ExxonMobil terminates license agreement with Microscale

[Rossford Yard]

Yeah, Exxon can't afford to buy 400 sets at $5 or $2000, but they can afford $2000 per hour on attorney's fees to stop the little guy from making them, and a few of us from enjoying them.

I understand patent rights, trademark symbols, etc., but the PR value of letting this go has to be worth something, too.   After watching similar debacles, they should have just sold the rights for $1 and embrace their heritage a bit.

Oh well, I agree with the Exxon Oil spill.  I Do have a refinery on layout, and maybe I will do a refinery fire scene, or maybe just an EPA inspector truck, which I will know means they are shutting them down for violations.  On the other hand, I really do need those 10 car spots for better operations.....so, nah.  Maybe I will convert it to an ethanol loading center.

[JoeD]

What generally is happening is a few new young corporate lawyers are trying to get their bones with the company and thinks stomping on easy targets for a few bucks will make them look good.  Remember back in the 80's when Boeing went after the plastic model companies saying they couldn't produce any of their products...going back to the first stick and fabric jobs.  That caused a ruckus and the industry lawyers reminded them that they were wards of the state and only developed those designs on the backs of the taxpayers...public domain stuff.  I know we have agreements with both CSX and UP about how we portray their products (no tagging)...but other than that, anything goes.  There are a number of other companies that have gas station kits with the Mobile logos...wonder if they got letters as well.

Joe
 

[djconway]

its the same with red and green tractors.  How much money are they loosing with poor pr?

[randgust]

Has anybody seen anything other than Microscale being picked on?   Just seems odd.

UP's attack was systemwide from the train manufacturers to grandma baking cookies in the shape of a shield... or somebody taking pictures of them.  Everybody, all at once.

We've been lucky in modeling that MOST of our stuff hasn't hit issue this except for fast-food restaurant models, UPS trucks, Caterpillar yellow paint, etc. 

[milw156]

To paraphrase...
ExxonMobile only wants to have internally developed toys,models, ect with no one else able to use their logos. I'm sure that you won't see any B-Mann, Atlas et al rolling stock either.

I read this as meaning anyone can print them for their own use, but E/M does not want anyone making $$$ from their name. Microsoft(oops, should be Microscale) can simply make the data sheet a (free) down load any anyone can print it for their own use. Of course there's the problem of the white pigment, make sure the background is white, and you're more or less good to go!
Rick

[fredmoehrle]

Well, I've got a lot of Mobile tank cars, and a fuel distributor (WKW kit) that I was going to do for Mobile, so it got me to order the decals.
Didn't know Microscale had them!

[fredmoehrle]

I read this as meaning anyone can print them for their own use, but E/M does not want anyone making $$$ from their name. Microsoft can simply make the data sheet a (free) down load any anyone can print it for their own use. Of course there's the problem of the white pigment, make sure the background is white, and you're more or less good to go!
Rick

Um, no they can't.
That sort of thing comes up against all sorts of Trademark violations.
I.e. It's been done before.
Besides, why would Microsoft want to get involved?

[peteski]

I agree with Joe that this is most likely some young hot-shot corporate lawyer exercising his  powers or some (again, young) marketing director trying out some crazy ideas.

Oil companies keep making record profits - they don't need to sell branded toys to make some extra bucks.    Or maybe they are trying to be like Hess (and their Hess toys)?  Either way, this is very silly.

BTW, haven't many of the oil companies merge, several years ago, so all the names we see on the gas stations are really all the same giant oil company?  Sort of like Beatrice Foods was to the food industry in the 80s?

[ljudice]

Just a guess here - if Exxon wanted more control over the trademarks, they would set up a new licensing procedure - like the one which was previously in place.

It sounds as if they simply do not want their trademark used outside internally approved projects.  I suspect this is driven by a desire to NOT have people make websites that parody them or make t-shirts that are embarrassing,  or models of ruptured pipelines, etc...  ie. avoid negative use.  If they allow ONE person to use it - it weakens their case that no one is allowed to use it.

Although it seems a first glance like a lawyer employment scheme, it's probably the opposite, an attempt to limit liability, bad publicity and costs.

In some of the websites I do for corporate clients (especially public sector and environmental), I constantly keep sending content back suggesting "think of the WORST case where these words could be thrown back at you".

- Lou

[John]

I have a hard time getting excited about this - and surely won't boycott them .. its their right - their corporate logo .. If I need one bad enough, I can make my own decal .. there is a ton of artwork on the net ..

[PAL_Houston]

I have a hard time getting excited about this - and surely won't boycott them .. its their right - their corporate logo .. If I need one bad enough, I can make my own decal .. there is a ton of artwork on the net ..

+1. 

Disclaimer:  I still own a ton of XOM stock, even though I haven't worked for them in going on 15 years.  Say what you want to criticize them, but in the end it is an extremely well-managed company that pays good dividends reliably.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Problem is, if they are going to regulate their use on NASCAR vehicle kits and toys, they would have to persue other companies. I think the idea is that if someone made a oil spill novelty toy, they could point to the open license agreement that Microscale has, and demand the same reatment (use without payment).

And this is hardly the first time oil companies had clamped down on their logo. Lego licensed Exxon in the late 60's and 70's. Shell approached them for Shell branded gas station and racing vehicles. That lasted into the early 1990's when NASCAR licensing started heating up and the deal was terminated. Lego had to make their own brand: Octan.

Shell would contract Lego to build some sets as late as 1999, but these were only available from Shell stations.

[Philip H]

For me, the irony here is that pulling the license and destroying the product, creates worse publicity then leaving it in place.  Considering that they have a lot of "splainin" to do about Arkansas, I would think they would want positive image makers out there.

Guess my refinery will have to be Amoco or Texaco.

[bbussey]

Aside from the ramifications of the license being pulled ... I ordered a couple of sets because, when I get around to modeling a section of Bridgeport CT on my layout, I require a Mobil station.  And the set has period-specific graphics that are useful.

[kalbert]

I don't think this has as much to do with corporate greed and conspiracy to squash the little guy or brand identity protection as it probably does with contract negotiation and business doing what business does. Mobil probably entered an agreement with a marketing firm to handle all their identity matters and has no idea this is even occurring (nor do they probably care, they have bigger fish to fry, thats why they have somebody else deal with it). The marketing firm intern entered an agreement with a promotional product maker to have exclusive right produce Mobile automobilia, having no clue that this might include decals for models. Promotional product company probably got wind of the MicroScale decals, just that they have Mobil logos, and told the marketing firm that it violated their agreement to have exclusive rights to make stuff, who then told their law firm, who then contacted MicroScale and said cut it out.