Hornby 2022 - Trains on Film

[Fair Oak Junction]

5 minutes ago, Pmorgancym said:

To me the madness is, they could have tooled up the 14xx and the Wisbech coach and enjoyed complimentary sales from the licensed rapido product.  But instead they're deciding to face it off.

 

Rapido are doing the Wisbech coach as well (including the associated real world liveries).

The 14xx is the only thing missing to complete the Titfield range, and the steamroller I guess.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Obsidian Quarry

[HonestTom]

2 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

I’m not joining any boycott of Hornby for two reasons, there’s plenty of folks relying on their jobs in Hornby and if the Hornby model doesn’t duplicate someone else’s announcement and it’s something I wanted then it’s a nice to have. That said I put my order in with Rapido for the Titfield set and I will be buying a Lion from them too because on that Hornby’s antics stink and I know that it will be a fine model from two others I’ve got. 
Hornby have lost my loyalty and sympathy for the top brass antics but seeing the same in many companies I’ll vote with my wallet where there’s an alternative. 

I'm not joining in the boycott because, frankly, they produce a lot of models I like that no one else does. I feel with this particular issue that I'm willing to let Hornby, Rapido and StudioCanal duke it out to see who comes out on top.

[On30runner]

3 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Yes the film aspect is a great idea and St Trinians would be a fun set with some thought on the accessories. I think a Buster set would get mired in the debate on the real robbers treatment of the driver though. 
 

speaking as a train driver, yeah I wouldn't be happy

[PaulRhB]

1 minute ago, Pmorgancym said:

Something that didn't seen to affect the film.

That was some time ago though and that type of thing gets rattled round social media these days. Not one I’d choose for that and it’s not exactly an iconic film in our hobby or generally   The Ealing films have a lot of retro appeal and have been re-issued three times that I can think of and I’ve got two of the Titfield re-issues. 

[Corbs]

6 minutes ago, HonestTom said:

An obvious one that springs to mind for me is Paddington 2, which features a very prominent train chase that could (I think) be quite reasonably recreated by Hornby. They have Tornado and Pullman coaches in their Railroad range, they (presumably) have the Lima 'Crab' and the circus train (which is freelance) could be made up of the usual Railroad curtain-sided vans and vent vans. And Hornby have produced a Paddington-themed set already.

 

 

 

I attempted some of the Paddington 2 vans a little while ago

 

 

Paddington is also a Studio Canal property, incidentally.

[Roy Langridge]

9 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

I’m not joining any boycott of Hornby for two reasons, there’s plenty of folks relying on their jobs in Hornby and if the Hornby model doesn’t duplicate someone else’s announcement and it’s something I wanted then it’s a nice to have. That said I put my order in with Rapido for the Titfield set and I will be buying a Lion from them too because on that Hornby’s antics stink and I know that it will be a fine model from two others I’ve got. 

 

That is of course your prerogative, but I am boycotting Hornby because of the folks that relied on Hornby for their jobs in model shops* etc. who then, with little notice, were not supplied the goods they had pre-ordered in good faith. In my opinion, Hornby's antics starting stinking long before this saga.

 

If the truth is as you describe it (and I am in no way questioning what you have stated) then Hornby deserve to have the book thrown at them for whatever breaches they have committed.

 

Roy

 

*At lease two shut down citing the Hornby tier system if I recall correctly.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Roy Langridge
Typos

[E100]

The thing that strikes me is that Hornby had a choice when it found out assuming it was producing Lion already.

 

1. Do what it's done and face off in a questionable manner legally or otherwise.

 

2. Avoid the PR nightmare and potential legal hurt. Double down on it's early use on the LMR with Lion itself. Release high quality toolings for other LMR coaches and stock than they already are including releasing the mail coach as a separate item. The 2022 wagon releases currently look straight off a 3D printer. 

 

They aren't even releasing it as a standalone engine which to me says it all.

