The rules for "trademarks" and "copyrights' differ
greatly and are very technical. Presumably the UP
holds both the copyright and trademark on their logos.
We lawyers call that "belt and suspenders". I am also
sure the BNSF has these tricks up their sleeves. They
just have not decided that it is in their corporate
best interests to follow the UP's lead (and CSX and
others). If they think the PR value, of the present
practice, is out weighed by the bucks to be turned by
selling licenses, STANDBY FOR THE RAM. If you think
the BNSF's lawyers are just a bunch of fun fellows and
nice guys, I invite you to attend a law school, of
your choice, for a few days! And one other thing, if
the UP was not making money, on this program, they
would not be doing it. They don't pay dividends, to
their stockholders, by being stupid.
John
--- gaedgar66 <vje68@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From a purely selfish standpoint I'd like to see
> steep fees on UP models to drive 'undecideds' & new
> modelers to the Hill roads BUT I
> also hate to see fellow modelers lose out. However
> if Atlas & others do not put all the license fee on
> their UP products but 'spread it
> around', then it does hit home ASSUMING it is
> significant. The UP PR release (tks Brad) said
> "pennys" for a model but when I
> searched their site I could not find specifically
> how much a model such as the Atlas SD-24 is
> affected; Charlie or anyone else in the
> business know? Which brings up the Burlington.
> Well into the 1900's, the Burlington had NOT
> registered "Burlington Route" as a
> trademark despite it's use for several decades. A
> big federal court case resulted when they tried to
> stop a Chicago cigar distributor
> from selling BR brand cigars. I suspect it was an
> issue for the Q as they themselves had cigars
> branded CB&Q for sale on their trains
> - the issue might not have come up if it had just
> been Ives or Lionel models with CB&Q lettering. The
> Burlington won the case but the
> question remains (I leave this for John or other
> atty's in this group): if a "name" is not
> trademarked/licensed for 'x' # of yrs, when does
> it enter the public domain & become a freebie (as
> has happened to several "brands" over the years).
> In the case of UP, did they
> register C&NW (& M&StL by default, etc) etc when
> they acquired them (assuming said names had not been
> registered by C&NW or
> M&StL atty's years before)? If not registered til
> recently, are names such as C&NW available without
> license if someone wants to
> play hardball with UP?
> In any case, CB&Q fans (& all non-UP family road
> modelers) seem to tbe in the clear unless those UP
> fees are significant and you & I
> pay them indirectly when buying an Atlas SD-24, etc.
>
> (as for that Q court case, have a copy of the entire
> proceedings which will be used in a future
> "Collectibles" column in the BRHS
> Zephyr on the question of how & when CB&Q names &
> slogans began, etc for dating purposes - quite a
> fascinating story but then
> most things about the Q are, right!?). Gerald
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BRHSlist/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
BRHSlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|