Hey all, I was browsing around on UP's site tonite and found this: http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/modelrail.shtml I thought it was kinda interesting. Lemme know what you all think.
Interesting! I see Kato and Red Caboose are licensees but not Atlas, Athearn, Intermountain, or any other major manufacturer. Hmmm....
William, et al: I think some of the model companies may challenge the UP position. Especially InterMountain. Some of the model companies still do not have a price differential on the UP products. They would want UP to challenge them so some money is at stake. Then they can become the plantiff for a restraining order, restraint of trade, or whatever. I would think that IM in Denver, US District court in Denver, Anschutz in Denver, lost jobs in Denver, IM, a long time Denver company, is probably not without friends in there somewhere. If I was forum shopping, that would be my choice. Note I am not saying that the law is this or that or which side might prevail. I do think UP is wrong about all the acquired companies and I would pick Denver and IM if I was a big wheel lawyer intent on proving that. So, there.
Boy, that one page showing all the logos covered sure is a great place to get graphics for websites and such.
Make sure you get permission from them FIRST, otherwise you could find yourself in a legal bind... (I am just speaking from a web developers point of view, because I am one )
Ummm Sorry, wouldn't want to cause any trouble or suggest others do so. I am really interested in what kind of bind you're in though Challenger. As of yet, I have not been contacted by UP for using their logos and name on my Nor-Cal UP Connection site. Maybe I've worded things correctly and also I don't sell any pics from my site or anything else for that matter.
That's true... If you were selling stuff with their logo's on it, then you'd really be 'screwed.' I still think that there are a lot of companies out the that seem to be "sue-happy" and will sue anyone they can think of to file a case against. Unfortunate, hey? I just think that it's just a good idea to get permission with some companies. Matt [ 02. March 2004, 03:32: Message edited by: UP_Challenger3985 ]
Mainly I was being very sarcastic as I believe UP has gone overboard when wanting to protect the logos of roads that no longer exist. Other than that I feel they are within their rights to protect UP logos and such.
I can see that if a company purchases another company, they would probably acquire all the rights to the heralds, etc. If UP continued to use those marks I could understand their desire to 'protect' them. But as they convert all their takeovers to armour yellow and dump the historical symbols, "which are among the oldest and most valuable trademarks in the nation" (UP's words), in the bin, I find it a bit hypocritical that they want to charge other people for their protection. (Must be what they mean by "most valuable".) Surely modelmakers are doing more to protect them by actually keeping them alive. Legally UP are probably going to come out on top, but morally .... hmmf. Maybe a compromise would work - "If you buy a license for the UP logos, we'll let you use the historical marks for free/very little". Like a donation to a museum
maybe that'd be a nice tax write-off for UP if they "gave away" the rights to old logos etc... Maybe not a bad idea for them...
I suppose it is a matter of how much revenue UP hopes it can extract from model railroaders and other train related hobbyists. Most companies have become pretty rapacious about extracting every possible penny of revenue. The UP is no better nor any worse than our own employers. They do have a legitimate right to make money from their trademarks and to manage their use. However, I think they should recognize that the rail hobby as a whole is likely to respect the proper use and to further enhance the reputation of the company by its preservation of rail history in miniature. I think a fair compromise would be licensing use of the trademarks to model railroad suppliers at a nominal cost. This would give them control over the trademark use but also promote some good will.
There is also sucha thing as a "market price." If UP had kept its royalty schedule in line with BNSF and CSX, there would have been no outcry. The hullaballoo is in no small measure due to their demanding a whole lot more money than their competitors from a market that's not that big to begin with, but one that does have PR value in disproportion to its size. Just bad judgment IMO, a reflection of an arrogant and out of touch management that first came to light in the SP takeover fiasco that garnered national headlines, with no evidence to the contrary since.
UP has been going through a "revenue enhancement program" for a couple of years now. They've been looking at every available avenue of increasing revenue, and sticking it to anyone they can. Increases of +10,000% are not unusual. I suspect that they'll have to be educated over time on what a reasonable market level of raping is required for the marketing of the fallen flags to the model railroading industry. Mark in Utah
Maybe the model manufacturers should align themselves with decal makers. Make the models with the correct paint scheme and supply decals from a decal maker. A percentage of the decal cost is a lot less than the same percentage of a complete model. Just a thought.
Going back to the start of this thread, I don't think that list of model companies in the UP scheme has been updated since before it started, both Athearn and Atlas's recent releases have charged extra for the UP roads due to this scheme. Willie, I think you might end up paying twice doing it that way, as the company selling the finished model would also be selling a product carrying the UP logo's.