[The Stationmaster]

3 hours ago, Legend said:

But if Hornby are in contact with Studiocanal over the Railway Children Returns , is it not extremely unlikely that the subject of the Titfield Thunderbolt and Lady with the lamp  would not have come up ?   Maybe Studiocanal have said they have no objection .  While it leaves a bad smell and I really dont like the bullying tactics I can't believe that Hornby would be stupid enough to leave itself open to litigation . 

On the other hand maybe they just ploughed on regardless with their version and use the 'Inspired by' bit to shuffle round any legalities of permissions etc.  They might or might not have taken legal advice or someone there might just think they can get away with it and didn't even bother with trying out the legalities - which might get rather embarrassing if Studio Canal go down a legal route 

[MarkSG]

Just a few thoughts on this from an Intellectual Property perspective. Note that I am not an IP lawyer, but it's an area of law which touches on my day job so I have a fair understanding of the important points. And, possibly more importantly, I know where to go to get a better opinion than my own!

 

To begin with, commercial IP law can be incredibly complex. Anyone who tells you there's a simple answer to this case doesn't understand it well enough to have an informed opnion! But there are a few basics which are, I hope, reasonably simple to grasp.

 

Firstly, copyright. There is, of course, copyright in the film itself as well as ancillary material such as artwork, scripts, etc. Rapido appear to have permission to use this (the movie artwork forms part of their own publicity). Hornby, presumably, do not, but they can avoid any infringement by not using any actual material from the movie. A simple, short phrase, such as a title, cannot be subject to copyright, but it can be subject to other forms of IP, such as trade marks.

 

Secondly, trade marks. As others have already pointed out, there do not appear to be any in this case (at least, the obvious, phrases, such as "Titifield Thunderbolt", haven't been registered). No trade mark means no infringement, so Hornby are OK here.

 

Thirdly, design Right.  This exists in the physical shape of objects (eg, props) constructed specifically for the movie. The only one to which this would apply is Dan's House, since Lion, the Loriot and the Toad are not specific to the film. Design right (rather than copyright) also applies to a set of colours used as, for example, a livery. However, unregistered design right expires after 15 years, and registered design right expires after 25. Either way, the movie is more than 25 years old, so any design right in the props and the fictional livery has expired by now.

So, what do Rapido and StudioCanal have left in their locker? Now, this is where it gets really complicated, and why I think that Hornby may feel they've got enough leeway to get way with it, especially by using the "inspired by" wording. But there are two aspects that I think Rapido and StudioCanal may well be looking at.

 

One of those is, still, copyright. I know I sort of dismissed that, above. But there is one thing that Hornby are using that might amount to an infringement, and that's the "Thunderbolt" nameplate on the loco. If StudioCanal are able to argue that the design of the nameplate is sufficiently distinctive (ie, it's more than just letters forming a word), then it could be considered a logo. If so, then it's protected by copyright, and copying it is an infringement. Note that in this case, the colour, size and font of the lettering will matter. If it appears to a court that Hornby's nameplate is intended to replicate the one on the movie loco, then it could be seen as an infringement. But, on the other hand, Hornby might be able to sucessfully argue that it's just a standard locomotive nameplate without any sufficiently distinctive characteristics beyond the name (which, not being a registered trade mark, is not protected).

 

The other potentially fruitful avenue for StudioCanal is that of "Passing Off". Unlike trade marks, copyright and design right, passing off is a much more nebulous concept that only exists in common law rather than statute law. However, the essence of "passing off" is deliberately giving the impression that your product is made by, or endorsed by, someone else, in a way that causes quantifiable loss of either money or reputation to the person or organisation who is the victim of the passing off.

Unfortunately for Rapido, they can't use this themselves, because their product itself doesn't exist yet and hence another can't be passed off as being it. And, also, it's difficult to argue that by making a Thunderbolt, people will wrongly think that the Hornby model is actually Rapido's.

