.
QUOTE: Risk of loss may be less for established marks, but it's still there. The length of time that UP has failed in its obligation to enforce its marks can certainly work to Lionel's favor. And I know Statute of Limitations doesn't apply to trademarks, but in law in general, there are limitations on lesser offenses as to how long someone can wait after being ”wronged” and still bring a lawsuit. That was a response to what I read as a broad “...wait too long to enforce rights....” - my mistake. But even “famous”entities can lose marks to abandonment. Ford recently lost “GT40” and “Futura”, first registered by Ford back in the 50's and 60's, as applied to autos and related parts. Ruling was that Ford could show no “intent to renew” after those car models were dropped and the marks fell into abandonment from non-use. Ford snoozed, and then “loozed”. And I believe you brought up estoppel and laches in another thread that could work to Lionel's favor - none of us knows what Lionel might have hiding in their files from years back. Obviously each side thinks they've got a solid case.
QUOTE: Looking at the overall summaries of contested patents and trademarks handled by the PTO, not considering just “famous” or “valuable” ones. There are many thousands each year, with varying outcomes. Although technically, alot fewer actually go beyond the PTO to court. And no, I don't think returning the money after it's stolen negates the criminal act, but using the term “stealing” when referring to the unauthorized use of IP such as trademarks can be misleading (or should that be misunderstood?), since tangible property is not being taken from the owner thus preventing the owner access to or use of it. Theft of tangible property is criminal, while I believe infringement of the rights of the IP holder is treated differently. Monetary damages can be assessed if harm to the value of the trademark has been determined to occur. Then again, things can get really complicated if some other criminal activity is associated with the infringement. Oh man! Here comes that migrane again!
QUOTE: No, only on big corporations trying to cover up their failures to meet business obligations by bullying and extorting smaller ones. And perhaps I would buy some stock in UP to vote the directors out if I was a lawyer or highly-paid exec with money rolling in hand-over-fist, but I'm just a lowly under-paid peon, so I'll have to stick to voicing my thoughts and opinions on discussion forums like this. So now we're really starting to get off-topic. We'll just have to agree to disagree on who's the villian and who's the “innocent” in this case. Although in reality, both sides have at least a little of each in them. Considering the recent addition of dilution to trademark law, and the limited number of cases that have referenced it, this case could end up being a landmark case if it goes far enough!
QUOTE: However, the case law on that issue interprets the law and says that the risk of loss is far less for an established mark like UPs. And the little thing you called Statute of Limitation doesn't apply to trademark infringement since marks can stay active indefinitely. So no snoozing here!
QUOTE: Where to start?? Frankly, I don’t know from where you get your statistics, but according to the PTO it doesn't happen all that often with valuable patents; as for copyrights Disney just had congress extend the time period so that Mickey is not drawn doing something weird to Pluto. Once again the same thing applies to trademarks; sure if a business goes under then they don’t pay to continue the mark, but that rarely happens with famous marks like UPs. STOLEN we obviously have a different take on theft of Intellectual Property as being a stolen right where damages are presumed by the courts. Maybe you think that if you steal money from a bank in a Robbery; that if you give the money back to the bank the next day that no crime has occurred. Not true. That UP waited so long doesn't necessarily bar their rights for an action against someone infringing on their rights in the past.
QUOTE: So it's Okay to pick on big corporations. Well you got me there; If you really don't like what UP is doing buy UP voting stock and enough of it so that you can vote these so-called evil minded UP directors OUT. By the way when you do your stock will likely be worth less because UP isn't pursuing its rights that will ultimately decrease the profits for UP
QUOTE: Actually, trademark law says just that. If the owner doesn't actively use AND protect the trademark, they risk losing exclusivity. And as far as common law in general, there's this little thing called "The Statute of Limitations" that precludes untimely prosecution for certain levels or degrees of offenses. So in effect, if you snooze, you CAN loose. UP has waited over 50 years to begin enforcing it's trademark rights with regard to use on model trains - that's a long time snoozing
QUOTE: Frankly, it happens all the time because people don't follow the proper patent, copyright, trademark, etc. procedures, and the courts have upheld that they are s@*! out of luck. UP hasn't lost or had any money STOLEN from them by Lionel's use of their logos if they haven't previously required that Lionel pay for the use. Lionel hasn't STOLEN from UP by using the UP trademark to directly compete with UP in the area of transportation services. Lionel is the one that has invested money and effort directly in molds, paint masks, etc. to produce replicas of train items (some with UP markings). UP is the one trying to profit off Lionel's successful manufacture and marketing of quality model trains that display accurate/historical markings, now that they see there's "free" money to be made from licensing - something they've ignored for over 50 years and not bothered to enforce their trademark rights. That said, now that UP has finally started to enforce it's trademark rights, it is proper to expect Lionel et.al. to follow UP's licensing procedures IF they wi***o use the most current (and future) UP marks and logos on future model offerings. As far as the Fallen Flags and historical UP marks no longer in active use, IMHO (and earnestly hope) UP has lost exclusivity of those trademarks in the area of model trains by failing to defend the marks against unauthorized use for 50+ years. And personally, I'd follow Lionel's example and aggressively defend my trademark, patent, copyright, whatever from infringement right from the start, not wait until 50+ years later.
QUOTE: Not intolerable of other's rights, just intolerable of large corporations/entities bullying around smaller ones after they've (the big ones) failed to properly defend their rights for so long. And if you compare the UP License Agreement and the CSX Agreement, you'll see just how heavy-handed UP's requirements are. CSX's does include their Fallen Flags (B&O, C&O, etc.) in their agreement, but the one-time fees (for a 3 year period) and other requirements such as approval of designs are FAR less intrusive and expensive for the licensee than UP's. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any listing of currently authorized licensees on the CSX site, but since there's been no mention of any recent CSX lawsuits against model train manufacturers for trademark infringement , I'll make a guarded assumption that Lionel et.al. are on-board with CSX licenses.
QUOTE: ...I guess if you wait too long to enforce rights around you guys POOF! you become the bad guy not the one wronged....
QUOTE: ...I hope none of you ever create anything of value and then see someone else steal it from you and making a lot of money from your efforts. Because then the REST will scream that you should shut up and take it!
QUOTE: I never realized that toy trains, it must be all the puffing smoke, makes you THAT intolerable of other’s rights. Alan.
Remember the Veterans. Past, present and future.
www.sd3r.org
Proud New Member Of The NRA
I'm back!
Follow the progress:
http://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/displayForumTopic/content/12129987972340381/page/1
QUOTE: An abandoned mark is not irrevocably in the public domain, but instead can be reregistered by anyone who has regained exclusive and active use, including the original mark owner." (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Trademark)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month