A statement on The Titfield Thunderbolt.

[boxbrownie]

I have luckily found a figure that came with a pack of cows (farmer) which is wearing the same type of hat and all I have to do is paint him in the correct khaki and grey, and he even has a puzzled pose, perfect I hope.

[PaulRhB]

2 hours ago, boxbrownie said:

I have luckily found a figure that came with a pack of cows (farmer) which is wearing the same type of hat and all I have to do is paint him in the correct khaki and grey, and he even has a puzzled pose, perfect I hope.

Of course one of the packs will contain figures so hopefully Sid in there too. 
 

“Pack 1 (SKU922001) is a deluxe pack, containing sound-fitted Thunderbolt, Dan’s House and Loriot with W67840 plus 4mm:1ft scale figures and commemorative booklet”

[boxbrownie]

3 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

Of course one of the packs will contain figures so hopefully Sid in there too. 
 

“Pack 1 (SKU922001) is a deluxe pack, containing sound-fitted Thunderbolt, Dan’s House and Loriot with W67840 plus 4mm:1ft scale figures and commemorative booklet”

Would be nice if he was, but as they aren’t doing the road roller I am being pro-active 

[boxbrownie]

What a pr@tt…….it’s OK Andy I mean me……guess what, I bought the Ayling Porter traction engine from Oxford diecast and it arrived today and it’s going to be perfect……once I changed it from RED to GREEN….yes…..when I ordered I forgot it needed to be green……..well it’s been a busy evening so far, at least now it is green with a black flywheel and I need to do a bit more touch ups to it (tyres etc) and when it’s finished it’ll look almost good 

 

What a PR@TT. 

[didcot]

Where's the "doh" button when you need it!

[boxbrownie]

I suppose “fortunately” it was going to get a lot of weathering regardless, after seeing many frames from the film Sid’s ride looked almost black with crude, much as the pristine red engine direct from Oxford was a lovely little model it would have looked completely out of character doing what it should be doing.

 

Anyway it’s now nasty green, will be getting a coal load later and the tyres need to be toned down to a well worn grey I think….and then weathered once more…..after all this it’ll look like a lump of mud on the layout 

[JSpencer]

I think a duel between a 14XX and a steam road rollor would be pretty one sided (the 14XX being far bigger and more powerful). The crew would probably not survive.

 

Latest news letter talks about David & Goliath, but who is who here ? Rapido & Hornby  or Hornby  & Studio Canal.

Maybe a quote from Star Wars "there is always a bigger fish..."

[peach james]

While a 14xx is big and powerful, it's not disproportionately so- a big roller is >16 tons, on road, vs 41 tons (~30 tons on the drivers).  Since TE for a road engine can be as high as weight, in a tug of war situation, I wouldn't want to bet which one goes which way.  Rollers are slipperier than RL's, at least in the 50's before the comparatively modern practice of putting rubber shoes on them (*), but as to who wins, I think it might be a bit closer than you'd think.  The headstock on the roller will loose, but I suspect the best line to describe such an event is:
 

War does not determine who is right.
War determines who is left.

 

It's not like a Roller vs Mini, or 14xx vs Car, in which case there is going to be one looser only.  

James

(*) I am aware of the roller on Lancaster wheels, and I think there was a Sentinel engined one pre-war, but it's far more a last 20 years thing to put rubber on roller wheels)

[Derekstuart]

My word there are a lot of people here commenting on a subject with absolute certainty and authority and are instead writing what they assume should be the case, rather than what actually is.

 

Studiocanal Films Ltd actually applied to register the trademark 'THE TITFIELD THUNDERBOLT' 14th January 2022. It is currently in the examination process, which means it has not been granted and- if there are no objections- then it will be granted probably July or August of this year. However, I expect Hornby's lawyers will object on the basis that it has fallen into general use already and as such there *may* be grounds for it to be declared inadmissable. This applies to generic or well used terms that are already in everyday use- will those objections work? I have no idea- I am not a IP lawyer and I suspect from what I've read no one else here is either.

 

For reference the application can be found here: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00003743445

 

If the application fails then the applicant *may* have a basis for claiming 'passing off' of an UN registered trade mark. But the bench mark for that is very, very high indeed and I would not bet money on it. I would put a punt on their class 9 application receiving objections.

 

What is going to prove to be interesting is if Hornby can release their model before SCL have their application accepted (assuming they do). Hornby *may* well then have established a precedent and as such they can then release further models based on their own 'inspired by' range.

