BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

[BRHSlist] Re: Licensing trademarks: Q & UP

To: BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [BRHSlist] Re: Licensing trademarks: Q & UP
From: "Brian Chapman" <cornbeltroute@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 15:19:00 -0000
Delivered-to: archives@nauer.org
Delivered-to: mailing list BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <12c.38149046.2d1510ca@aol.com>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:BRHSlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Mailing-list: list BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com; contact BRHSlist-owner@yahoogroups.com
Reply-to: BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com
User-agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
> I know from a reliable manufacturer, that the fee's arent all that 
high. But they arent allowed to discuss the reats UP charges them.
Adam <

Adam, others, hi,

A couple of things: 1) The LICEN group at yahoo was established to 
discuss the model licensing issue and nothing more. Interesting 
reading there. 2) The Union Pacific application form requesting 
licensing is insultingly invasive. It requires personal information 
be submitted that I would hesitate giving to a family doctor. So, 
beyond UP's legal right to do so (which, I understand, is 
questionable when it comes to certain facets of its claims), I object 
strenuously to the way in which the company has gone about this 
business.

We own a startup fine scale modelmaking company. We've made a 
considerable investment in it, but I recognize that this is our 
problem and not UP's. I am concerned, though, that UP is far 
overreaching its legal claims and, in doing so, imperils many small 
businesses.

One example: We have ACF manufacturer general assembly drawings of 
the 19k gallon tank produced in the mid-1950s and used by a number of 
railroads in company service. If we offer this tank commercially, 
even though as an undec, would the fact that it was in UP company 
service make us liable to UP's licensing policies? One opinion I've 
read said that it just might.

Another example: We are producing interlocking towers for each of the 
granger railroads our business intends to focus on. Master patterns 
have been created from brass etchings and castings will be made in 
hydrocal. The first four tower etchings are in hand -- CB&Q's 
Seminary Street tower (Galesburg), CNW's Beverly Junction tower 
(Cedar Rapids), CGW's Tower A (Waterloo), and Rock Island's Short 
Line tower (Des Moines).

UP is making claim to predecessor logos and identities (although a 
strong argument is made it is not within its legal right to do so). 
Will this also extend to predecessor architecture? Will UP attempt to 
require licenses for us to produce CGW and CNW buildings long gone 
from view?

A last example: We wish to produce, via etchings, lineside markers 
such as flanger signs, mileposts, yard limit signs, etc., for each of 
our focus railroads: CB&Q, C&NW, CGW, CMStP&P, CRI&P, IC, M&StL and 
Soo. We hope these offerings would aid prototype modelers to create 
the appearance and atmosphere of their favorite road on their 
layouts. Will UP claim ownership of these items, too (that is, those 
of its predecessors)?

UP-created uncertainties will seriously impact the cottage businesses 
that allow prototype modelers to go about their hobby. Sincerely,

Brian Chapman
Granger Roads
Cedar Rapids, Iowa

(I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV . . . <g)


---


 

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/ 



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>