I wonder if they have to get BNSF permission? BNSF controls itself and all its predecessors names.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
If Pan Am can be a Railway? 
Well for now at least as CSX is buying them out.
Northern Pacific has not been an entity since 1970. The name is likely in the public domain regardless.
https://trademarks.justia.com/...lway-company-107071/
Appears that "Northern Pacific" is still a trademark owned by BNSF. The trademark is classified under the genera of "Railroad transportation services" so perhaps an airline may be far enough removed that a license is not needed. However, the airline is still providing a transportation service.
A War Bonnet DC-4 - who knew ?
When two (or more) railroads merge to form a new railroad, the reporting marks and name of the old railroads become the property of the new railroad. Similarly, if railroad A buys railroad B, the reporting marks and name of railroad B become the property of railroad A.
In the early 1990s, Chicago & North Western bought new freight cars that came from the factory lettered with reporting marks "CMO" (Omaha Road) and "MSTL" (Minneapolis & St. Louis), railroads C&NW had taken control of decades earlier. I believe they also used "CGW" (Chicago Great Western) reporting marks on some new cars. Again, these were not old cars still painted for the old railroad, but new cars bought by C&NW.
Some of these reporting marks are still used by Union Pacific, who bought C&NW in the 1990s.
@GG1 4877 posted:Northern Pacific has not been an entity since 1970. The name is likely in the public domain regardless.
A business name is a trademark. Trademark protection can be continued indefinitely, as long as it's being used in some way as it was originally used (i.e. with respect to something involving a railroad), as long as it's renewed every 10 years.
Regardless, another business can use someone else's trademarked name if that use is not confusingly similar (in the mind of the public) to original business's use of the name. Presumably, it has been determined that use of the name Northern Pacific with respect to an airline is not confusingly similar to its use as the name of a railroad. Therefore, the use of the name Northern Pacific for an airline would be allowed.
All depends on whether the rights holder even cares. It could be the folks creating Northern Pacific Air talked to BNSF and they were okay with it. If they didn't and BNSF sued , BNSF would need to make a case that the airline is similar enough to the train service that it would be harmed. Given that the Northern Pacific hasn't existed since 1970 and this is an airline, would be a very hard case to press.
On the other hand, the owner of the 4 seasons restaurant in NYC once sued a hamburger place out west for using the name "4 seasons", hopefully the judge threw it out (I don't recall), was patently ridiculous.
@Rusty Traque posted:Not quite as Santa Fe Skyway was affiliated with the Santa Fe railroad, just as Canadian Pacific Airlines was affiliated with Canadian Pacific railway. Santa Fe Skyway lasted two years from 1946-1948.
The new Northern Pacific Airline has no such affiliation with BNSF or any predecessor roads.
Rusty
Just wanted to add that Santa Fe Skyway lasted only two years from 1946-1948 because it was not successful. On the contrary, Santa Fe Skyways was successful and growing rapidly. The ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission) was not a fan of a railroad owning a airline (freight or passenger) at the time and Santa Fe was forced to liquidate its air holdings. In essence, the ICC told Santa Fe that it could be either an airline or a railroad, but not both.
@bigkid posted:BNSF would need to make a case that the airline is similar enough to the train service that it would be harmed. Given that the Northern Pacific hasn't existed since 1970 and this is an airline, would be a very hard case to press.
Define "very hard", particularly since at times airlines and railroads have been under common ownership in the past, under the umbrella heading transportation business. Given that I'd disagree that the conclusion is clear and trivial here; it's not.
Here's an example:
By RuthAS - Own work, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/...x.php?curid=18688802
(BTW -- It doesn't matter whether the rail version of Northern Pacific has not existed since 1970. What matters is whether the trademark continues to be held, and paid for.)
Mike
@wjstix posted:When two (or more) railroads merge to form a new railroad, the reporting marks and name of the old railroads become the property of the new railroad. Similarly, if railroad A buys railroad B, the reporting marks and name of railroad B become the property of railroad A.
In the early 1990s, Chicago & North Western bought new freight cars that came from the factory lettered with reporting marks "CMO" (Omaha Road) and "MSTL" (Minneapolis & St. Louis), railroads C&NW had taken control of decades earlier. I believe they also used "CGW" (Chicago Great Western) reporting marks on some new cars. Again, these were not old cars still painted for the old railroad, but new cars bought by C&NW.
Some of these reporting marks are still used by Union Pacific, who bought C&NW in the 1990s.
That's true, but just to clarify, it's only true as long as old railroad B still had the legal rights to those names and marks and they had not expired or become public domain at the time of the merger with or acquisition by the new railroad A.
Trademarks are not like other forms of 'property'. In the United States, trademark rights continue only so long as the mark is used in commerce.