 

(SMALL PRINT: no side is taken, no moral opinion is implied nor should be inferred. I have no connection to any interested parties. I am not an IP lawyer. Readers are advised to check with the IPO before acting upon, believing/ disbelieving this post. All content within this post remains the copyright of me, though certain non-exclusive rights to it are awarded to the operators of RMWeb.co.uk. Copyright will remain until 50 years after my death at which time it becomes public domain. UK rules allow for small portions of this post to be replicated without breach of copyright for education, explanation or critical analysis- for example if you re-post the above paragraph alone then you are breaching copyright. If you post the above paragraph and write 'this is rubbish in my opinion' then you are not in breach of copyright, but just plain and simply wrong. HTH)

Edited January 31, 2022 by Derekstuart
Correction of punctuation.

[PaulRhB]

But most of the comment has been about infringement of copyright of the film using its name and images from it. The artwork showing 1401 clearly associated with the film.
Technically the name Tifield Thunderbolt is proving the train as depicted is copyright as part of the film. While you can trademark it that would be to stop it being used in isolation without any other associations with the film only which they hadn’t previously protected. Hornby have clearly associated it with the film in the images, model and calling the range ‘Trains on film’ so it will come under copyright rather than trademark. 
The trademark is purely to protect those words together so you can’t call another product by it. This is Studiocanal tying up a loophole for the future because trademarks don’t expire like copyright but as you say they may not get a trademark if it’s considered as a phrase in common use. I wouldn’t say it is so they probably stand a reasonable chance of trademarking it as it’s only commonly used to refer to the film. 
You cannot trademark a movie anyway. 

[frobisher]

7 hours ago, Derekstuart said:

Studiocanal Films Ltd actually applied to register the trademark 'THE TITFIELD THUNDERBOLT' 14th January 2022. It is currently in the examination process, which means it has not been granted and- if there are no objections- then it will be granted probably July or August of this year. However, I expect Hornby's lawyers will object on the basis that it has fallen into general use already and as such there *may* be grounds for it to be declared inadmissable. This applies to generic or well used terms that are already in everyday use- will those objections work? I have no idea- I am not a IP lawyer and I suspect from what I've read no one else here is either.

 

Whilst a trademark is IP, it isn't necessary to establish IP which rests within copyright.

 

The trademark applied for won't just be the words "THE TITFIELD THUNDERBOLT" though, but also their unique presentation within the context of the film.  Also, I'd like to see the mental gymnastics to prove the term has fallen into general use when it can only reference the film and the fictional train therein.  Or maybe I'm such a Titfield Thunderbolt that I've never encountered that before...

 

[boxbrownie]

10 hours ago, peach james said:

While a 14xx is big and powerful, it's not disproportionately so- a big roller is >16 tons, on road, vs 41 tons (~30 tons on the drivers).  Since TE for a road engine can be as high as weight, in a tug of war situation, I wouldn't want to bet which one goes which way.  Rollers are slipperier than RL's, at least in the 50's before the comparatively modern practice of putting rubber shoes on them (*), but as to who wins, I think it might be a bit closer than you'd think.  The headstock on the roller will loose, but I suspect the best line to describe such an event is:
 

War does not determine who is right.
War determines who is left.

 

It's not like a Roller vs Mini, or 14xx vs Car, in which case there is going to be one looser only.  

James

(*) I am aware of the roller on Lancaster wheels, and I think there was a Sentinel engined one pre-war, but it's far more a last 20 years thing to put rubber on roller wheels)

We all know who won 

[JSpencer]

11 hours ago, Derekstuart said:

My word there are a lot of people here commenting on a subject with absolute certainty and authority and are instead writing what they assume should be the case, rather than what actually is.

 

Studiocanal Films Ltd actually applied to register the trademark 'THE TITFIELD THUNDERBOLT' 14th January 2022. It is currently in the examination process, which means it has not been granted and- if there are no objections- then it will be granted probably July or August of this year. However, I expect Hornby's lawyers will object on the basis that it has fallen into general use already and as such there *may* be grounds for it to be declared inadmissable. This applies to generic or well used terms that are already in everyday use- will those objections work? I have no idea- I am not a IP lawyer and I suspect from what I've read no one else here is either.

 

For reference the application can be found here: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00003743445

 

 

Nice to see you Derek and thanks for the link. I did not realise that there were diesels in the film!

 

 

(This is rubbish in my humble opinion - LOL).

[didcot]

You would be surprised how fragile the front forks and headstock on a steam roller actually are. Forks are generally hollow. If the roller/14xx scene was real the front forks would have gone in an instant.

A low loader accidentally backed into a roller it was supposed to be collecting at a local rally. The low loader driver walked away totally unaware he had smashed the front end off.

A friend also had the front axle of his Burrell road loco knocked off by a driver in a stolen MG. The axle ended up under the boiler wedged against the belly tanks. Fortunately for the driver the smokebox didn't smash the windscreen and stopped just short.

They may be big old lumps but cast iron is fragile. 

