Western Railroad Discussion > Why does UP do this?

What i am asking is why do model train manufacturers have to have SP DRGW SSW WP MP MKT CNW and UP stuff have to be licensed under UP? P.S i asked here because i have a feeling more people might know vs the Model Railroading board.

Because the Union Pacific owns the rights to all those predessor rail lines?

If you owned a company, would you want another business selling items with your logos on them?

Posted from Android

DG .
Unknown, US

Well if i owned a railroad, i wouldnt care if somebody made models of my railcars and engine, i find it funny.

Broad answer.

Their legal rights under US Copyright and Trademark Laws.

Any organization has the legal right to require anyone who uses their "Marks" to request and submit to the company (including sending artwork) to approve (which UP does) to ensure the user (model manufacturers) paint and decal correctly.

Amtrak has the same policy for their current paint schemes which for example Kato USA did in order to manufacturer their Superliner cars and P42 locomotives.

Same reason a company can set MAP price policies by using their rights to control the value of their product via patent and marks on products. An outdated law (MAP) in my opinion) but still on the books.

Northridge Switcher

Seems like a number years back CSX had policy that anyone who wanted to market a model with CSX or any predecessor roads had to pay a licensing fee. I am not sure if still in effect or not. Perhaps someone who follows or models CSX can comment.

You are correct and so did UP. CSX dropped it but still requires approval (again via artwork etc).

UP and Amtrak charge a "Fee" submitted with the model manufacturers request to produce a model plus they require artwork for approval.

Not the same as a few years ago when the cost they charged equated to about $5.00 a locomotive.

Remember when Athearn prices on UP products for a short time was $5.00 (or more) for a UP locomotive?

Northridge Switcher



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/15 17:32 by northridgeswitcher.

Yes, I immediately recalled the brief UP-model 'surcharge' because of the licensing fee when I saw what this thread was about. Didn't buy a whole lot of UP models during that period, but then again UP is not my prototype of interest, either.

I'm sort of surprised the other major railroads haven't required licensing, even at no cost to model manufacturers, just to protect the use of their trademarks.

If you really want to see protective, though, just try finding an HO scale version of a USA McDonald's. And up until recently, there weren't any HO-scale UPS models except for their delivery trucks, either. UPS did not like to acknowledge publicly that it was a major rail shipper.


DKay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From all accounts,Copyright /patent law is a very
> complex section of the law,and in this instance of
> a giant railroad company threatening a little
> model railroad manufacturer ,does indeed seem
> strange.There was huge discussion here on T/O when
> it first came up 5-10 years ago.I think ,in it's
> very basic form ,the legal solution is ... "Use it
> or loose it" ,so the UP saw an easy target.
> Other major companies who guard their corporate
> image are John Deere ,and Caterpillar.
> Regards,DK


The issue at hand is/was neither copyright nor patent, it was Trademark. Also complex, though.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/15 17:49 by toledopatch.

upheritage6 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well if i owned a railroad, i wouldnt care if
> somebody made models of my railcars and engine, i
> find it funny.


From all accounts,Copyright /patent law is a very complex section of the law,and in this instance of a giant railroad company threatening a little model railroad manufacturer ,does indeed seem strange.There was huge discussion here on T/O when it first came up 5-10 years ago.I think ,in it's very basic form ,the legal solution is ... "Use it or loose it" ,so the UP saw an easy target.
Other major companies who guard their corporate image are John Deere ,and Caterpillar.
Regards,DK

This is all tied in with the mania for the so-called "heritage locomotives". By keeping older service marks of road which they have merged with or purchased active on their systems, like the SP Sunset and UP wings emblems, the owning RR retains the sole rights to use them. The rights to the PRR keystone emblem, on the other hand, have lapsed into the public domain. If they allow someone to use them without conditions, like the art work or a fee, they could stand to lose service mark rights.

EtoinShrdlu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is all tied in with the mania for the
> so-called "heritage locomotives". By keeping older
> service marks of road which they have merged with
> or purchased active on their systems, like the SP
> Sunset and UP wings emblems, the owning RR retains
> the sole rights to use them. The rights to the PRR
> keystone emblem, on the other hand, have lapsed
> into the public domain. If they allow someone to
> use them without conditions, like the art work or
> a fee, they could stand to lose service mark
> rights.