However, this is potentially the best option for StudioCanal, because they will want to avoid any suggestion that they have endorsed Hornby's model, or given permission for it, when in fact they have not. And, given that they would charge a licence fee for using it, they have suffered a clear financial loss from Hornby's unauthorised use. If somebody, on seeing Hornby's model, thinks that it's an officially licensed product, then that forms the basis of a passing off claim against Hornby. Even more so if their decision to purchase it is made, at least partly, on the misbelief that it is officially licensed. If someone said that "I bought the Hornby pack instead of the Rapido pack because it's cheaper, and otherwise they're both the same" that would be evidence of passing off, because the reality is that the models are not the same - the Rapido model is licensed and the Hornby one is not, and that's a material difference which should be made clear to a prospective purchaser.

 

That said, a claim for passing off is difficult to make. A lot depends on whether StudioCanal care enough about it to spend the money necessary to pursue it. And Hornby will be hoping that the "inspired by" tag gives them enough wriggle room if they do get pursued.

 

One final point on passing off, though. If StudioCanal do go down this route, then one weapon available to them is to get an interim injunction forbidding the sale of Hornby's Thunderbolt until the case is resolved one way or the other. That would obviously impact not just Hornby, but also on retailers who have taken delivery of (or placed orders for) Hornby's Thunderbolt, but would then be unable to sell them to customers. This is possibly a long shot, and I suspect that StudioCanal would prefer to avoid going down that route. But it is, nonetheless, a non-zero prospect, and Hornby's retailers would be wise to be aware of it.

 

Edit: I should add that the above is based not only on a fairly simplified description of the relevant aspects of IP, but also on the very limited information we have about the actual dispute. If there is key factual information that has not already been made public, then that could make a very big difference to whether any action would succeed and, if so, on what basis. And the nature of IP disputes is that they often turn on fairly arcane elements of the argument.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by MarkSG

[Corbs]

2 minutes ago, E100 said:

They aren't even releasing it as a standalone engine which to me says it all.

 

I think they do have plans to do it as a standalone.

 

What is crucial to remember about Lion is that in its current form, it is not representative of the 1830s Liverpool and Manchester Railway, instead it is what the LMS thought it should have looked like when they rebuilt it in the 1930s.
Lion in L&MR use did not look like it does in the 20th and 21st Century or in the film(s). The large haystack firebox is fake. It is also not certain that today's Lion is even the 'actual' Lion. It is worth reading Anthony Dawson's books on the subject if you are interested.

[APOLLO]

Perhaps a "Ladykillers" set would sell. A signal returning to danger knocking a figure into an empty wagon below with a "kerthunk" - Steam generator just inside the tunnel mouth with a haunting "Looiis" played via a sound chip for realism. !!

 

https://www.reelstreets.com/films/ladykillers-the/

 

http://railwaymoviedatabase.com/the-ladykillers/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brit 15

[HonestTom]

8 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

That was some time ago though and that type of thing gets rattled round social media these days. Not one I’d choose for that and it’s not exactly an iconic film in our hobby or generally   The Ealing films have a lot of retro appeal and have been re-issued three times that I can think of and I’ve got two of the Titfield re-issues. 

I'd never even heard of it before reading this thread. Mind you, I'd barely heard of The Lady With A Lamp either. The Titfield Thunderbolt, on the other hand, is a very marketable film to railway enthusiasts. I think most rail enthusiasts have seen it, many people have a lot of affection towards it and it feels very much like "our" film. I can't think of any pop culture depiction of rail enthusiasts that has felt so true to life. Plus it's a film that is very much about trains, whereas I think it's fair to say that the majority of trains in film are simply an incidental detail, a means of getting characters from A to B or a piece of period furniture.

[Kris]

20 minutes ago, Roy Langridge said:

Why are you assuming that it is a UK trademark? In terms of trademarks, those extant before 01/01/2021 in Europe still hold value in the UK at the current time. With StudoCanal being French, I believe a European Trademark registration is more likely.

Roy

I never assumed this, you just assumed that I did.

StudioCanal have registered other trademarks in the UK prior to 2021. Having also searched EU databases for Titfield as a trademark it is not there either. 

