See, this what I mean about the different rules. The
BNSF licensing program covers their COPYRIGHTED logos.
The logos can be both trademarked and copyrighted. The
UP (BNSF and others) went to the trouble of
copyrighting the predecessor logos. Don't let anyone
tell you otherwise, it is established law, the IP of
predecessor corporations is an asset of the sucessor
corporation unless reserved to another.
John D. Mitchell, Jr. Attorney at Law
--- Brian Chapman <cornbeltroute@aol.com> wrote:
> Randy, hi,
>
> > 1. The BNSF DOES have a licensing program and you
> DO need a license
> to produce goods bearing their marks including the
> CB&Q. The fee is
> very reasonable. <
>
> BNSF is entitled to trademark enforcement within the
> areas they do
> business: Transportation services, for one. As I
> understand it, if
> BNSF does not manufacture scale models it does not
> control that use.
> (Again, this and all else I write is a synthesis of
> what I've read
> from good sources, and I admit I could be wrong.)
>
> > 2. The UP can do whatever they want with their
> marks. It's their
> toys - their rules. <
>
> No, UP can not. This is the point. Some marks are
> not UP's.For
> example, CGW logos are not under UP auspices because
> it can be
> demonstrated the logo is not used to identify UP in
> today's
> transportation marketplace, a key to trademark
> protection. That UP is
> attempting to extend ownership to that to which it
> is not entitled
> creates much animosity.
>
> > 3. If you own intellectual property (IP) you must
> uniformly
> administer the management of that IP. You must treat
> everyone, and
> every mark, the same. What's good for one is good
> for another. No
> special treatment. And you can't claim something you
> don't own as
> yours. <
>
> And yet, others have written, UP in its licensing
> terms states it can
> cancel the agreement at will and at that time owns
> the tooling with
> which the products were made even though it has made
> no investment in
> those means of production. To my legally untrained
> ear, this sounds
> like theft.
>
> > 7. And if you make more money with your product by
> using the UP
> trademarks, shouldn't you pay for that enrichment of
> your product. <
>
> The question remains: What does Union Pacific own,
> and does it own
> all that it claims? As I understand it, these
> questions do not have
> clear answers.
>
> > 9. There are very few products that cannot be made
> to absorb a
> royalty. If their IP makes you more money, then pay
> for that use. If
> paying a royalty isn't an option, get out of the
> business. You're
> wasting you time and talent. <
>
> I would say, do not claim ownership over what is not
> yours. Obey the
> laws of the United States and the regulations posed
> by it through the
> US Trade and Patents Office. I obey these, and you
> should, too.
>
> I do not argue that UP can and should protect and
> control that which
> belongs to it. My argument is that UP should not lay
> claim to those
> things it does not own. That is the issue.
>
> > 10. And to the guy making signs, make them. The UP
> never copyrighted
> that material. If it contains their trademarks,
> that's another story.
> Get a license. <
>
> But, understand. UP appears to be making claims of
> ownership to
> things it does not own. To that person who makes
> signs uncopyrighted
> by UP, little good it will do him when UP lays claim
> to such and
> defends same in court. The little guy likely is
> destroyed.
>
> Brian Chapman
> Granger Roads
>
>
__________________________________
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/
|