serious.
In the last year or so, the Supreme Court ruled that, unlike previously, the complainer (I think
that's the "plaintiff") has to show in court that the person also using the mark ( that would be the
"Defendant") has actually harmed the business of the complainer by using the mark. Now, nobody has
wanted to take on UP, with its legions of in-house legal "talent" (though this nonsense seems to
suggest that "talent" might not be the right term to use.) in a court battle. It's too bad, because
I have to believe that UP would be VERY hard pressed to make a credible claim that, say, Athearn
(who has signed onto the licensing program so they don't count) has >>harmed the business<< of the
UP by using their logotypes in decorating a model locomotive or car or much of anything else.
The UP is co-opting those firms that sign the agreement. One importer of brass models signed on,
and in turn they get unlimited access to drawings & prototype equipment so as to make their models
more accurate. I expect Athearn gets the same deal. Does that make it right? IMHO, no, but some
of you might think that if I get a better model out of it, so what? It's only a few bucks. In the
case of a plastic box car model, it probably is about 25c or so, but on a brass model in the $800
range, it's probably $10-12 bucks. So, the UP gets rich(er) because you decided you wanted to buy
that decorated model of the Cotton Belt SD-40.
For those that want to follow this more closely, and to be better informed about it, consider
joining the Yahoo list: "Licen"
All this makes me annoyed, and I think UP is being stupid about this. But there is one thing about
this that really makes me see red: One of those images they're trademarking is THE AMERICAN FLAG!
They can't do that. It belongs to US!!
SGL
> -----Original Message-----
> From: erielack-owner_@_lists.elhts.org
> [mailto:erielack-owner_@_lists.elhts.org] On Behalf Of Dlw1el2@aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 3:26 PM
> To: paultup_@_optonline.net; erielack@lists.railfan.net
> Subject: Re: (erielack) Slgihtly off-topic...
>
>
> In a message dated 7/30/2005 1:36:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight
> Time, paultup_@_optonline.net writes:
>
> Everything old is new again!
>
> http://members.cox.net/amflyer/UP1982R.jpg
> http://members.cox.net/amflyer/UP1983.jpg
> http://members.cox.net/amflyer/UP1983R.jpg
> http://members.cox.net/amflyer/UP1982-1983.jpg
>
>
>
> I"m impressed. Can't wait to see 1984, 85, etc
> etc........... :) I
> suspect the CNW guys are saying we better be soon.
>
> To bad certain other eastern roads couldn't take a hint from this.
>
> Bob
>
>
> The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
> Sponsored by the ELH&TS
> http://www.elhts.org
>
The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
Sponsored by the ELH&TS
http://www.elhts.org
------------------------------