Road-specific trademark question

[sirenwerks]

I was perusing Bluford Shop's website and noticed the tag at the bottom of the home page that reads "Products bearing Southern Pacific, Chicago & North Western and Rio Grande marks are made under trademark license from Union Pacific Railroad Company. " I thought it curious that, even though Bluford has released hoppers for the CGW and M&StL they're not represented in that tag.

Can anyone tell me authoritatively and in a nutshell which is true: does the mention of the C&NW in the actual tag covers the CGW and M&StL models; does UP just not care; or doesn't the trademark extend down into those roads indirectly absorbed into the UP? Can Hudson auto models be manufactured without concern that Chrysler will hunt you down?

[wcfn100]

You can look up the CGW and MStL and see that UP doesn't own the trademarks.

FWIW, this is what is covered by the UP trademark agreement.

UNION PACIFIC LICENSING INFORMATION:

Products bearing American Refrigerator Transit; Chicago & Eastern Illinois (C&EI); Chicago and North Western Railway Company (CNW); The Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company (D&RGW); Katy; Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company (MKT); Missouri Pacific (MP); Pacific Fruit Express (PFE); Southern Pacific (SP); St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company (SSW); Cotton Belt; Texas & Pacific (T&P); Union Pacific (UP); Union Pacific Fruit Express (UPFE); Western Pacific (WP) marks are made under trademark license from Union Pacific Railroad Company.

Jason

[lock4244]

You can look up the CGW and MStL and see that UP doesn't own the trademarks.

Wonder why... C&NW did not maintain ownership rights after take over? Let them lapse?

[Bluford Craig]

I was perusing Bluford Shop's website and noticed the tag at the bottom of the home page that reads "Products bearing Southern Pacific, Chicago & North Western and Rio Grande marks are made under trademark license from Union Pacific Railroad Company. " I thought it curious that, even though Bluford has released hoppers for the CGW and M&StL they're not represented in that tag.

Can anyone tell me authoritatively and in a nutshell which is true: does the mention of the C&NW in the actual tag covers the CGW and M&StL models; does UP just not care; or doesn't the trademark extend down into those roads indirectly absorbed into the UP? Can Hudson auto models be manufactured without concern that Chrysler will hunt you down?

The home page statement is not meant to cover all runs produced, only those that are clearly shown on the home page. Each month's announcement page has its own UP statement covering the UP related lines shown on that page, as appropriate. The CGW and M&St.L runs are covered on their respective announcement pages.
Craig     www.bluford-shops.com

[sirenwerks]

FWIW Craig, I wasn't pointing fingers but your logic falls flat in fulfilling my query...

There are (partial) graphic images of SP and Rio Grande cars and a photo of a model C&NW car on your front page, so I understand why the statement mentions those roads. Yet, there are also full graphic images of C&EI and MoPac cars and partials of M-I and CGW cars on the front page. So those last four not appearing in the trademark statement presented a bit of a grey area to me. Which is why I asked.

What compounded my confusion is that BNSF, CSX, KCS, NS, CN, CP, and the Alaska RR don't require such statements; but I think that it's just super that those legal departments don't care.

I guess I should ask you directly then, what's the legal precedent as to why those four roads (CGW, MoPac, C&EI, and M-I) aren't included in the UP trademark statement on your front page?

[wcfn100]

AFAIK, M&StL and CGW don't need to be licensed through anyone.  I think some companies just assume it and put that on there.

OTOH, Missouri Pacific Lines is clearly owned by the UP.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4009:43e2m3.12.1 I guess searches expire.


Craig, does the full UP agreement spell out CGW or other really early predecessors?

Jason

[sirenwerks]

I thought, until I saw MoPac wasn't included on the front page statement, that maybe UP was just enforcing trademark of the roads it absorbed directly, or maybe just the ones it is doing heritage scheme locos of. I'm so confused...

[Bluford Craig]

I just checked the home page and the UP statement change didn't get saved on the master apparantly. The home page has now been reloaded. It now says:
Products bearing  Chicago & North Western, Chicago & Eastern Illinois, Chicago Great Western, Missouri Pacific, Missouri-Illinois,  and Rio Grande  marks are made under trademark license from Union Pacific Railroad Company.
So recall the black helicopters and remember, if you hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras. 

Craig

[sirenwerks]

... remember, if you hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras...

As in the four horsemen and the Apocalypse? Uh oh...