Actually, in that regard, CSX's ability to claim licensing on Conrail and pre-Conrail trademarks is rather mysterious, given that Norfolk Southern also ought to have a dog in that show....

The US Olympic Committee so far has nixed any ideas of doing UP's 2001 and 2002 Olympic locomotives beyond the brass ones that were already done. I would sure love to see those honies in plastic before the real ones are repainted or scrapped! === === = === JLH

DKay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> upheritage6 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well if i owned a railroad, i wouldnt care if
> > somebody made models of my railcars and engine,
> i
> > find it funny.
>
>
> From all accounts,Copyright /patent law is a very
> complex section of the law,and in this instance of
> a giant railroad company threatening a little
> model railroad manufacturer ,does indeed seem
> strange.There was huge discussion here on T/O when
> it first came up 5-10 years ago.I think ,in it's
> very basic form ,the legal solution is ... "Use it
> or loose it" ,so the UP saw an easy target.
> Other major companies who guard their corporate
> image are John Deere ,and Caterpillar.
> Regards,DK

Add ABF Freight Lines. I once got a cease-and-desist letter from them after building an HO model from commercially-available components which appeared in a magazine.

Tom Y

highgreengraphics Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The US Olympic Committee so far has nixed any
> ideas of doing UP's 2001 and 2002 Olympic
> locomotives beyond the brass ones that were
> already done. I would sure love to see those
> honies in plastic before the real ones are
> repainted or scrapped! === === = === JLH

As well as Boy Scouts of America. I would love to have UP 2010, and it was a brass very limited run as well.

I would love to have all 3 in HO.

Chris

IIRC some years back UP was "demanding" all sorts of proprietary information from model manufacturers including total sales etc to get a license to use the UP and ALL of it's heritage railroads. There was a HUGE hue and cry about the end of models of UP equipment. Some companies gave in and supplied the info to UP but MTH sat down with Omaha and hammered out some sort of agreement that he negotiated for the entire model railroading industry. I don't remember what exactly was agreed to, but my understanding is that that agreement is still in effect. UP gets to approve art work etc and the manufacturers then use the trademark note.

You can add T&P and KO&G to that list of copyrights for UP.

I think Nils Huxtable was the dog in the fight that turned the tables and got it ironed out. And he was in the photography end of the deal.

Posted from Android

It was Mike from Mike's Train House (O scale stuff) that really got it sorted out. As I understand it, he had model companies send him 50 years worth of stuff that UP had given them to make models, and then presented a case that they could not just start enforcing a draconian policy when there was none before. He actually threatened to take them to court. Having made plenty of money elsewhere before he got it the train business, he was not bluffing. UP backed off, and they came to a simple license agreement that let UP protect their trademarks, and model makers have a simple way to get approval.

We all owe him a big thank you.

Scott Schifer
Torrance, CA
TinyTrains Website



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/15 21:49 by tinytrains.

tinytrains Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was Mike from Mike's Train House (O scale
> stuff) that really got it sorted out. As I
> understand it, he had model companies send him 50
> years worth of stuff that UP had given them to
> make models, and then presented a case that they
> could not just start enforcing a draconian policy
> when there was none before. He actually threatened
> to take them to court. Having made plenty of money
> elsewhere before he got it the train business, he
> was not bluffing. UP backed off, and they came to
> a simple license agreement that let UP protect
> their trademarks, and model makers have a simple
> way to get approval.
>
> We all owe him a big thank you.

Indeed. MTH did indeed "get 'er done" for the entire hobby. Thanks, Scott for reporting the facts.

Bob

ATSF100WEST......Out

...and that's why it's all crap now.

I stay away from these roads when possible. Unfortunately it would also apply to the merged roads. Not sure if there's value added to my perspective, they don't appear to insure historical accuracy, colors etc, it's more a legal issue of maintaining copyright for the image. They didn't build or operate miniature locomotives, there's not much added value to my model layout. They don't seem to be a collectable but a representation of a memory, which has become marketable. Sure hope the additional price corresponds to the license fee, not just spread across the product line.

Clive,

Nice SP images on your web page!

MTH got the "fees" portion of the problem with UP dropped. It is now a "blanket agreement" copy on file in Omaha, for all applicants.

Bob

ATSF100WEST......Out