More Trademark News

On the CBS 6 o’clock news Tuesday night, Sept. 27, 2005, there was a special report on a Trademark battle going on in the hobby business, and the report gave the impression that the issue was already before the courts, awaiting a decision. No, it wasn’t about Union Pacific’s recent greedy activities involving model trains, rather it told of similar quests of greed being pursued by Defense Contractors against the companies producing plastic model kits of military aircraft.

It seems the builders of the real aircraft feel that their copyrights have been infringed upon since, among other things, the model manufacturers use official blueprints of the prototypes to produce their models. The article specifically mentioned the Boeing B17 (a design more than 65 years old!), as well as some of the current military aircraft now in use by various countries. The narrator said that these Defense Contractors were seeking royalties that in some cases would amount to 10 percent of the price of the model. Of course, the Defense Contractors were claiming to only be interested in protecting their trademarks — “it isn’t about the money.”

The model manufacturers’ position is that since the designs in question were created under contracts funded by the taxpayers, the Defense Contractors have no business collecting additional fees, which also would end up being paid by the taxpayers. It’s interesting to note that the trademark issue here is apparently being applied to the general shape of the aircraft, rather than names and logos such as in the case of UP. Are these contractors really convinced that the presence of the plastic models is “creating confusion in their marketplace”? If so, I guess they must think their own customers are pretty stupid. Maybe they fear that the Air Force or Navy will go to Revell/Monogram or Tamiya for their next bomber or fighter jet design.

We’ve already heard of other copyright/licensing issues adversely affecting the hobby such as GM refusing to allow models of its vehicles to be produced in scales smaller than 1/64, and of course UP’s actions against not only model manufacturers, but publishers as well. Is this just the beginning of the snowball effect we were warned would happen in the hobby industry if UP was successful in bullying the model train manufacturers into submission? Do you suppose EMD, GE, and other builders of full size trains are waiting in the wings to file similar actions? Just observing,

Bill Nielsen
South Florida

A Name Change Needed?

As I’ve read issues of my subscription, I have come to the conclusion that while being an active HO modeler, [that Model Railroad] News is not a good fit for me… and I would think for many other hobbyists who fall into one of the categories called senior, family with expenses, parents putting kids through school, early married, youth, etc.

In the Oct 2005 issue, locomotives in reviews for HO are priced $165, $265, $249, $139, and $329. Most HO locomotive ads (8) show a range from $150-$1,990, only 2 being in the $100 range. Eight Rolling stock reviews had prices $30-$41 (with two others in $20s). Eight rolling stock ads had prices $25-$60, and four in maybe acceptable $10-$17. A software package for $120 was reviewed. An HO Dozer reviewed priced at $439. All buildings (kits or assembled) follow same pattern. You get the drift.

While the history described in the product reviews is very helpful, it is hard to justify the $33 price for that and a few good modeling tidbits. Truth is your magazine is for “well heeled” model railroaders and is a venue to push up higher unit sales dollars for those who advertise. This is OK. It is an excellent product. But I don’t think your magazine’s name should reflect the broad spectrum of Model Railroad News. This is misleading after one gets behind the covers for a while.

Maybe Upscale Model Railroad News fits, or New Model RR Products for Collectors. At least change the tag to “The News Monthly for Upscale Model Railroaders.”

There are a large number of Model Railroaders still, who scratch together a pike with sticks and stones and bones, and modest price kits and locos, and creativity. Don’t lead us into where we don’t belong with deception. And don’t think the dollars we spend on our hobby are small.

I’m pretty sure this won’t get printed; it’s outside your editorial view. But maybe your readers will want to kick the idea around. Till my renewal runs out,

Hal Bingham
Gahanna, OH

Hi Hal, don’t mind me while I tidy up a bit. Though our newsstand price is around $36 for 12 issues, an annual subscription is only $24, a heckuva bargain. A two-year subscription for 24 issues is an even better bargain at $33, around $1.38 per issue. Second, let’s play the “Inflation Game.” We’ll go back 40 years to 1965, when I was 23 years old. Back then, you could buy a brand new Chevy for around $2,200; today it’s more like $22,000. A gallon of gas in 1965 was 30 cents, and right now it’s more like 3 bucks. A plain cup of coffee these days is $2.50 in a lot of places, but I used to pay a quarter back then. All of these and many items have been repriced as a result of 10-fold inflation.

So if you take the decimal point and move it to the left one place on all of the prices you listed above, you would get about the 1965 price, but you wouldn’t get as much detail, DCC, sound, 5-pole skew wound motors, or any of the other improvements made over the past forty years. I’ve got some old locos from AHM, Athearn, Atlas, and Mantua that, if they were for sale new at an inflation-adjusted price, would collect dust on your dealer’s shelf. Do you really want a return to rubber band drives?