[Derekstuart]

On 31/01/2022 at 03:14, PaulRhB said:

But most of the comment has been about infringement of copyright of the film using its name and images from it. The artwork showing 1401 clearly associated with the film.
Technically the name Tifield Thunderbolt is proving the train as depicted is copyright as part of the film. While you can trademark it that would be to stop it being used in isolation without any other associations with the film only which they hadn’t previously protected. Hornby have clearly associated it with the film in the images, model and calling the range ‘Trains on film’ so it will come under copyright rather than trademark. 
The trademark is purely to protect those words together so you can’t call another product by it. This is Studiocanal tying up a loophole for the future because trademarks don’t expire like copyright but as you say they may not get a trademark if it’s considered as a phrase in common use. I wouldn’t say it is so they probably stand a reasonable chance of trademarking it as it’s only commonly used to refer to the film. 
You cannot trademark a movie anyway. 

Well if that's the case then perhaps you might want to email Studio Canal and tell them there's no need to register a trademark.

 

Unfortunately, this is what I mean by most people here commenting on a subject they know little or nothing about. The copyright is for the film and not for individual items in it. I am not going to say for certain that your argument would be dismissed in Court as, like others here, I am not qualified to state that. What I am suggesting is that it is far, far from certain that reliance on copyright alone would be enough and this is, I would argue, evidenced by A) SCL not launching legal action already B) SCL registering a trade mark.

 

 

20 hours ago, frobisher said:

 

Whilst a trademark is IP, it isn't necessary to establish IP which rests within copyright.

 

The trademark applied for won't just be the words "THE TITFIELD THUNDERBOLT" though, but also their unique presentation within the context of the film.  Also, I'd like to see the mental gymnastics to prove the term has fallen into general use when it can only reference the film and the fictional train therein.  Or maybe I'm such a Titfield Thunderbolt that I've never encountered that before...

 

See above.

 

The name 'The Titfield Thunderbolt' has been used in many examples, one that I recall being a rather disparaging newspaper article about modern day rail services. In fact, that's a fairly regular usage of the term.

 

My final word on this as life is too short: I am really not trying to tell you that your argument wouldn't work, for I am just not qualified to state that any more than you are qualified to say it will. What I am saying is that the arguments people are putting forward with absolute certainty would not be certain if they were to present it to Court- if they were then this matter would have been resolved by now and this thread wouldn't be on page 23.

 

 

[Kris]

On 31/01/2022 at 01:40, Derekstuart said:

My word there are a lot of people here commenting on a subject with absolute certainty and authority and are instead writing what they assume should be the case, rather than what actually is.

 

Studiocanal Films Ltd actually applied to register the trademark 'THE TITFIELD THUNDERBOLT' 14th January 2022. It is currently in the examination process, which means it has not been granted and- if there are no objections- then it will be granted probably July or August of this year. However, I expect Hornby's lawyers will object on the basis that it has fallen into general use already and as such there *may* be grounds for it to be declared inadmissable. This applies to generic or well used terms that are already in everyday use- will those objections work? I have no idea- I am not a IP lawyer and I suspect from what I've read no one else here is either.

 

For reference the application can be found here: https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcase/page/Results/1/UK00003743445

 

If the application fails then the applicant *may* have a basis for claiming 'passing off' of an UN registered trade mark. But the bench mark for that is very, very high indeed and I would not bet money on it. I would put a punt on their class 9 application receiving objections.

 

What is going to prove to be interesting is if Hornby can release their model before SCL have their application accepted (assuming they do). Hornby *may* well then have established a precedent and as such they can then release further models based on their own 'inspired by' range.

 

(SMALL PRINT: no side is taken, no moral opinion is implied nor should be inferred. I have no connection to any interested parties. I am not an IP lawyer. Readers are advised to check with the IPO before acting upon, believing/ disbelieving this post. All content within this post remains the copyright of me, though certain non-exclusive rights to it are awarded to the operators of RMWeb.co.uk. Copyright will remain until 50 years after my death at which time it becomes public domain. UK rules allow for small portions of this post to be replicated without breach of copyright for education, explanation or critical analysis- for example if you re-post the above paragraph alone then you are breaching copyright. If you post the above paragraph and write 'this is rubbish in my opinion' then you are not in breach of copyright, but just plain and simply wrong. HTH)

It will not just be Hornby who should be objecting about this. Class 41 could affect Simon at the Titfield Thunderbolt bookshop. The fact that he has been using the name for a long time may cause this application to fail. 

 

edit. In case Simon was not aware of this application, I have emailed him.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Kris

[frobisher]

1 hour ago, Derekstuart said:

The name 'The Titfield Thunderbolt' has been used in many examples, one that I recall being a rather disparaging newspaper article about modern day rail services. In fact, that's a fairly regular usage of the term.