I am not aware of a litigated case, but I think there is a good argument that companies like BNSF are no longer using a fallen flag name in commerce, at least not in connection with the "railroad transportation services" for which it is registered.
In any case, in June 2021 the airline filed its own trademark applications for "Northern Pacific" in connection with airline transportation services. Under section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, their registration cannot be approved if it would cause confusion with an existing trademark. So the USPTO will have to decide:
- Does BNSF still have rights in the "Northern Pacific" mark in connection with railroad transportation services? (debatable)
- If so, would use of the "Northern Pacific" mark for airline transportation services cause confusion with "Northern Pacific" mark for railway transportation services? (much more likely, I think)
@Professor Chaos posted:Trademarks are not like other forms of 'property'. In the United States, trademark rights continue only so long as the mark is used in commerce.
I am not aware of a litigated case, but I think there is a good argument that companies like BNSF are no longer using a fallen flag name in commerce, at least not in connection with the "railroad transportation services" for which it is registered.
In any case, in June 2021 the airline filed its own trademark applications for "Northern Pacific" in connection with airline transportation services. Under section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, their registration cannot be approved if it would cause confusion with an existing trademark. So the USPTO will have to decide:
- Does BNSF still have rights in the "Northern Pacific" mark in connection with railroad transportation services? (debatable)
- If so, would use of the "Northern Pacific" mark for airline transportation services cause confusion with "Northern Pacific" mark for railway transportation services? (much more likely, I think)
To the best of my knowledge, Northern Pacific currently only appears as a herald (along with six others) on BNSF's 25th anniversary locomotives and three "Heritage" covered hoppers. These locomotives and Heritage cars retain BNSF reporting marks.
I would guess that would be a case that the words "Northern Pacific" are not being used as an active mark for railway transportation services.
Rusty
Well, as long as they don't use NP's slogan: "The view is terrific on Northern Pacific." 
I’d wonder if (and whom) they’re hiring, but my guess is they won’t be around long enough for BNSF to sue for using the NP name…
Tom
I think some folks are thinking of like songs, where the publishing company and the songwriters can only get royalties for a certain number of years, after which it then goes into the "public domain" and anyone can record or perform the song without paying anybody. As far as I know, if company A and B merge to become company C, company C continues to own the names A and B pretty much forever. The federal charter (signed by President Lincoln) creating the NP is still valid, ownership of it having passed to BN and later BNSF. The trackage BNSF operates that were built on land NP received via land grants doesn't go back to the state or whoever owned it before it was granted to NP.
@wjstix posted:I think some folks are thinking of like songs, where the publishing company and the songwriters can only get royalties for a certain number of years, after which it then goes into the "public domain" and anyone can record or perform the song without paying anybody. As far as I know, if company A and B merge to become company C, company C continues to own the names A and B pretty much forever. The federal charter (signed by President Lincoln) creating the NP is still valid, ownership of it having passed to BN and later BNSF. The trackage BNSF operates that were built on land NP received via land grants doesn't go back to the state or whoever owned it before it was granted to NP.
Trademark rights potentially last forever, but only so long as they continue to be used in connection with particular goods and services. If use in commerce lapses, then the trademark rights no longer exist.
As I said above, trademark rights are not like other forms of property, even intellectual property. Patents and copyrights continue to exist for a defined term regardless of whether the owner is making use of them or not. But trademarks depend on use in commerce.
Why do any of you really care about this. I am not dumb enough to confuse that airplane with a train!
@wjstix posted:I think some folks are thinking of like songs, where the publishing company and the songwriters can only get royalties for a certain number of years, after which it then goes into the "public domain" and anyone can record or perform the song without paying anybody. As far as I know, if company A and B merge to become company C, company C continues to own the names A and B pretty much forever. The federal charter (signed by President Lincoln) creating the NP is still valid, ownership of it having passed to BN and later BNSF. The trackage BNSF operates that were built on land NP received via land grants doesn't go back to the state or whoever owned it before it was granted to NP.
No - a company can only legally transfer to another company as many rights and interests as it lawfully owns at the time of sale, merger or transfer and if a particular right, such as a trademark, has lapsed due to abandonment or lack of use, then it does not automatically transfer over to the new company.
Whether a particular right, such as a trademark, has actually lapsed is a different issue and, although there are some guiding standards, if contested, would be decided on a case-by-case basis.
@Big Jim posted:Why do any of you really care about this. I am not dumb enough to confuse that airplane with a train!
Unfortunately it's not that simple.
Confusion about sponsorship and affiliation, not just identity, can give rise to trademark infringement.
So if some portion of the relevant public believed there was a connection or relationship between an entity providing rail transportation services under the mark "Northern Pacific", and an entity providing air transportation services under the mark "Northern Pacific", then whoever has superior rights in the mark could prevent the other user from using the mark.
