Union Pacific licensing

[Kelly Shaw]

Weigh in on this controversial issue.

[FJ and G]

What's controversial about it?

A brief history: First, UP meltsdown SP; then, they abandon the most scenic stretch of class 1 trackage on the Royal Gorge; then they stick it to modelers with their fees.

I just wi***he magazines (model trains magazines and Trains magazine) would take the side of modelers. The Trains write-up 2 months ago was pathetic. At least they printed the letters to the editor that followed.

dav

[3railguy]

These fees are backwards. Model Railroaders give railroads free publicity.

[spankybird]

I have to agree with John, Santa Fe paid Lionel to model the F-3 after them. This is a form of advertizing.
tom

[willpick]

I happen to believe UP has a right to charge for the use of their trademark. However, that does NOT give them the right to charge for the use of fallen flag names!!!

[Big_Boy_4005]

My gripe here is, why after all these years did they decide to become greedy? This action has opened the door to all the railroads to do the same. It is highly unfair as the rate varies from license to license. The railroads do have the right to control their logos but,

This is simply a model railroad tax, and it stinks!!!

[FJ and G]

The sad part of all of this, is that it is not the fat rich people who are getting hurt by this tax. Instead, it is the old folks on fixed incomes in nursing homes and the little barefoot children from Appalachia who have saved their pennies for a toy train.

The people who don't mind this tax undoubtedly do not fall into one of those 2 groups.

Dave Vergun

[Anonymous]

I think that it's ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!! I suppose that UP does have the right to charge for use of their logo, but that still doesn't mean that they should do it. I just wi***hat they wouldn't keep on saying all this stuff about protecting their name and everything and just admit that they're doing this for the money. Not all trains are exact scale models and we toy train enthusiasts know that very well. So what if a model of a certain type of boxcar that UP never used has their logo put on it? How does that hurt UP's image? The only people that could be offended are the rivet counters and more serious modellers. Something like this would only reflect on the image of the manufacturer producing the car and not UP. UP should be honoured that a manufacturer chose to make a train with their name on it. They've said stuff about protecting their image, but who exactly is it that they want to present a good image to with this? The companies who ship their products by rail could care less about what models of UP trains are produced or what fallen flags have merged into UP. All they want is to get their goods shipped fast and reliably. UP has certainly hurt their image a great deal and gotten a lot of bad publicity from this. It comes down to greed and that's it.

[dougdagrump]

Bravo Sask, seldom do I hear an adult, let alone a high-schooler, express himself in such a clear and concise manner.[bow]
[#ditto][#ditto][#ditto][#ditto]

[Anonymous]

Uniike the other replies here (so far) I say go for it UPRR!!! There is nothing wrong with any company trying to protect their identity. In the "go fast" and "blame it on others" world we live in now, everyone has the right to protect thier identity.

How would others here feel if someone "stole" thier name and image and made some $$$ from it?? You would be FIGHTING MAD!!!

I see nothing wrong with a company policing its name. Harley, Coke, Pepsi, GM, Ford, Kenworth, GE, ect all do it. Why should a RR be exempt from this right??

Those who have a problem with the UPRR licensing items need to QUIT BUYING them. The train OEM's will get the message....eventually, maybe.

[Anonymous]

They have no choice but to protect their current logo's under trademark rules but the current stance of UP on historic marks and lapsed marks of fallen flags is actually twisting the trademark rules into pretzels. These are gone, long gone and they let them go or deliberately tried to erase them. Now, years later, someone decides there might be a buck or two in trying to force licensing on lapsed trademarks. It's called public domain and they did it to themselves. The truely ironic part of this is that the license applications are for chacka's, i.e. coffeee mugs and tee shirts. They are not even applying to protect the marks under what should be their primary area of concern, transportation.

[Anonymous]

Yes, UP has the right (copyright) to defend and even charge a fee
for the use of their trademark/logo by others.

However, I think it to be somewhat petty and greedy to charge fees
from hobbyists who are actually giving the railroad(s) free publicity,
especially when one realizes that railroads today are not noticed
by the public in general. As for modelers not displaying the logo in
a "correct" manner, I don't think that would be the norm as most are
almost religious in their portrayal of their models as far as accuracy
goes.

I think it is just another way for "corporate america" to get a buck when
and where it can for the least amount of actual effort on their part.