 

Saying something is like the Titfield Thunderbolt or other comparisons doesn't put it in common use. Use as a definitive article is a different matter.

 

1 hour ago, Derekstuart said:

What I am saying is that the arguments people are putting forward with absolute certainty would not be certain if they were to present it to Court- if they were then this matter would have been resolved by now and this thread wouldn't be on page 23.

 

If you think that then you have no understanding how the legal process works.  This isn't even close to it's day in court yet because Hornby haven't infringed the IP yet.

 

1 hour ago, Kris said:

It will not just be Hornby who should be objecting about this.

 

"Could" not "should" 

 

1 hour ago, Kris said:

Class 41 could affect Simon at the Titfield Thunderbolt bookshop. The fact that he has been using the name for a long time may cause this application to fail.

 

That's a "should" object, but he and Studiocanal really should talk sooner rather than later if they haven't already.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by frobisher

[meil]

You cannot Trade Mark "Titfield Thunderbolt" because you cannot trade mark the English language. A Trade Mark is what it says A Mark.

 

So it would have to be Titfield Thunderbolt written a particular style/graphic art for it to be a Trade Mark.

[AY Mod]

13 minutes ago, meil said:

You cannot Trade Mark "Titfield Thunderbolt" because you cannot trade mark the English language.

 

Off you go; go and make some toys with Star Wars, Marvel or Harry Potter on the box and let us know how you get on; after all they're only words.

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, AY Mod said:

 

Off you go; go and make some toys with Star Wars, Marvel or Harry Potter on the box and let us know how you get on; after all they're only words.

 

Quite

 

What meil needs to consider is that although English language words cannot be trademarked - putting them together in a specific way can!

 

Consider 'Coca-Cola' - the word 'Coca' is in itself not a trade mark, and neither is the word 'Cola'. Put them together however and you are now infringing the IP of the Coca-cola Company

 

Similarly the word McDonalds is in itself not a trademark (McDonald been a well used surname) - but you try opening a restaurant under that name....

 

So while the word 'thunderbolt' is quite obviously not something that can be trademarked, its usage in the phrase 'Titfield Thunderbolt' can.

 

The other thing to remember is the word 'Titfield' is a made up place name created exclusively for the film and as such can never be claimed to be a mere 'word' in the English language

[Compound2632]

Pardon my asking but have there actually been any developments reported since Rapido's and Hornby's announcements on 10 January? 

[Compound2632]

10 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

although English language words cannot be trademarked

 

Oh but they can, though context matters. Ask any lexicographer. 

 

Take, for example, the word "thunderbolt" - you couldn't market an electronic connector under that name; one would also think twice about selling broomsticks so named. I'd watch out for Zeus' proprietorial claims in that direction, too...

Edited February 1, 2022 by Compound2632

[phil-b259]

2 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

Pardon my asking but have there actually been any developments reported since Rapido's and Hornby's announcements on 10 January? 

 

Only the fact that StudioCanal have applied to have the phrase 'Titfield Thunderbolt' registered as a trademark with UK authorities on the 14th January. Although there is no specific links to the Hornby / Rapido situation I do not think it just happened to be a mere coincidence.

 

The outcome of that application will have a significant bearing on what happens next - though even if it fails matters like Hornby making copies of film specific peops (i.e Dans house) can still be actionable under copyright.

[Mike Harvey]

On 31/01/2022 at 01:40, Derekstuart said:

 

 

What is going to prove to be interesting is if Hornby can release their model before SCL have their application accepted (assuming they do). Hornby *may* well then have established a precedent and as such they can then release further models based on their own 'inspired by' range.

 

 

Oxford Diecast (now owned by Hornby) have experience in this field. They withdrew their range of Chipperfields Circus products after this trademark case, even though they had ownership of two Chipperfields trademarks.

 

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/o05411.pdf

 

Studio Canal’s application to register the Titfield Thunderbolt trademark is probably a measure to prevent Hornby trying to register it. 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Mike Harvey
added word for clarity

[phil-b259]

17 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Oh but they can, though context matters. Ask any lexicographer. 

 

Take, for example, the word "thunderbolt" - you couldn't market an electronic connector under that name; I'd also be hesitant about selling broomsticks so named. I'd watch out for Zeus' proprietorial claims in that direction, too...

 

For a capacitor, yes in theory you could - but given the words previous generalised association with a lightening strike (and thus swiftness / electrical discharge) its unlikely a trademark would be granted unless you added something else (see what I said above about the word 'Cola' not being able to be trademarked, but 'Pepsi Cola' can be).

 

Broomsticks are another matter though as 'Thunderbolt' is only associated with them because of a certain teenage wizard and as such it is clearly not in the public domain usage wise.

Edited February 1, 2022 by phil-b259