Well someone has a good head on their shoulders. Too many operations completely overlook branding and protecting the brand.

It is a good idea to stake your claim, either through correct use of a "TM" or the circle R. We adopted the "TM" for the #3713 America's Locomotitve TM campaign, which is usually sufficient for this sort of thing.

What isn't clear from the #611 press releases is what they are seeking a "circle R" for? The number? The class? The design/image? I'd imagine they can't register "Norfolk & Western." It will be interesting to see what the application covers and how the USPTO rules.

It is worth a shot. The #611 team is doing a lot of things right.

Rob

What about others using the proposed mark who have been doing so for years? Can you take something that presumably was public domain and in use by others away from them? Think T shirts, models, etc. I don't know what the law is but I cannot say I approve if that is the case.

Interesting that they're not going for N&W 611 but more generically the "Norfolk & Western Class J". I suppose it's because of the likeness of 611 but I'd think now all models of the J, even if not 611, would need to be licensed from the museum.

I get what they're doing but.......... I don't know. I guess we should wait and see what comes from it.

USPTO has approved many marks that make no sense to me but perhaps it's simply up to someone to challenge them. That might be a daunting proposition for some tiny maker of railfan swag.

Some examples that come to mind include Tall Ships®, a term in use, I believe for hundreds of years, to denote high masted sailing vessels, being given over for private use by a sailing association. I could understand protecting the unrelated use such as Tall Ships brand vodka or Tall Ships brand marine paint. But Tall Ships to denote, well, tall ships? Are some big sailing ships visiting your town this summer? Don't advertise it as a visit of tall ships or expect a C&D letter from the lawyers. I wish someone would challenge that.

And then there is Clear Channel® the radio station company. That was a term associated with 50kW AM stations where no other stations shared the frequency until you got a couple thousand miles away and then only at lesser power. Can, say, WGN in Chicago still advertise themselves as a clear channel (lower case) station?

Anyway, if it comes down to someone blocking the use of 611 images or words that they've used for decades, I hope it's challenged. Maybe start a little trade association.

I wonder if this move will cut back on the generic t-shirts I usually see with "Railroad Name" smacked over the engine from a completely different railroad. It sure makes the marketing and retail departments look lazy.

My guess is this will be much like CSX Union Pacific's brand protection and will mostly apply to merchandise (t-shirts, mugs, pins, models, toys, etc.). I would also be willing to wager that most proceeds obtained through this licensing would go towards maintaining 611.

John Masefield better watch out:

I must go down to the seas again,
To the lonely sea and the sky;
And all I ask is a Tall Ship®
And a Star® to steer her by....

I wish these guys success, and hope they can get the protection they're after.

That said, I agree, the trademark office is out of control. Common everyday phrases are being trademarked. As noted above, "tall ships" is registered. Have you said "Life's good" lately? You may be in violation. Do run a "Wine Train"? Well, no, not without trademark infringement. Ice Cream Train? Santa Train? All trademarked.

Wonder if "Greed sucks!" is taken?

The news release is very vague and does not explain what the marks are that are being registered. Are they word marks or design marks, or both?

The way trademarking is set up, each goods or service class has to be separately registered at $275.00 for each mark. VMT could register "J Class 611" for apparel, but that doesn't stop anyone from selling "J Class 611" bicycles unless VMT registered under the class that covers bikes. And then the protection is moot if you sell apparel with "J 611" on it. Of course there is nothing to stop VMT from sending a cease and desist letter to you about your J Class 611 bicycles. You are free to ignore it if you believe that you are in the right or if you are going to call their bluff and gamble that they will not actually spend the money to file suit against you.

(I deleted this paragraph after doing more research on the topic)

it is possible to contest any trademark, but that will cost $300 per classification to file.

But if we wanted to produce/sell a railfan DVD that includes footage of 611 running out on the main lines...then it would or wouldn't?

The only real issue is why did it take them so long to file?

Every major company, professional sports teams and most university teams do something similar so this really is make news.

Unless there's a lawsuit .... that is !!!!!!!

Bob H

I've been doing some further reading on the issue of trademarking a 3D object, such as a locomotive.

I am trying to find some good interpretation on how selling videos and photos of the 611 might violate the VMT's trademark. This of course assumes that VMT files to trademark the 3D design of the locomotive itself under the classification which includes merchandising videos and photos.

The biggest issue that VMT will have in defending such a trademark is that the 611 design has been in existence for 65 years and has been in general use by the public for all that time. All sorts of videos, photos, models, books etc. have been created and sold over the past 30 years of the 611, and the locomotive has not been perceived as a symbol of a specific institution and had never been promoted as such. Since VMT is not in the 611 video making business as of yet, none of those videos can be confused as originating with VMT.

Here is a ruling that helps further muddle the issue. This presents the argument that a video of the 611 could be a form of artistic expression covered under the first amendment.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120 ... ment.shtml

Ultimately there are no cut and dried guidelines to follow. Each instance is decided on a case by case basis, and until someone files a lawsuit there probably will not be any good guidelines to follow. I don't think anyone has yet taken a 65 year old publicly viewed object, trademarked it and then tested it in court.

Now if VMT is merely trademarking words or phrases, or an artistic design (logo) that they have created containing the 611's design, then that is different. Just do not use that logo or those phrases in your commercial videos.

I am not an attorney and I have not stayed at a Holiday Inn Express either!

Another interesting article:
http://www.danheller.com/model-release- ... hts.html#3