Hornby Announce L&MR 0-4-2 "Lion"?

[eldomtom2]

9 hours ago, Hroth said:

They could do Lion, although that might involve talking to National Museums and Galleries Merseyside (or whatever they call themselves at the moment) if they want to use the name, as they own "Lion".

I doubt that would be the case - any IP in the locomotive itself would surely have expired long ago and Hornby can always say that any use of such is merely what is necessary to produce an accurate model.

[Bucoops]

13 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

I doubt that would be the case - any IP in the locomotive itself would surely have expired long ago and Hornby can always say that any use of such is merely what is necessary to produce an accurate model.

 

How does it work with NRM owned locomotives? They do not allow manufacturers to make those specific ones without their permission. Other members of the same class yes, but not Green Arrow, D6700 etc. 

[eldomtom2]

7 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

How does it work with NRM owned locomotives? They do not allow manufacturers to make those specific ones without their permission. Other members of the same class yes, but not Green Arrow, D6700 etc. 

Do you have a precise citation on that?

[PaulRhB]

17 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

 

How does it work with NRM owned locomotives? They do not allow manufacturers to make those specific ones without their permission. Other members of the same class yes, but not Green Arrow, D6700 etc. 

I think that only applies to the NRM & National Collection branding. Several locos have been produced before it became a Collectors branding. Mallard, Rocket, Evening Star and the Midland Compound were all produced for years before any association with the NRM was used in advertising. As far as I know it is just a sales angle to make Ltd editions collectible by carrying the branding. 
It makes sense for the manufacturer not to duplicate a model in the standard range for a few years or it would affect future NRM editions saleability to the wider market as no one would pay a premium if they expect it to arrive £20-30 cheaper the following year without the branding on the box. 
Some of the commissions have no doubt had a sizeable deposit from the Locomotion side and an exclusive agreement for a few years as a result. 

[Bucoops]

6 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

Do you have a precise citation on that?

 

Nope - it's a genuine question as I don't know how it works

[MarkSG]

20 hours ago, Bucoops said:

 

How does it work with NRM owned locomotives? They do not allow manufacturers to make those specific ones without their permission. Other members of the same class yes, but not Green Arrow, D6700 etc. 

 

A museum doesn't own any copyright or design right in its exhibits. But it does control physical access to the exhibit, and it does have copyright in its own branding. Both of those are valuable to a model manufacturer, since scanning the original is one of the best ways of ensuring that the dimensions are accurate and the museum's branding is useful marketing material.

 

Also, if the exhibit has a recognisable name, then that name can be registered as a trade mark by the museum. That's not universal - the Science Musem Group does have a trade mark for "Flying Scotsman", for example, but not one for "Green Arrow" - but, where it has been registered, then it will usually include the classes relevant to a model of the exhibit. If that is the case, then a manufacturer would need permission to use the name on a model.

 

The benefit of an agreed arrangement works both ways, though. A model of one of the exhibits will tend to sell well in the museum's gift shop. So it's beneficial to the museum for a manufacturer to produce a model. But the shop doesn't want to stock competing different models of the same exhibit, as that would be an unnecessary waste of space. So access for scanning, a co-branding agreement and, where applicable, permission to use the trademark will normally only be given to one manufacturer. That doesn't necessarily stop a different manufacturer from making it (provided that it doesn't require trade mark permission), but it may well make it sufficiently less attractive to those other than the chosen partner that they just don't bother.

[eldomtom2]

1 hour ago, MarkSG said:

If that is the case, then a manufacturer would need permission to use the name on a model.

I am not certain of this - I know in Germany that is definitely not the case.

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, eldomtom2 said:

I am not certain of this - I know in Germany that is definitely not the case.

 

Generally, and this is world wide, you can't use someone's trademark without their permission.

 

I can't see how this would be any different in Germany.

 

[phil-b259]

Folk also need to remember that its usually the case that state owned entities will give permission to use their trademarks / branding free of charge (given everything the Government own / do is ultimately the property of the electorate so to speak)

 

Trademarks owned by private sector entities are a whole different ball game and many said private organisations will be far more protective of them.

[eldomtom2]

7 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

Generally, and this is world wide, you can't use someone's trademark without their permission.

 

I can't see how this would be any different in Germany.

 

There are almost always various exemptions - the precise details vary by country. In Germany there was a court case where an RC car manufacturer successfully argued that they could use the logo of a car manufacturer without permission because it was necessary to make an accurate model of the car.

[mdvle]

So, with additional info went looking and found the court case with a summary in English

 

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1df89090-5621-458c-b03a-aeceeceedaa4

 

Interesting decision, with some thoughts.

1. given the decision was based on an a referral to the ECJ then this would also influence any decisions in any jurisdiction the ECJ rules for.
2. given 1), unless any other EU nation has a law specifically covering the issue it would mean that it would also apply EU wide unless someone wants to fight it through the courts hoping for a different decision.
3. technically this doesn't apply to anything but model cars, but in reality it would be a foolish company who would attempt to fight this for a model train/plane/etc.
4. and of course the UK is no longer in the EU.

 

[5944]

The only locomotive I know of that has a registered trademark is 60007 Sir Nigel Gresley.

 

https://sirnigelgresley.org.uk/mob-trademark.shtml

 

Only the nameplate though. It was done basically to stop manufacturers of cheap tat making money if they include the loco's nameplate in their product. If you ask permission, generally it'll be granted on the basis that a donation is made to the society.

[BlueLightning]

2 hours ago, 5944 said:

The only locomotive I know of that has a registered trademark is 60007 Sir Nigel Gresley.

