Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
As I recall in the late 1960's or early 1970's a bridge colapsed in West Virginia or Ohio. The bridge was about 100 years old, long past any real or implied warantee. United States Steel was sued sucessfully not because they had supplied the steel involved in the original construction of the bridge, which they had not, but rather for an advertising slogan used by USS at the time, "We're involved". Not long after this USS became an "energy" company, abandoning their traditional steel business. <br />The point is that the UP licensing extends the implied liability for poor product not only to just the manufacturer, but also to the licensing company, in this case UP. Before anyone gets too excited by this possibility, pause to think it through like a lawyer. The best defensive position in this instance is to protect the Trademark by refusing to grant any licensing use at all, thus no UP decorated loco's, rolling stock, or structures. By extension would CSX, GE or EMD be far behind? What would happen to the models we all love? <br />As I commented in another topic, this is one of those hard choices, MTH or UP. A real lose lose situation. <br />My [2c] <br />Will
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag

Update Reply

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Model Railroader Newsletter See all

Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!