UP Surcharge for Modelers?

[Blackstone]

I was curious about the latest development concerning Union Pacific's attempt to impose a surcharge on any model RR manufacturer that uses the UP logo on a rairoad model.
Every day I am amazed at the greed, but this takes the cake!
Doesn't UP realize that model railroaders are big rail fans? We don't just watch, we promote them, defend them, and back them at every opportunity. We are their largest lobbiests.
If this is an indication of their financially stability, better sell the stock!
Chuck Rheutan
Salem, Ohio

[tree68]

This was discussed at length in another thread. Suffice to say that model railroading is one of the few places you'll find where manufacturers (and ultimately the end purchasers) don't pay license fees for the use of trademarks.

We don't like the idea of having to pay for it, but they are within their rights. Greedy? Only if the fee they ask is out of line for comparable items. I haven't heard anyone complain about having to pay license fees for the ability to wear their favorite NASCAR, college, baseball, football, cartoon, etc., logos. It's a safe bet that the purchase price for that big "3" in your back window included money that went straight to Mr. Earnhart's estate. OK, so you don't have a big "3" in your back window. You get my point.

There are almost always stories in the press about some outfit that went after someone who they feel somehow infringed on their trademark. Sometimes they win.

[Anonymous]

What difference does it make to the UP if you are a railfan?

You say you are a "promoter". What have you done to promote the UP? Have you garnered any new business for them, have you reduced any taxes?

You say you are a defender of the UP. When was the last time you defended the UP? How many times have you testified in court in their defense?

You say you are their "largest" lobbiest. Which legislators or business groups have you met with on the UP's behalf? What legislation have you promoted and gotten passed in the which states that will benefit the UP? What new or increased traffic has resulted from your lobbying efforts?

My guess is there is no tangible benefits that you can identify. That's because raifan's like to throw out terms like "supporters", "defenders", "advertisers" and "lobbyist" but are in reality none of those things.

As a matter of fact if you look through these message posts you will find more posts slamming the UP (even before the royalites issue came up) than saying what a great job they did. You can probably find a thousand posts calling the UP management names for every one saying they made a good decision. If these message boards are typical of railfans, then railfans and hobyists are not the friends of the UP and the UP would owe them no loyalty.

Smith.

[Blackstone]

Larry and Smith,
You guys have made me think about this more than I wanted to. It was a clear cut issue until I read your comments. It's great to have to define your thoughts.
I think that the reason this surcharge is offensive to me is that UP is sticking it to the people who really like their company, over and above the other companies. The difference between this and NASCAR, or football, or colleges is that railroads are a company that has nothing to do with entertainment. No, that's not really the difference either! Hell, I'm not sure what the difference is, but it's offensive to me!
This may be beating a dead horse, but does GM get a piece of the purchase price for a model of a 1960 Chevy? I'm really asking, as I don't know. Does United Airlines or Boeing get a cut from a model jet liner? If they do, then shouldn't Pullman, GMD, and other designers of the equipment, also be entitled to a cut?
How much can this be worth to UP to collect these royalties? An extra $1000 a month? Don't you think that this would do more harm than good to their cause?
As for their benefit from me being a railfan, that is very intangeable (SP, and I don't mean Southern Pacific). I ride Amtrak as often as I can (usualy once a year). I tell people who complain about the trains through town to think of how many trucks there be without trains. Imagine how expensive bulk products would be without trains. It probably adds up to a big zero in UP's eyes, but I do what I can.
But, to my original question: What is the latest devolpment on this subject. Anybody else, besides UP, trying to get greedy?

[Anonymous]

Seems to me it wasn't too long ago that some guy in Pennsylvania actually laid out money to sue some model train maker over royalties connected with the Pennsy logo and lettering. I wonder how that turned out.
Some corporations in the USA are really sensitive about how their logos are used or presented. Hollywood has made a secondary profession out of licensing "products" based on their films. I'm not sure I blame UP for wanting some kind of control over their "corporate face". It's an unmistakeable trademark, just like the Warbonnet scheme, and I doubt they would like much having Armour Yellow and Gray used on a trainset labeled "Chattanooga Choo Choo" or "Thomas the Tank Engine".

[Anonymous]

THIS IS SO SAD BECUASE DAVISON & HIS CLOWNS GUNSUES AT UP ARE THE GREEDIST RAILROADERS IN THE WORLD AND UP IS A VERY POPULAR RAILROAD UNTIL THOSE CLOWN GUNSUES PUT THIS UTTERLY PATHETOIC POLICY AND AN ENGINNER TOLD ME THIS THAT THEY TOOK AWAY HATS WITH THE WINGS AND ALSO HAD A FLAG ON IT THEN HE TOLD ME TO HANG ON TO YOU THINGS WITH THE WINGS SO TODAYS LESSON IS KEEP YOU WINGS STUFF

[mikeyuhas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by crheutan

This may be beating a dead horse, but does GM get a piece of the purchase price for a model of a 1960 Chevy? I'm really asking, as I don't know. Does United Airlines or Boeing get a cut from a model jet liner?

Yes to both questions. GM and Boeing are fiercly protective of their trademarks, as is UP.

A few years ago I visited with an importer of plastic model airplanes. As we strolled through his warehouse, he pointed out models of B-29 Superfortress bombers. Nowhere on the package did it mention Boeing. That was in direct response to an incident he had previously, when US Customs stopped a containerload of model airplanes at the dock because of unauthorized use of the word "Boeing."

