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 23:58:56 -0000
Delivered-to: archives@nauer.org
Delivered-to: mailing list BRHSlist@yahoogroups.com
In-reply-to: <bs2j21+n660@eGroups.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
Randy, thank you for the information. I hope the list will put up 
with a few questions resulting from your last post (I hope you will, 
too).

>> . . . if BNSF does not manufacture scale models it does not 
control that use <<

> That is not true. Coke and John Deere aren't in the toy business.
Athearn had to sign licensing agreements to manufacture Deere
trainsets. <

Athearn willing signed to prevent confrontation or "had to" sign 
under clear stipulations of the law? 

>> 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 . . . <<

> 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. <

If trademarks are personal property, what is the purpose of trademark 
law and copyright law? Or, is it the case once well-defined areas of 
law have, with time, merged, mucking up simple understanding of these 
issues for lay people such as myself? Is personal property law like a 
blanket; it covers nearly all of the body, but trademark and 
copyright "toes" stick out from under? 

> 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. <

Well, yes. Is the failure to manage a trademark a form of management? 
That is, does the UP control trademarks of predecessor roads? For 
decades it has made no moves to do so. Does that not mean something 
legally? Or, are you saying, UP is now moving to control its current-
day trademarks as well as those of the past, that is, treating all 
the same, under the same policy umbrella?

> No one has to surrender their tooling. I saw this idea on the other
lists. And it just ain't so. <

I would feel much better about this if you say you have read lately 
UP's terms for licensing. It has been some time since I've done so. 
In the age of Enron and corporate practices that engineer multi-
million dollar golden parachutes as well as many other scurrilous 
practices, many common citizens just are not trusting. I am one of 
those.

>> 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. <

I repeat, in the age of Enron and scurrilous corporate 
practices. . . .

>> 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. <

Ah, yes. I will not submit to the invasive, intrusive "inquisition" 
of my personal affairs that UP required last I read its licensing 
requirements. I cannot do it. The makeup of my personality will not 
allow it. Am I the only owner of a cottage industry who will not 
submit to a proctology exam performed by UP agents?

Union Pacific's demands somehow remind me of good King George's 
quartering policies along the eastern seaboard some years ago. It was 
an imposition not to be tolerated.

>> 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. <

So, copyright law not to say personal property law has nothing to say 
about structures, signs and other such items designed and built by 
railroad employees? UP certainly is laying claim after the fact when 
it comes to fallen flag logos which previously it has shown no 
interest in. Or, again, are we talking only trademark law. But, 
trademark law falls under personal property law, and. . . .

Almost as much as what you say, I appreciate how you say it. Thank 
you for your politeness.

Brian Chapman
Granger Roads




 

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/8ZCslB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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>