Model railroading is cheaper than snowmobiling, skiing, boating, four-wheeling, or any number of other family pastimes, so this stuff doesn’t make the hobby “upscale” so much as modern. There were many years when, as a young father, I couldn’t participate in model railroading because I was poor. In those days, I didn’t have hobbies; I had my wife, my children, and my job. I’m certainly not rich now, but I’m back enjoying model railroading today. As to where you belong, we’re not leading; we’re only shining a light so that you can better see what’s on the market. From the cover to the back page, we are what we are and there’s nothing deceptive about it.

Union Pacific Letters...

New UP Executive Train

Caught the new two unit UP executive train today in Bonner Springs, Kansas. Note the rear car is befitting the oh-so modeler friendly Union Pacific Executorship. Wonder if they have a copyright on that crescent moon?

David Lindquist
Overland Park, KS

Dark Daze For Uncle Pete

Well, I see the young lions of the UP “legal” department still persist in embarrassing themselves. It’s my intuition that they’ve painted themselves into a corner with all this bravado about protecting their corporate image. Liken it to the classic loudmouth who makes an outrageous claim that everyone knows is ridiculous, but doesn’t have the grace or maturity to admit he may have been wrong. To do so would, in his mind, be a sign of weakness. This just happens to also be a common trait of young lawyers trying to prove their worth — more than eager to please a corporate executive with a personal axe to grind.

Someone much higher up than the kids in the legal pool is calling the shots on this one — and I know from personal experience you don’t tell a type-A board chairman he’s full of crap. It just galvanizes his attitude to the point of going down with his sinking ship rather than acknowledge another point of view. Yeah, yeah, I know all about how this whole thing is based in “proper business interest,” but a moron can recognize when it is being carried to a laughable extreme — as is demonstrated by the vocal displeasure of more than a few UP stockholders who point out that this is just indicative of the same megalomania that has constipated effective management of the railroad in recent years.

I used to be an avid fan of Armour Yellow, but I wouldn’t spend a penny on anything bearing their image today. I’m also a hobby manufacturer, but since my products are all sold as undecorated kits, I’m thankfully immune. We have, however dealt with CSX concerning products bearing their marks, and I can say it was relatively painless. Their approach was honest, respectful, and reasonable. Their railroad operations reflect this as well.

I appreciate your vigilance in reporting the continuing UP soap opera but I can’t help but wonder why the locomotive reviews you published in the September issue are ALL displayed in the Urine Yellow scheme of the Yoo Pee!? Is this some form of bull baiting or just happens to be what the samples came dressed in?

Howard Mosley
Whiting, NJ

Boycott UP Licensed Products!

I was reading the letters about the continued effect of UP and their ridiculous lawsuits. I agree the best thing we can do is not buy anything that is UP licensed. (That includes decals!) I do not want to hurt the model industry, but if everyone stops buying a UP licensed product maybe the effect will make UP stop this licensing garbage. It would be interesting to know how far back UP is going on the fallen flags. Have you published a list of the railroad logos that UP is claiming as their own? I know there are many roads involved so a boycott could be painful even for the model railroaders. It sure is a shame that UP is trying their best to ruin this hobby for those of us who love trains. I do not model UP but I used to be proud to say I got to ride behind the 3985. No longer can I say that with pride, more like I am ashamed I rode!

Dave Taverner
Denton, TX

All good points, Dave. First of all, don’t let the current UP leadership cheat you out of some good memories. Number 3985 is a symbol of what remains of the real UP, and it has the power to help lead the next round of UP leaders back to a more positive place. Dick Davidson is slated to retire in 2007, so we need to pin our hopes on Jim Young, his heir-apparent.

Second, I don’t know how much effect a boycott would have on UP, and that would depend on how it works. If manufacturers chose to not produce UP products and then gave up their licenses, the dollars wouldn’t hurt but the loss of licensees would send them scrambling.

As to how far back they go, every indication is that UP follows the family tree of every railroad they acquired and thus on back to every line on that tree. Given the convoluted dealings of railroads a century or more in the past, they could end up claiming almost all railroads. If you don’t like it, you get to sue them.

Building A Lawyerly Diorama

Thanks for the updates regarding Union Pacific vs. the rail fan/model railroad monolith. As a physician, I am held under constant siege by the legal/judicial system and am intimately familiar with the inflammatory language and hyperbole utilized by our esteemed legal community. I plan on creating a diorama on my personal pike to model a Union Pacific gondola filled with barristers going over a precipice into a shark pool. I feel it will be a fair match.

I doubt any effective pressure can be brought to bear on this issue, but certainly scrutiny and appropriate ridicule is a start. Keep it up!

Anthony E. Harris, MD
Aiken, SC