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

If you don't protect your trademark, you can lose it. Bayer lost the rights to the word aspirin a long time ago and other similar situations have occurred. I can't blame UP for protecting its trademark, the same as any other firm would do.
There are other firms (UPS comes to mind) that are even more protective of their corporate image than Union Pacific.

[jerdenberg]

It may have been an unfortunate choice of words by the UP official confirming their action in the famed 12/19 CBS program, but what I saw there was not a company protecting its trademarks etc, but one looking for each and every opportunity to make money out of it/them.

[Anonymous]

Industries have gone all over the world to licensing their trademarks, why should UP be any different? The film industry is a perfect example. God help the poor *** who does a production run of toys without getting a license for it. UP is probably not being any more heavy handed than say, a large corporation in the entertainment industry that uses a semi-nude large, animated rodent as a corporate spokesrat. You better not say the fateful words "Star Trek" without also mentioning the fateful words "An authorized and licensed product of Paramount Pictures, Inc."

We have to remember, however much we love (or, judging by this thread, hate) trains, they are for profit corporations responsible to their CEO's and shareholders... not us. If UP has found another source of revenue, however small, it's not the return of Cornelius Vanderbilt doing a "public be damned" attitude. It's a fairly typical American corporate reaction these days.

[Anonymous]

Check out David Lustig's article in April 2004 TRAINS.

RadioRon

[trainfan1221]

crheutan,
even though its an old thread by now, the model rr boards discussed this at legnth a while back, if you care to look there. I believe that our general concensus was that UP was getting greedy like any other big business.

[Big_Boy_4005]

My question in all of this is, why only UP and not the other railroads, and why the sudden change in policy?????

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
Check out David Lustig's article in April 2004 TRAINS.
RadioRon

I was going to mention that, but you got to it first.

I read the article just the other day when my copy came in the mail. As it says in the article, the royalties paid on a single engine by the customer will only amount to a few pennies.

The article also made clear (also stated above) the fact that UP was doing this clearly as a tactic to prove that they are enforcing and protecting their trademark.

Of course it is up to everyone to decided for themselves what UP is up to.

[Big_Boy_4005]

If they are protecting their trademark, what have they been doing for the last 100 years?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
If they are protecting their trademark, what have they been doing for the last 100 years?

That's the whole thing, apparently they haven't been doing enough.

In the article from April 2004 Trains (page 11) UP officials explained that if someone were to challenge the logo and UP couldn't prove that they were protecting it, they would then loose the rights to the UP logo.

It seems to be a legal issue, that probably wouldn't have been as much of a problem (if any at all) 50 or 100 years ago.

[Anonymous]

I agree that this is nothing but ridiculous greed -- although "legal." The advertising value the UP gains by the use of its logo and paint shemes should be compensation enough. And "protecting" the logo seems an insifficient excuse. UP hasn't pointed to any severe mis-use of its logo.

[tree68]

Would it help if we used the word "royalty" instead of "surcharge?"

As applied to the current situation, the American Heritage Dictionary defines royalty as: "8b. A share in the proceeds paid to an inventor or proprietor for the right to use his invention or services. "

Where as the same dictionary defines surcharge as:

1. An additional sum added to the usual amount or cost. 2. An overcharge, esp when unlawful. 3. An additional or excessive burden; overload.

Those opposed to the UP action automatically focused on #3. Get over it.

As mentioned earlier, the total added to the price of a given item will be in the pennies range.

The railroads date from an era when people respected trademarks such as the railroad's heralds. These days a company has to buy every Internet domain name that even resembles their company name, lest some competitor hijack it and use it to point to their own site.

An article in MR a few years back about AutoTrain included the caveat that their trademark was protected, and that if you modelled it, you had to include "TM". Don't recall anything about money changing hands, but it does show that the UP issue is not totally new to the railroads.

As has been noted many times before in this thread, you pay royalties on just about anything that has a legal representation of someone elses product, from NASCAR to cartoon characters. Check that Spongebob Squarepants figure your kid got at the burger stand. Did someone get a royalty for it? You betcha! Paying royalties on a toy?!?!?! Now that's robbery!

This thread has heard chiefly from two camps - those who resent UP's action, and those who don't see it as a real problem. For those who resent it, check your kid's Bugs Bunny underwear. You paid a royalty for it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see more railroads realize the value of their image (past and present) and start capitalizing on it's popularity. I doubt you'll see actions against modellers who usurp a herald and change it into their own, but if someone is raking in the big bucks selling Chessie products, CSX just might want a cut (if they aren't getting one already).

[Anonymous]

Lets not go there. Thats bad juju.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

As has been noted many times before in this thread, you pay royalties on just about anything that has a legal representation of someone elses product, from NASCAR to cartoon characters. Check that Spongebob Squarepants figure your kid got at the burger stand. Did someone get a royalty for it? You betcha! Paying royalties on a toy?!?!?! Now that's robbery!

Sure as I'm a clarinet virtuoso, I'm wearing SpongeBob underwear right now -- and it's officially licensed!

Word on the street is BNSF is beginning to "protect" its trademarks, too.

And speaking of BNSF and SpongBob,,, did you ever notice how Mermaid Man is painted in BNSF heritage colors -- orange, yello and green? Wonder if there's a royalty being paid on that one??? This photo shows the top half of his carbody:



ST

[RudyRockvilleMD]

What about royalties for the logos of the fallen flag railroads that were merged into the Union Pacific? Do modelers have to pay forthose?

[Anonymous]

I'm curious as to whether UP pays the Feds for the use of the federal shield....