Hi,
Brian, I beg to differ with several things.
--- In BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Chapman" <cornbeltroute@a...>
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.)
That is not true. Coke and John Deere aren't in the toy business.
Athearn had to sign licensing agreements to manufacture Deere
trainsets. I saw this idea formed on the other sites that have tried
to rewrite copyright definitions by its members. You own it, you can
do whatever you want with it. don;t believe a wor dof this thinking.
It is dead flat 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.
But you have forgotten it is still their personal property and subject
to loads of case law dealing with personal property rights. It's just
not about copyright and trademark law or a yahoogroup interpretation.
> > 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.
No one has to surrender their tooling. I saw this idea on the other
lists. And it just ain't so. And for UP to think for one minute that I
would send them these items is ludicrous. There is no case law that
will support this thinking IF they tried to do this. Frankly, even
though it's the Holiday Season, I'd tell them to shove it, sue me. You
can't glom onto other people's property and not have someone call you
on it.
> > 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.
I wholeheartedly agree. They have laid claim to logos that adorned the
Mayflower. 1800+ prior roads. I asked them whether they even had a
list of those roads. They don't. And lots of that art would be public
domain.
>
> > 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.
I agree. That and audited financials from cottage industries are the
issues.
> > 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.
Wrong theory. They can't lay claim after the fact. "Oh, and by the way
we want a royalty for the signs along the ROW." If that sign doesn't
have UP logo on it, make it. They don't have time to screw around on a
frivolous lawsuit or frivolous claims. And that's what this is.
This commotion WILL die, albeit not soon.
Randy Danniel
MP206
>
> Brian Chapman
> Granger Roads
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/
|