More discussion of ongoing lunacy by UP lawyers continuing to soil their company's image under the premise of protecting past and present corporate logos: http://www.ngdiscussion.net/cgi-bin/NGD ... =62946Hard to believe this is the same company that operates the world's largest running steam locomotives.

If a company ceases to use a trademark in commerce, does it not then fall into the public domain? How is it UP can magically reassert control over roads that disappeared-because UP failed to actively use those things in commerce years ago.But hey, this comes from the same profession that gave us "kelo" a few weeks back. It must be some "emerging understanding" we serfs don't quite understand.

If you follow down the thread linked above, there is some discussion of that issue. UP has recently painted a couple of locomotives in Mopac and WP colors, designating them as heritage engines. One UP employee in the thread thinks it may have as much to do with exercising and protecting the trademarks as it has anything to do with honoring past railroads. Of these acquired RRs, enthusiasts of the Rio Grande probably would have the most to lose, as the bulk of model equipment uses that logo. Remember when the Santa Fe used to pay Lionel for reproducing the warbonnet? Certainly a company has the right to protect its good name, but these corporate idiots don't seem to realize they are doing just the opposite. They have already been depicted as a bully in the national media and are likely to receive more coverage if they keep it up.

We raised this topic on my Yahoo rail-media (magazines, photography, books, video, etc.) critique group, TheDomeCar (come visit at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheDomeCar/ ). This story had its origins in a piece by Trains columnist Don Phillips in the International Herald Tribune at http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/27/business/transcol28.php . Before declaring the case "lunacy" based on a bunch of fan sites mis-reporting the case, I suggest you go back and review the report from the best rail journalist in the field.Unfortunately for Nils Huxtable and Steamscemes (the actual publisher of the calendars), UP just may have a case. I've seen the calendars; they're just TOO close to looking like an official UP publication, complete with the UP shield and the title "Union Pacific Railroad 2006 Calendar". The pros in my group seem to agree.We can argue until the cows come home as to whether the UP can enforce the restrictions on their logos/name (they can) or SHOULD enforce them (a case can be made either way, but I cannot fault the UP for at least wanting the opportunity to retain a veto over any product featuring its name/enblems), but this calendar could not have been designed any better as a test case for UP.

I'm not a copyright expert, but I think that the whole idea behind licensing the name may be a way for UP to keep the name in commerce. Our trademark laws and copyright laws went though a major overhaul several years ago. One result is that they last longer than they used to. One of the major pushers behind the legislation was the company with the big mouse ears. Evidently, the copyright on their star character was about to lapse. As I've said before, I'm not a fan of the UP policy, but I do understand their reasons for doing it, no matter how bad in my view. I doubt anyone is going to confuse an Athearn locomotive painted in UP colors with the real thing, and the product and services each represents. On the other hand, I can understand that UP wants some nominal control over the products which include its name and logo. At best, maybe UP is being a bit over-aggressive in asserting what could be a valid policy.While off-topic, the entire legal profession didn't bring you the Kelo decision. Moreover, as discussed here and on another board, if you don't like the Kelo decision, talk to your state legislator. I think most states will end up adopting prohibitions on the use of eminent domain for private use. Then again, that is another topic for another day.

Sorry, but any multi-billion dollar company that would allow its good image to be soiled in the general media (never mind the railfoamers) to try to make a couple of bucks off a calendar or little Johnny's train set is dealing with lunacy in my opinion. I would think the melt down of their operations would keep them busy enough. CP's folks in Calgary do some pretty dumb things too, but we haven't sunk that low yet, thankfully.Here's UP's heritage locomotive story:http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/railroad/2005/0730_heritage.shtml

The UP's handling of the trademark/logo issue is fascinating. When you consider the scope of operating/commercial problems faced by UP, you really have to wonder why they are doing what they are doing. Clearly they need to protect their trademarks.....but? I'm a UP stakeholder (get a retirement check from them every month...comes in like clock work). And while I'm ex-SP, from my point of view the SP-UP merger was the best possible outcome for SP. But UP is a strange company. I delt with them as a supplier for 20 years and also found them a strange company.They seem to go through the motions of "modern management" without really understanding what it is all about. They are headquartered in a small town where there they are the big fish. On a one to one basis most of the UP people are very nice....so long as you understanding you are dealing with the imperial UP. Net net, UP shareholders are not going to get the shareholder value they are entitled to until somebody hits the folks in charge with a very large 2x4.

Sorry, Bob, but UP has a point, even if they're being ham-handed about it.Yes, in the grand scheme of things, UP looks pretty pathetic going after a calendar maker. But in all honesty, Steamscenes and others have been "getting away" with this (I believe they also do a similar SP calendar) for years. At the very least, it was time for UP to send an "ahem--cease, desist, or let us approve it" letter.The problem is that if UP doesn't enforce its policies on the relatively tame calendar issue, they have much less of a leg to stand on if and when someone comes out with a "Best Wrecks of the UP" video, or a "UP = Utterly Pathetic" t-shirt or bumper sticker, or a "YouPee" septic-waste toy train set.Anyone remember those rip-off stickers and t-shirts of the comic strip character Calvin piddling on various car logos? That is what happens when a copyright holder doesn't enforce its rights adequately. (The syndicate tried in vain to stop the distribution and makers, but it was like trying to sweep up mercury.)