Whatever happened to "public relations"? And corporate "goodwill"?

Shame.

[Anonymous]

As I sit here smelling the ozone from my toy trains, I think of a
similar situation regarding "trademarks" and "logos" and other
"intellectual properties". Under the Kughn regime the biggest
little railroad in the WORLD did the EXACT SAME THING to many
small businesses who were producing reproduction parts for
old trains. Even when those small business wanted to pay for
the privilege of duplicating the logo (This would have been $$$$
in Lionel's pockets!) the rail baron (Kughn) said NO. Since then
Lionel even has gone to such extremes as to copyright the BLUE
and ORANGE colors! They say they OWN them and NO ONE can
use blue or orange on their boxes, etc.! Several small business
owners were served with court orders to cease-and-desist making
anything that remotely resembled a Lionel item even after offers
of royalty payments were made!

Oh, the pettiness and shame of it all.

Again, the loss of good free exposure, possible extra revenue and
most of all good public relations.

This is supposed to be a HOBBY and fun!

[daan]

I understand why a company protects its logo. I also do understand why they charge for it. Simply because if the logo would be used on a trash can, you know why they make a big deal of it. They don't want to be associated with a trash can. BUT If they want to be able to protect their logo against misuse, they must be agressive against anyone using it without asking. Otherwise, when the real misuse occurs, they can't show the judges their protectiveness, and can't prove that they care that others use their logo.
Scalextric (slotcars) also has to ask car manufacturers their approval before they make a model of a car.
It is a bit strange to defend, but the whole thing is not maint against the toytrain modellers, but against anyone who uses their name and logo without asking. They simply have to!
It would be a nice move though if they would only make a statement, and leave it with that. (so no charges)

[Anonymous]

I think that UP has the perfect right to charge. I may not like it, but what am I to the UP? Diddly squat. This is the same that the plastic model companies have to do for GM and Chrysler and Ford plastic model cars. Now, the toy train businesses are having to pay royalties. Revell and other model car companies have been doing this for years, and they still sell kits like hot cakes! Let L, and the other toy train manufacturers make their decision and then we will go from there. If they choose to pay, great, we will continue to have UP (and the fallen flag railroads) rolling stock and locos. If they decide not to pay, well, we will just have to live with the rr names that they can produce with out paying for it.

[MartyE]

Yep they have the right. Just like ou and me on anything we trademark. I do think Fallen Flag RRs being trademarked is a bit silly but it's still their property.

[nblum]

There is no doubt UP has the legal right to restrict the use of their name and trademarked materials. The fact that a multibillion dollar company is trying to extort significant amounts of money from small companies a tiny fraction of their size, companies that make toys and models for goodness sake, is an example of the grotesque greed and corrupt moral values that pervade our society. May the UP and its officers rot in hell as far as I'm concerned. They are an example of all that is wrong with this country in the values held by some in our business and legal worlds. Reprehensible bullies and legal thugs trying to exploit those who are vastly smaller and thus virtually defenseless.

[nblum]

Maybe it's time to nationalize the railroads for a period of time :). Power to the people! :).

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bermuda ken

Uniike the other replies here (so far) I say go for it UPRR!!! There is nothing wrong with any company trying to protect their identity. In the "go fast" and "blame it on others" world we live in now, everyone has the right to protect thier identity.

How would others here feel if someone "stole" thier name and image and made some $$$ from it?? You would be FIGHTING MAD!!!

I see nothing wrong with a company policing its name. Harley, Coke, Pepsi, GM, Ford, Kenworth, GE, ect all do it. Why should a RR be exempt from this right??

Those who have a problem with the UPRR licensing items need to QUIT BUYING them. The train OEM's will get the message....eventually, maybe.

The problem with that Ken, is that it is only a matter of time before the rest of the railroads jump on the bandwagon. The other major gripe with all of this is that the present day railroad is charging on behalf of all of the fallen flags they have absorbed throughout their history. This isn't just for UP fans anymore, because CSX has also announced it's intentions to do the same. Can you say "Goodbye Kitty"?[:0][B)][:(][V]

[spankybird]

Hi All,

I have to agree with Neil [:D] and others that UP has the right to charge for the use of thier trademark. That is the whole point of having it registered.