[CUCKOO LINE]

It all makes me wonder whether Hornby actually has any strategic planning. The Coca Cola I sought of understand to attract the younger people, but to flood the market in one calendar year  with specials, film based themes seems a bit excessive, one can only assumet5hey think such collectors have very deep pockets. Would be nice to see Hornby using quality and technology to enhance their market share rather than a lot of gimmicks.

[MarkSG]

48 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

 

Yes, I know.

 

I wanted to know when. (I suspect it was pre-2013 when Hornby produced its R3186 TF set.)

 

 

It's a long story.

 

APBC was acquired by EMI over the course of 1968 and 1969 (by buying stock from two different owners of APBC), and EMI (later Thorn EMI)  subsequently sold its distribution operations to Alan Bond in 1986 who immediately sold it on to the Cannon Group. Cannon Group sold their film library a year later to Weintraub Entertainment Group, and Lumiere Pictures and Television - then a part of UGC - bought the former Cannon library from Weintraub in 1996. UGC became part of Groupe Canal+ in 1999, at which point the film library was transferred to the StudioCanal subsidiary of Groupe Canal+.

 

So the answer to your question appears to be 1999. But it took a lot of Wikipedia pages to get there, including reading some of the French ones (UGC, StudioCanal and Groupe Canal+ are all French companies, and English Wikipedia is somewhat less informative about them), so I may have missed something en route or lost it in translation.

 

[dibber25]

49 minutes ago, Corbs said:

 

Wonder who owns these.....

The Ladykillers is another Ealing Comedy like Titfield, so it belongs to Studio Canal. (CJL)

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by dibber25
...spellchecker does not like Titfield

[mdvle]

25 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

That said, a claim for passing off is difficult to make. A lot depends on whether StudioCanal care enough about it to spend the money necessary to pursue it.

 

In a way StudioCanal will have no choice but to pursue it because licensing rights is big money in the movie world.

 

Yes, you can argue that Titfield isn't likely to generate a lot of money from model trains - but think of the money other movies (Star Wars, anything Disney, etc.) generate from licensing.  Generally speaking the movie rights owners aren't going to risk that income stream.

 

If StudioCanal don't pursue this then there will be a lot of people (not just in the model train world) looking at the repercussions.

 

[Harlequin]

25 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

Just a few thoughts on this from an Intellectual Property perspective. Note that I am not an IP lawyer, but it's an area of law which touches on my day job so I have a fair understanding of the important points. And, possibly more importantly, I know where to go to get a better opinion than my own!

 

To begin with, commercial IP law can be incredibly complex. Anyone who tells you there's a simple answer to this case doesn't understand it well enough to have an informed opnion! But there are a few basics which are, I hope, reasonably simple to grasp.

 

Firstly, copyright. There is, of course, copyright in the film itself as well as ancillary material such as artwork, scripts, etc. Rapido appear to have permission to use this (the movie artwork forms part of their own publicity). Hornby, presumably, do not, but they can avoid any infringement by not using any actual material from the movie. A simple, short phrase, such as a title, cannot be subject to copyright, but it can be subject to other forms of IP, such as trade marks.

 

Secondly, trade marks. As others have already pointed out, there do not appear to be any in this case (at least, the obvious, phrases, such as "Titifield Thunderbolt", haven't been registered). No trade mark means no infringement, so Hornby are OK here.

 

Thirdly, design Right.  This exists in the physical shape of objects (eg, props) constructed specifically for the movie. The only one to which this would apply is Dan's House, since Lion, the Loriot and the Toad are not specific to the film. Design right (rather than copyright) also applies to a set of colours used as, for example, a livery. However, unregistered design right expires after 15 years, and registered design right expires after 25. Either way, the movie is more than 25 years old, so any design right in the props and the fictional livery has expired by now.

So, what do Rapido and StudioCanal have left in their locker? Now, this is where it gets really complicated, and why I think that Hornby may feel they've got enough leeway to get way with it, especially by using the "inspired by" wording. But there are two aspects that I think Rapido and StudioCanal may well be looking at.