Good, point, Sandy. I worked with an author/photo collector who once said that he didn't mind the use of his photos in publications, but had to chase down folks in writing to request proper credit for the original source of the photo. He related that each letter took time, but it was sent to demonstrate proof of his ownership of the original photo. That way, should a major infraction occur, he would have proof that he was diligent in protecting his interests.Wesley

just for the record, Bill Watterson, creator of Calvin and Hobbes, was and is VERY vigorous about protecting the copyright for his characters..He never allowed any licensing at all..no stuffed hobbes dolls, no cereal boxes, no cheap plastic toys..even though he could have made millions of dollars by allowing those things, he chose not to to protect the integrity of his creation.all those "piddling" calvins out there are not a result of lack of copyright enforcement..they are simply a result of far too many copyright infrigements to fight. by far too many small fly-by-night companys.just wanted to clear that up..it sounded like lazy enforcement is what allows those "calvin" things..it wasnt, or isnt.Scot

If you wish to stray off-topic...Why should I have to petition my STATE to respect and restate my already recognized constitutional FEDERAL rights? Other than for generating legislation, litigation and fees of course.As long as the elderly ennead claims dominion over the entire legal system- they speak for the entire legal community en masse

I think UP is probably taking it a bit far.... and this gets a lot of negative PR on the model discussion groups as well.But, there is a flip side. Last December a Canadian-based company decided to issue a 'commerative' HO and N scale UP covered hopper 'graffetti special (that did exist) of a car that had been modified by persons unknown to say "We Deliver Pay Cuts". The model was faithfully executed to the original, that's for sure. An announcement was made and reservations were being taken for the 'custom car'.Usually I'd think UP was overreaching, but here, I was solidly on the side of UP. That's pretty bad. a pretty deliberate swat at UP. The company wasn't an official licensee. The model was never actually produced, and the Model Railroad Industry Association made it pretty clear they were not amused. That's pretty clear justification for a company to lower the boom on somebody and justify even more overreaching.It's because of that kind of stuff that UP cares. There's a line in there that's subject to judgement, not sure where that is, but it's not like they are such a big happy company that nobody will take a deliberate swat and just chuckle about it. You know the CSX website, of course.Over on the model side many suppliers have reached agreement with UP. It doesn't appear to be impossible, just bureaucratic. I suspect, but haven't confirmed, that a company's reputation both for respect and accuracy count a lot toward the leeway they'll get from UP for an agreement. But, from what I've seen, a non-disclosure applies as well, so whatever happier $$ terms are being arranged, nobody can say what they actually are!

I do not feel that this forum is the appropriate forum for debate on the merits of recent Supreme Court decisions, the esteem of the legal and accounting professions, and whether anyone speaks for the entire legal profession. I advise anyone who wishes to discuss these and any other issues with me, to contact me offline. For those of you who don't know my e-mail address it is;wilkinsd at slu.edu

I disagree If there a greater risk to this advocation from any source other than the fear of somebody looking to score a quick buck from some real or imagined hurt, then please state it. Right now, I see the following effects on this advocation from the every expanding reach of the legal system.1.) More closed operations (kiski jct. et al) and reductions by remaining operators (Steamtown) with cause being directly attributable to liability insurance.2.) Almost no mainline ops (NS steam program gone, no New River Gorge, etc.) because of fears of being attractive nuisance,etc. Too much potential liability.3.) Fewer "cool" things (cab rides, open cars, cab tours, run bys) etc. All directly relatable to liability concerns.4.) Unpreserved equipment because of enviromental liability concerns-there was discussion on this board a couple years ago about a municipality wanting to bury an engine due to asbestos concerns.The list goes on. Preservationists & tourist operators sense the danger they face from the threat of litigation and does much to silence critics.Moderator's Note: I have removed some inflamatory personal remarks from this post. Normally I would have simply deleted the entire post, but the list of issues is valid and worthy of discussion.Randy HeesRYPN Moderator

A few comments and guidelines from one of the moderators here:1. The subject of the American tort system and the legal system in connection to railroad preservation has repeatedly been raised here. And we moderators have repeatedly issued the same guidance, which is:If the topic deals with a specific, realistic (i.e., not purely hypothetical) legal issue facing a tourist line or museum, it is germane. However, general editorializing about tort reform, eminent domain, the legal profession, etc is not germane and should not be done here.This guidance still stands. Others may differ as is their right, but these are the house rules, enforced as fairly as we can in this imperfect world.2. Our first guideline is that the Interchange is a forum for discussion, not debate. It is out of bounds to attack or comment on another poster's educational standing or professional qualifiactions--we view that as flaming, no matter how indirectly done.This is therefore an official caution to leave broader discussion of legal issues that do not relate to specific cases directly facing identifiable operations at the door. It is also an official caution to move comments about other poster's personal character or experience offline if you feel compelled to make them at all.Further instances of same will be deleted on sight without further cautions or conversation.Erik LedbetterInterchange Moderator