The twist to this is, the presidents that has been already set, over 50 years ago by Santa Fe, who paid Lionel an advertising fees to make toy trains with their logo on it.

I have to also agree that it seems like the BIG corp is pushing the little guy around, but this is done in other modeling hobbies. [B)]

I guess the big question is “Does past practice have presents over the future”

Just because they can charge – should they charge [?]

tom

[Anonymous]

I have no problem with any of the railroads charging for their logos. I can't think of any medium or large corporation that does not charge a licensing fee for their logo(can anyone name one??). In this day and age of squeezing every penny out of a business just to try to turn a profit and compete in the global economy, the companies(railroads included) look to any revenue generating item they can find. Look around you, you paid extra money for any item that has a logo on it from a different company than manufactured the item. (are you wearing an NFL jersey from your favorite team; then you paid ALOT more for that jersey than if it was a plain one) So what if there are a few extra bucks added onto the cost of a boxcar or engine? Is that going to be a deal breaker whereas you are not going to purchase that item? If it is then maybe you couldn't really afford that item in the first place.

While I'm at it, stating that this is a tax is not correct. Only the government has the authority to tax, this is a licensing fee which you have to pay if you want to use their logo. I don't like when people use the tax word in the wrong context. (its bad enough the government has so much taxing capability) Also my opinion on the statement that toy trains should be exempt because of all the "free advertising" is a bunch of baloney. Do you honestly believe that any company that is going to ship with the railroads gets their shipping ideas from a toy train that they see on a layout somewhere?? Statements like these are just trying to rationalize the argument against the fee.

Anyway it doesn't bother me and frankly I don't know why they waited this long to implement this policy to begin with.

[Anonymous]

While I agree that railroads have the right to manage their logos and paint schemes, I think they should grandfather in all the model manufacturers that have been producing their equipment over the years. We are not a threat to the UP. What are they afraid of?

[Anonymous]

I think they have a right to charge for the decals but not the paint scheme. The actual wording is theirs. The colors can even be dulled so they are not the exact color. I can see their trademark, but not colors. I wouldn't mind paying royalty for a decal. I would mind paying for a whole train. The royalty would be passed on to us the buyer. I don't know about you guys but sometimes this hobby seems really expensive. Why should we pay more so some exec can drive a fancier car, and live in a fancier house? We pay so much as it is, why should we be charged more? as I said in the other post, sell the car and the decal seperate. They can't charge that much for a decal. They can't charge us for creativity.
Angelo

[Heartman]

Am I missing something here? Don't you have to pay a fee to Lionel to use their logo?
What's the difference???

[nblum]

Lionel has always licensed their trademark and has reasonable royalty licensing arrangements. UP has never asked for licenses to use their trademark on model trains for the better part of a century, and according to trade mark case law, that means they've permanently foregone that past revenue. If they want to start enforcing their trademark they certainly can attempt to do it, but they are out of luck for the past use. Their licensing arrangement, if it is really 3%, in advance, with onerous auditing requirements, and annually renegotiable, is completely impractical and highway robbery, IMO. That's why Lionel and Athearn are forcing them to try to enforce their usurious license requirements in court.

[Heartman]

nblum
Thank you for the short version. I was getting confused with all the talk. I keep learning something all the time. I will be very interested (as everyone else) to see the out come of this.

[Kooljock1]

I've been paying a hefty premium for my choice of road name for years.

I run the "Lionel Lines"!

Jon [8D]

[Anonymous]

Should the UP Railroad charge for use of it's trademarks?????????? Yes. Does it make it right? No. The sad reailty is that if the UP continues down this path us modlers are the ones who lose.If the UP contiunes to charge model train manfactures they will simply not produce model locomotives and rolling stock with UP markings then we'll lose out on models of this great American railroad. Lets hope the UP Railroad legal team lightens up.

[Anonymous]

The Iron Horse left the barn over 50 years ago... It is a little late to try to close the door.

[Anonymous]

The poll question is inaccurate. "Paint schemes" are not the same as "trademarks." But this is probably nitpicking since the voters probably equate the two as equal.

It is, however, disheartening to see so many folks who want "something for nothing" and don't recognize UP's property rights to its marks, especially when Lionel regularly licenses (for a fee) its name and marks to various, non-toy train items, e.g. Hallmark Christmas ornaments, Monopoly games, etc.