 

One of those is, still, copyright. I know I sort of dismissed that, above. But there is one thing that Hornby are using that might amount to an infringement, and that's the "Thunderbolt" nameplate on the loco. If StudioCanal are able to argue that the design of the nameplate is sufficiently distinctive (ie, it's more than just letters forming a word), then it could be considered a logo. If so, then it's protected by copyright, and copying it is an infringement. Note that in this case, the colour, size and font of the lettering will matter. If it appears to a court that Hornby's nameplate is intended to replicate the one on the movie loco, then it could be seen as an infringement. But, on the other hand, Hornby might be able to sucessfully argue that it's just a standard locomotive nameplate without any sufficiently distinctive characteristics beyond the name (which, not being a registered trade mark, is not protected).

 

The other potentially fruitful avenue for StudioCanal is that of "Passing Off". Unlike trade marks, copyright and design right, passing off is a much more nebulous concept that only exists in common law rather than statute law. However, the essence of "passing off" is deliberately giving the impression that your product is made by, or endorsed by, someone else, in a way that causes quantifiable loss of either money or reputation to the person or organisation who is the victim of the passing off.

Unfortunately for Rapido, they can't use this themselves, because their product itself doesn't exist yet and hence another can't be passed off as being it. And, also, it's difficult to argue that by making a Thunderbolt, people will wrongly think that the Hornby model is actually Rapido's.

However, this is potentially the best option for StudioCanal, because they will want to avoid any suggestion that they have endorsed Hornby's model, or given permission for it, when in fact they have not. And, given that they would charge a licence fee for using it, they have suffered a clear financial loss from Hornby's unauthorised use. If somebody, on seeing Hornby's model, thinks that it's an officially licensed product, then that forms the basis of a passing off claim against Hornby. Even more so if their decision to purchase it is made, at least partly, on the misbelief that it is officially licensed. If someone said that "I bought the Hornby pack instead of the Rapido pack because it's cheaper, and otherwise they're both the same" that would be evidence of passing off, because the reality is that the models are not the same - the Rapido model is licensed and the Hornby one is not, and that's a material difference which should be made clear to a prospective purchaser.

 

That said, a claim for passing off is difficult to make. A lot depends on whether StudioCanal care enough about it to spend the money necessary to pursue it. And Hornby will be hoping that the "inspired by" tag gives them enough wriggle room if they do get pursued.

 

One final point on passing off, though. If StudioCanal do go down this route, then one weapon available to them is to get an interim injunction forbidding the sale of Hornby's Thunderbolt until the case is resolved one way or the other. That would obviously impact not just Hornby, but also on retailers who have taken delivery of (or placed orders for) Hornby's Thunderbolt, but would then be unable to sell them to customers. This is possibly a long shot, and I suspect that StudioCanal would prefer to avoid going down that route. But it is, nonetheless, a non-zero prospect, and Hornby's retailers would be wise to be aware of it.

 

 

 

 

 

Very informative, thanks.

 

There's one other route that Rapido and StudioCanal could take, entirely outside any regulatory framework, which might be more powerful: StudioCanal could simply point out to Hornby that it's highly unlikely they will get any future licences if they go ahead and compete with an officially licensed product.

 

[mdvle]

Just now, Harlequin said:

 

Very informative, thanks.

 

There's one other route that Rapido and StudioCanal could take, entirely outside any regulatory framework, which might be more powerful: StudioCanal could simply point out to Hornby that it's highly unlikely they will get any future licences if they go ahead and compete with an officially licensed product.

 

 

Not just StudioCanal.

 

Anyone who potentially licenses their IP in the model railway space (the train manufacturers, the livery owners) may take a different view of Hornby going forward.

[Miss Prism]

Thanks MarkSG. I think we can therefore say StudioCanal did have the Ealing Studios TT rights considerably before 2013.

