To respond to this month's Editorial, send comments to: Editorial@modelrailroadnews.com
Trends for the New Year
Thanks to the publishing process, this is actually being written in December, but we can still see some writing on the wall. Trends for the New Year of 2004 are already manifesting themselves now and will become more apparent as time goes on. I’m just calling them as I see them at this time. More than that, this is just a stake in the ground which we will use to measure future progress — or the lack of it.

Many things on this locomotive can be trademarked, but the American flag and this particular rendition of it are not among them. Photo by John Sipple, Dunsmuir, CA, April 2002.
The first order of business is the UP licensing debacle. At this point in time, I have observed two parallel events which may or may not forecast the future. Both Kato and Athearn are passing on licensing fees for not only UP trademarks, but also constituent roadnames such as C&NW, Southern Pacific, Rio Grande, Western Pacific, Missouri Pacific, and so on. This makes neither Athearn nor Kato bad or good. As businesses, their leaderships have made the decision that it is in their best interests to not only pay the price, but also to pass it on to the consumer. If you look at their price lists, you will see locos for these roads carrying an MSRP about $5.00 higher. It’s no coincidence.

So, is this a trend? For these two other companies and perhaps some others, yes. Even defending against lawsuits is time-consuming and expensive, hurting the company across the board. When a manufacturer gives in and passes the buck, you have the option of voting with your wallet. If you want one of these roadnames and don’t object to the extra five bucks, that’s your choice. The same is true if you decide you don’t wish to support those products and choose a different and cheaper roadname. In this way, the market determines if either company makes a product with one of these names on it. If they can’t sell it, they won’t make it. It may also be a case of mind over matter; if you don’t mind, then it doesn’t matter.

There is another trend among trademarks which isn’t as clear cut. Trademark law seems to allow an entity to trademark darned near anything, including very old railroad logos. Imagine putting out a boxcar with a century-old logo and suddenly being notified by some guy that you’re using his trademark? What? How can that be? Perhaps he went through the process and trademarked that logo, so now he owns it. Unlike UP which at least has a historical connection — no matter how fragile — to their old logos, this guy just made a drawing from a photo and applied for a trademark.

Or maybe he didn’t. One fellow purchased a license to use the trademark of another Class One railroad and proceeded to warn everyone that he owned it exclusively, which wasn’t actually true. This railroad doesn’t grant exclusive licenses, but it didn’t stop him from making a false claim. This should serve as a precautionary warning to buyers and sellers to check out these claims before paying a person for a trademark they don’t, in fact, control.

As if this isn’t ugly enough, there is another litigious trend in the hobby. According to various Internet reports, Mike Wolf and his company, Mike’s Train House, are suing (in alphabetical order) Broadway Limited Imports, Lionel Trains, QS Industries, and reportedly a Korean manufacturer. All of these companies are, in turn, filing countersuits. To the best of my knowledge, none of this group is involved in other major litigation. While the status of any given suit may have changed by the time you read this, the underlying issue remains the same. Regardless of who is really at fault in each case, if you keep attaching your name to this sort of action, people will start to view you as being the problem.

The trend among insurance companies to raise their rates on excursion carriers until they put them out of business will likely continue another year, at least. According to a few industry insiders, some insurance premiums have tripled, even though actuarial claims against rail excursion operators haven’t measurably increased. This sounds like a trend Congress should investigate.

Our industry is not alone. Take a look at music and you’ll see similar shenanigans. It’s enough to drive a guy down to his basement or out to his shop, there to play with trains. Hopefully, when he comes out, all of this will be over. Over is the trend I’d most like to see.

John Sipple, Editor
To respond to this month's Editorial, send comments to: Editorial@modelrailroadnews.com