Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

140Re: [n_scale] The big UP flap

Expand Messages
  • Michael Lee
    Jul 29 6:56 AM
      Off topic again..

      Let's kick a dead horse a few more times..

      My personnal opion is that UP is looking to find ways
      of increasing their bottom line with licensing
      rights, regardless how small it may be...

      It' sad that they have such disregard to the little
      guy who is just trying to make a living.

      Don't take me wrong.. I believe that they have a
      legitimate right to go after the big violators of
      trademark infringement..but, unfortunately, the little
      guys will pay the biggest price.

      Last month,I contacted the Central Nevada Historical
      Society concerning trade mark rights for the Tonopah
      and Goldfield, Bullfrog and Goldfield, Las Vegas and
      Tonopah, and Tonopah and Tidewater hearld trademark
      rights. You could sense the panic in the
      administrators voice. They are looking seriously into
      the issue.

      Enough said on this subject.

      Mike Lee
      tonpah and goldfield in N
      League City, Texas
      --- Jim Hinds <jjhinds@...> wrote:
      > Although all of this discussion about the UP's
      > trademark situation is fairly
      > interesting even if not pure N Scale, I personally
      > believe we should all
      > keep one thing in mind. Whether or not the UP
      > actually has the trademark
      > rights it claims would probably have to be finally
      > decided in the courts. I
      > doubt that the jury would be allowed to have any
      > model railroaders,
      > especially none of us.
      > I was on the losing side on a case similar to this
      > (before my present
      > situation), and we thought we had a slam-dunk
      > position. We failed to
      > consider the fact that juries seem to HATE big
      > bullies. And we got
      > blind-sided by a trivial piece of evidence that
      > tended to show that we had
      > abandoned our rights in one minor situation. That's
      > all the jury needed to
      > hear to rule against us and in favor of the little
      > guy. And then they made
      > us pay his legal expenses!
      > I personally don't think the UP could afford to let
      > this go to trial,
      > particularly not to a jury trial. We could debate
      > and discuss this forever
      > (hopefully not), but in the end, a non-sympathetic
      > jury could decide the
      > whole thing. The UP can probably win by running up
      > the little guy's legal
      > expenses until he folds, but I have seen that
      > strategy backfire.
      > So let's all go run some trains.
      > Jim Hinds

      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software