 

Flying Scotsman has at least 3 trademarks covering it's name and nameplates (all registered to the Science Museum Group), and there are probably others

 

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00002651745

 

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00002563102

 

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00002057869

[RichardT]

Bumping an old thread, and as the “Hornby Trains on Film” thread is locked, the following paragraph in last week’s Rapido UK newsletter, following a description of their EP of “Lion”, is of interest:

 

“STUDIOCANAL has also told us that our range of The Titfield Thunderbolt™ models will be the only such products coming to market, as per our agreement with STUDIOCANAL.”

 

Obviously, this doesn’t stop Hornby producing their own “Lion” (as opposed to “Thunderbolt”), but I suspect it makes it most unlikely.  Also note the order of proceedings: Studiocanal tell Rapido what’s happening.  Hornby, in trying to tweak the tail of a rival, found themselves not dealing with Rapido, but with a much more well-financed & lawyered-up company…

 

Richard

[boxbrownie]

20 hours ago, RichardT said:

 

 

 Hornby, in trying to tweak the tail of a rival, found themselves not dealing with Rapido, but with a much more well-financed & lawyered-up company…

 

Richard

Because SC hold the copyright not Rapido.

[RichardT]

1 hour ago, boxbrownie said:

Because SC hold the copyright not Rapido.

Yes, that was the point I was making.
 

Hornby, in aggressively trying to intimidate/get one over on Rapido as they had previously done with Hattons and Rails, seemed to have completely forgotten that this time they weren’t *just* dealing with another model firm, but that there was a much more formidable third party involved.  Hopefully Hornby will have learnt their lesson and will stop acting like d*ckheads in future.  (Personally I suspect that someone at Hornby got a bit carried away with how this kind of behaviour appeared on reality tv and forgot about the real world.)

 

Richard

 

 

[PhilJ W]

Or it could be that Hornby had planned the 'Trains on Films' on the assumption that the owners of the rights would come rushing to the door at the mention of their name and got a nasty surprise when they discovered the rights had gone to someone else.

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, PhilJ W said:

Or it could be that Hornby had planned the 'Trains on Films' on the assumption that the owners of the rights would come rushing to the door at the mention of their name and got a nasty surprise when they discovered the rights had gone to someone else.

Simple really - Hornby missed the 'bus because Rapido got in first with a deal with SC.   The fact that Hornby had obviously had their eyes on 'Lion' for some time (with the big bonus of a Titfield tie-in as well and even the Florence Nightingale film - if anyone at Hornby had previously heard of it?) all became irrelevant once Rapido got there first.  And to then try and sneak their way round with the 'inspired by'  nonsense showed Hornby to be either very naive, or arrogant, or both.  Serves 'em right for making bad decisions.

[Bucoops]

They may not have known about Rapido's licence before the catalogue was signed off as I suspect they are on a long lead time, but they absolutely knew by range announcement day and still chose to include it.

 

Arrogance or stupidity? Not sure, but definitely not good business sense.

[Steamport Southport]

No idea why this is resurfacing. It's been done to death and was boring when it first appeared.

 

This thread is about Lion. A locomotive built in 1838 that has it's own history, not a film made in 1953.

 

If people don't want one fine, but there are many of us that do. 

 

 

 

Jason

[Bucoops]

13 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

No idea why this is resurfacing. It's been done to death and was boring when it first appeared.

 

This thread is about Lion. A locomotive built in 1838 that has it's own history, not a film made in 1953.

 

If people don't want one fine, but there are many of us that do. 

 

 

 

Jason

 

I do - and have one on order from Rapido

[adb968008]

26 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

No idea why this is resurfacing. It's been done to death and was boring when it first appeared.

 

This thread is about Lion. A locomotive built in 1838 that has it's own history, not a film made in 1953.

 

If people don't want one fine, but there are many of us that do. 

 

 

 

Jason

I think your in the wrong thread then, let me help you…

 

I do wonder if product confusion, and resulting Hornbys pre- sales of The SC licensed models would be of interest to Rapido, as each one could arguably be a lost sale to Rapido, and therefore damages caused ?

 

I should add on Hornby’s Lion itself, it wasn't actually advertised… only the Film versions…. The main loco itself didnt make this years “cut” (excuse the film pun).

Edited April 18, 2022 by adb968008

[AY Mod]

22 minutes ago, Bucoops said:

They may not have known about Rapido's licence before the catalogue was signed off as I suspect they are on a long lead time, but they absolutely knew by range announcement day and still chose to include it.

 

Arrogance or stupidity? Not sure, but definitely not good business sense.

 

It seems they would have known by the date this topic started, 9 months before Trains on Film was announced to the press and 10 months before the trade and public with a conscious decision to use the specific phraseology which was questioned on the press day.

[Steamport Southport]

37 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I think your in the wrong thread then, let me help you…

 

I do wonder if product confusion, and resulting Hornbys pre- sales of The SC licensed models would be of interest to Rapido, as each one could arguably be a lost sale to Rapido, and therefore damages caused ?

 

I should add on Hornby’s Lion itself, it wasn't actually advertised… only the Film versions…. The main loco itself didnt make this years “cut” (excuse the film pun).

 

This is the Lion thread in the Hornby section.

 

Pointing me to the Rapido thread is pointless. I'll buy a Hornby one when they come out.

 

 

 

Jason

[Jon Harbour]

 

On 19/04/2022 at 05:17, Steamport Southport said:

 

This is the Lion thread in the Hornby section.

 

Pointing me to the Rapido thread is pointless. I'll buy a Hornby one when they come out.

 

 

 

Jason

 

You might be waiting a while... I don't see Lion listed on the Hornby web site any more...