 

There are now two questions:

 

- is any part of Hornby's license with StudioCanal extant?

- exactly what is the scope of the 'exclusivity' in Rapido's license?

 

[Titan]

4 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Very informative, thanks.

 

There's one other route that Rapido and StudioCanal could take, entirely outside any regulatory framework, which might be more powerful: StudioCanal could simply point out to Hornby that it's highly unlikely they will get any future licences if they go ahead and compete with an officially licensed product.

 

And what good would that do?  If Hornby can do what they are doing without needing a license, they would not need any more licences for anything else either, so they would be withholding something Hornby did not need, or anyone else for that matter. 

[adb968008]

4 hours ago, Steven B said:

I suspect the wording "inspired by" will be Hornby's get out of jail free card. There's no other branding relating to the film on the packaging - unlike the Rapido artwork which borrows heavily from the film.

 

I wonder if there will be an "inspired by James Bond" limited edition of the ex-Lima class 20 painted black with a glued on shart nose and couple of Russian looking Mk1s...

 

Steven B.

maybe who ever is doing the new HST may do this power car as

“Inspired by Hornby” ?

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

21 minutes ago, CUCKOO LINE said:

It all makes me wonder whether Hornby actually has any strategic planning. The Coca Cola I sought of understand to attract the younger people, but to flood the market in one calendar year  with specials, film based themes seems a bit excessive, one can only assumet5hey think such collectors have very deep pockets. Would be nice to see Hornby using quality and technology to enhance their market share rather than a lot of gimmicks.

Hornby, through its retailers, used to de reasonably well out what I call 'R number collectors' - in other words they bought everything in the catalogue which had an R number.  A retailewr , now retired, who i knew had a number of these collectors among his regular customers and he also had collectors who seemed to buy every Hornby loco as it was announced,

 

But all of the R number collectors I knew of (and it wasn't many) have long since ceased to be and it seems to be one collecting hobby where new arrivals have not come in to replace them - maybe because of the expense or possibly the need to have space to store it all.  But Hornby still seems to have this collector market bug under its bonnet, perobably spurred along by teh fact that it can sell all its W1, and the like, without drawing breath between sales.  But that still leaves me wondering to just what extent this sort of market is still there and whether or not these slightly off-the-mainstream special series are justifiable nowadays?

[mdvle]

1 hour ago, TEAMYAKIMA said:

One thing is not clear to me.

 

I thought (and perhaps I'm wrong) that Hornby had been working on their concept before Rapido made their announcement. Now, I wish to make it clear that, if that is the case, I am not accusing Rapido of copying Hornby, but equally if that is the case it would be an unfortunate case of two companies working on 'secret' projects, each without being aware of the other.

 

I have based my previous comments on my belief that Hornby had been planning/developing their range after the success of ROCKET. Therefore their range was being developed before the Rapido intervention and Hornby are not copying Rapido. If I am wrong and it were the case that Hornby invented this range just to crush RAPIDO then that is another matter. Can someone give any guidance please?

 

The issue isn't who started first, but who did the legwork and legal work to license the IP from StudioCanal.

 

Rapido did that work, and Rapido got the license.

 

When Hornby decided to try and get the IP rights they discovered that someone else already had them.

 

At some point after that Hornby made a decision to use the Titfield Thunderbolt name for their product despite not having licensed it.

 

[mdvle]

3 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

But that still leaves me wondering to just what extent this sort of market is still there and whether or not these slightly off-the-mainstream special series are justifiable nowadays?

 

It will depend on how you define a collector.

 

I don't know that there are any equivalents to the R series collectors as you mentioned, but there are still collectors buying model trains.  Jason (of Rapido) mentioned in the UK livestream back in November that 50% of their North American sales went to collectors.

 

Now they probably aren't buying everything Rapido makes, but equally they aren't putting them on a layout - they remain in a box or they go in a display case.

 

You see it every now and then in North America when a retailer will deal with an estate sale - and they will have hundreds of locos and other stuff still brand new in un-opened boxes...