(erielack) Re: Trademarks / Slightly off-topic...

[CRNFLKS_@_aol.com]

In a message dated 7/31/2005 5:33:08 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
erielack-owner_@_lists.elhts.org writes:
 
Interesting perspectives on trademarks.  I work for a major /  international 
food manufacturer (can you guess which one from my email  address??) and while 
I'm certainly no expert on trademark laws, I have had a  fair amount of 
experience in dealing with my company's trademark use and  the trademark usage of 
other companies in sales / marketing efforts.   Here's some of what I've 
learned over the years, which probably mirrors to some  degree the position of many 
other companies, perhaps even UP...
 
*  A trademark of a given company is THEIR property and typically  is viewed 
as an asset or potential asset (pretty obvious!);
 
* Generally the concern with "unauthorized" trademark use is something  which 
may represent poor taste and / or a poor or dangerous product or  service 
which could be detrimental to said company's image.  My  company's philosophy is 
that it take years to build a good reputation, but  only seconds to destroy it 
(especially in this day and age of 24/7, 365 non-stop  news media coverage 
which seems to focus primarily on the "negative" of  anything and everything); 
 
* Potential $$$ liability may result in a company's unauthorized trademark  
use that results in a product or service that harms a consumer.   And, right 
behind that comes that image / reputation concern again, with  your company's 
involvement continually reinforced with a loop from  CNN;
 
* As previously posted, motivation to license as another source of  
revenue... with Disney??  Most certainly, but they're somewhat unique in  the licensing 
world.  Coca Cola and NASCAR, too.  And there are a  couple of others as 
well.  But UP?  I doubt it!  With 250  million or so potential consumers in this 
country alone, how many of them  realistically gotta have something with a UP 
logo on it?  In my company's  case, the licensing fee is not as much as you 
might think, but if we are  going to authorize the use of our trademark to 
another company who will  ultimately profit from it, why not make at least something 
for ourselves to  cover administrative costs, etc. and maybe even some 
profit?   But, we're really in business to manufacture and sell food and to make a  
profit from this to meet shareholder expectations.  So, when it comes to  
licensing, what we really want is the final "yes" or "no" on how our  trademark(s) 
will be used by an outside third party to ensure it's in keeping  with our 
company's image and values, and to keep us out of harm's way  (legally).  Not 
sure what UP is charging Athearn (Horizon) and  other manufacturers but if it's 
another $0.25, $0.50 or even a  bit more per $15.00 model, I would think you'd 
have to sell a heck of a lot  of UP models to impact UP's bottom line based 
on their annual gross  revenue.  Brass models may command a lot more, but unit 
sales volume will  be far less than mainstream models so net-net effect won't 
be that  impactful.  Again, is the market there for UP-logo'd  products?  I 
realize there's lots of UP / western road interest  out there, but I doubt the 
bottom line $$ impact, so UP "corporate  greed" is probably not the motivating 
force here.
 


* One of the real benefits of trademark-use authorization is the amount of  
consumer impressions you (hopefully) gain outside your "normal" business  
venue... and / or the value you gain by partnering with a topflight  company.  It 
can be difficult to place a $$ value on these,  but it's a strong point of 
consideration by many companies;
 
Again, the above may or may not fit UP's motives, but I'd bet a lot of  them 
do.  Someone posted earlier that model companies should have seen this  coming 
and I agree with that, but we all have 20/20 hindsight.  With  respect to 
trademark usage, just because something has gone along merrily for  many years 
unchecked and then suddenly changes does not NECESSARILY make the  company in 
question (UP) bad, evil, or greedy.  Perhaps they are just  tightening up their 
own housekeeping and getting up to date.  The fact  is lots other companies 
have been doing this for many  years.  Maybe previous UP management, or even 
current management, turned a  blind eye to it, but that doesn't mean a change in 
their direction now is  motivated by greed.  With ever-increasing lawsuits, 
it's c.y.a.  time!  There's nothing like a big juicy corporation as a target!  
From  what I remember reading, UP's approach to this change could have been  
handled better on the public-relations side, so there's a rub there for  some of 
us.  And, we don't like it because ultimately we will pay  something more for 
their models, if we CHOOSE to purchase them at all, so  there's a bigger rub 
for those who choose to buy.  
 
I realize there's concern that other railroads of today may  follow suit, 
which could impact the availability / cost of E-L and predecessor  roads "stuff" 
(required content met??) which will really hit close to  home.  Time will 
tell, I guess. 
 
Just one man's experience / thoughts / opinions here... 






	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org

------------------------------