Use of Trademarks

[phil-b259]

25 minutes ago, Steven B said:

 

I find this very hard to believe.

 

Does this mean that anyone who's ever produced a model of "Mallard" has asked permission from the NRM?

 

Steven B

Technically yes (though obviously before the NRM resisted as an organisation then permission would have been required from whoever owned the loco at the time).

 

However back in the 1970s and 80s the NRM probably weren’t that bothered about enforcing it or seeking to profit from it.

 

In recent decades however the Government grant which the Science Museum group gets has not kept up with inflation plus there has been a strong Whitehall push to ‘reduce the burden on hard working taxpayers’ as one party puts it - so organisations like the Science museum have to put a much bigger effort into protecting their IP rights to make ends meet and generate additional funds.

 

The upshot is that today, reproducing a model / artwork / signage which is owned by the SMG will require express permission (and a finically contribution to the organisation) to do so.
 

 

Edited April 25 by phil-b259

[AY Mod]

32 minutes ago, Steven B said:

Does this mean that anyone who's ever produced a model of "Mallard" has asked permission from the NRM?

 

If it includes the name Mallard, yes. Other A4s are available.

[melmerby]

16 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

The upshot is that today, reproducing a model / artwork / signage which is owned by the SMG will require express permission (and a finically contribution to the organisation) to do so.
 

Unfortunately they don't see too bothered what it looks like as long as they get the money.

Just look at all the ghastly abominations quality collectables produced by Bradford Exchange.

[TheQ]

I seem to remember some of the footy teams wanting their cut of money from sales of the " Footballer" locomotives ( LNER B17/6).

[Grovenor]

Owning a locomotive does not automatically give any rights to either the copyright in the livery design or its name as a trademark. The copyright for LBSC livery as an example may well have expired and if not may or may not have been sold with tloco.

Following the link given above the Science Museum have clearly registered the trademark "Mallard" with the express intention of milking it as best they can (or, if being kind, preventing tohe production of lots of tat#) as is evident from the vast list of goods and servicers they claim it relates to. Of which class 28 is the one of interest to us.

'Flying Scotsman is rather more complicated, there are 14 registrations, not all current, of which 6 include class 28. So using Flying Scotsman as a trademark for a model you may need permissions from 6 others! {Except all 6 are registered to the Science Museum)

Edited April 27 by Grovenor

[joseph benjamin]

It seems that I've opened a can of worms but it is something that I hadn't thought of till I read the article.

[Mark Saunders]

45 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

 

'Flying Scotsman is rather more complicated, there are 14 registrations, not all current, of which 6 include class 28. So using Flying Scotsman as a trademark for a model you may need permissions from 6 others!

 

I have never followed the logic behind Flying Scotsman especially as the same name applies to Eric Liddle and the name has been in the public domain for years, especially after the film of the same name in 1929. 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Grovenor said:

Owning a locomotive does not automatically give any rights to either the copyright in the livery design or its name as a trademark. The copyright for LBSC livery as an example may well have expired and if not may or may not have been sold with tloco.

 

 

Then please explain how the Bluebell Railway were able to hit back when the owners of the Thomas the Tank Engine IP sent threatening letters stating the railway was committing IP theft as regards Stepney and big monies had to be paid.

 

By rights its the Bluebell who should have been demanding royalties from TTEs use of Stepney not the other way round!

 

Furthermore there have been plenty of court cases where companies alleging IP infringement due to colour / shape have been told to get lost by judges who generally say colour / shape is not enough to claim IP infringement....

 

https://www.keystonelaw.com/keynotes/nestle-loses-its-european-trade-mark-for-the-shape-of-the-kitkat
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/20/kitkat-nestle-loses-high-court-bid-trademark-shape
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47113644

Edited April 25 by phil-b259

[Wheatley]

10 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Then please explain how the Bluebell Railway were able to hit back when the owners of the Thomas the Tank Engine IP sent threatening letters stating the railway was committing IP theft as regards Stepney and big monies had to be paid.

 

Because Britt Allcroft accepted, when told, that Rev. Awdry using one of the Bluebell's engines in one of his stories, and them in turn sticking a face on it with his blessing pre-dated her owning the TTTE rights. 

[Bucoops]

You could ask Hornby? 🍟 (being blind, can't see popcorn)

[kevinlms]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

The upshot is that today, reproducing a model / artwork / signage which is owned by the SMG will require express permission (and a finically contribution to the organisation) to do so.
 

I wonder what sort of arrangement Bradford Exchange has with the NRM, to allow them to come up with the tat, that they do for Flying Scotsman?

Edited April 25 by kevinlms
More info

[phil-b259]

9 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

I wonder what sort of arrangement Bradford Exchange has with the NRM, to allow them to come up with the tat, that they do for Flying Scotsman?

 

Erm... pay them money?

 

Given it is official Government policy for museums in receipt of grants from DMCS to maximise revenue generation I suspect as long as the Science Museum Group get a cut of everything Bradford Exchange sell they really don't care how tacky the product is!

[kevinlms]

7 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Erm... pay them money?

 

Given it is official Government policy for museums in receipt of grants from DMCS to maximise revenue generation I suspect as long as the Science Museum Group get a cut of everything Bradford Exchange sell they really don't care how tacky the product is!

Well I did expect some sort of CASH, but I do hope the NRM charges them a fortune and not just petty cash, because they've got some old deal going back years.

Such as a fixed price years ago, to do as they wished, which seems to be the outcome.

Edited April 25 by kevinlms
More info

[SM42]

9 hours ago, Wheatley said:

 Chris Green was famously relaxed about the use of the Virgin West Coast livery on model trains, 

 

Not sure if he was there when one of our club layouts appeared in RM complete with Virgin liveried Mk2s on show. 

You couldn't buy such an item at the time and the owner had made his own. 

 

A letter was received about them and use of the trade mark, but they went away happy when it was explained that it was a private project and not intended for commercial sale.  

 

I do wonder how Avanti West Coast got away with it though 

 

https://avantikb.co.uk/

 

They even use orange in their logo. 

 

Andy

[RexAshton]

On 24/04/2024 at 21:09, joseph benjamin said:

Do model manufacturers such as Hornby and Oxford diecast seek the permission of the owners of trademarks such as Freighliner, Ford and Rolls Royce to use them on their models. I ask because I've just read in a April 2004 issue of Model Railroader that Union Pacific was suing Athearn and Lionel over the use of their trademark on models.

 

I believe that when UP realised how much free advertising they were getting they didn't pursue the action. They were also going to sue the decal manufacturers at the same time.

[BR60103]

One consequence of this was the appearance of unprototypical TM letters on the sides of model rolling stock.

 

[jjb1970]

The last desperate gambit of a former model company to stay afloat was to try and copyright locomotive designs. If anything it probably helped the company on its way south, blowing whatever residual goodwill they had and making it look an even bigger clownshow.