MODELS and SOCIETY,S INTERFERENCE

Times have changed. At first, putting brand names on other products was a form of free adverstising. Get the name out on all sorts of items to build brand recognition. It's good for business.

Once the name becomes "known", the brand name itself becomes valuable. For example, when Revell and Monogram merged to become Revell-Monogram, the Monogram name was eventually dropped even though Revell was actually absorbed by Monogram because Revell was a more internationally recognized modeling name brand because of the success of Revell of Germany.

Much like mainstream products like beer, soda, transport companies, their names become valuable. Once the name itself is worth money, then they become more protective of their label so it only goes on items they approve of. They also can charge a company to put the name on the merchandise and get both free advertising and make money by letting that company use their logo.

As far as beer and cigarettes on models go, that was more of a law and push by Congress not to market to children. As a parent of six children, I'm glad they didn't get exposed to Joe Camel or think that they needed to drink beer and smoke cigarettes to be cool.

The courts and government responded to the demands of the owners of the brand names which are copyrighted. have you noticed that some entertainers have a copyright mark next to their names? The pro sports teams work hard to keep counterfeit products off the street. The logo belongs to them, they get the profits from their use/display, not someone using the logo. There was a news article on TV about how many terms the NFL copyrighted in reference to the SuperBowl, restricting the local pub owner form using these terms to promote his/her busines on Super Bowl Sunday.

Since every sponsor wanted his or her pound of flesh for use of a decal on a 1/24 NASCAR vehicle, and Ford or Chevy wanted their cut as well, down went the likelihood of accurate NASCAR models.

Some tire companies did the same, so the molding on the sidewalls get mispelled.

As far as beer and tobacco sponsorships, two things converged. One was the logo/copyright issue noted above and the belief that our hobby is aimed primarily at children. Parents felt that any representation of a beer logo constitutes advertising/promotion of the product and these were initially banned form schools, creating a strange situation that would have precluded a high school student from wearing a t-shirt earned at a Natural Light Half Marathon to school. Eventually, to discourage the use of tobacco and alcohol by minors, a good thing, logos from these products were banned from "toys" and products aimed at children.

s

I do agree about the beer and tobacco thing.What I never understood was pulling the boat when there might,ve been a non-Tobacco or Beer sponsor willing to take up the slack. Although I must say this. "MISS BUDWEISER" was a winner more than once. I have now, been TOBACCO free twenty eight days.I started on the darned things when I was twelve and now i am sixty eight. To many years and to much money wasted. I learned though , stubborn as I am .Good point though, It,s an insidous addiction that messes up your health and makes everything smell like a barroom. Haven,t had a drink for five years now either! I do agree about the bans of the sale of these things to minors.Why can,t we just get it with a different sponsor and I do miss the FIRESTONE and MICHELIN logos on my model car tires too!         TANKERbuilder

The biggest reason you don't see such logos included in or on the model kits we build is its a different generation at the helm of these companies who own the brand. The sense of entitlement of what is ours is ours and only ours and anyone who wants to use it, must pay for said permission and use it as we say.

The holders/owners of such brands have been conditioned that this is the way businesses do things in today's market. Except they often don't understand the missed marketing opportunities that they could have by the restrictions and fees they demand.

A good example of how a company can make more from their branding than their products is to look at such companies as Harley Davidson. Even during their most dismal years of motorcycle sales, their brand sales were soaring. Anything bearing their brand and trademark was something consumers wanted.

Another example is when the TV show American Chopper came about, though the show quickly gained an audience, they (the Tuttles) quickly branded themselves and took steps to put that brand on clothing and other things. Even before the show was popular, little boutique shops started popping up in places where motorcycles and the show wasn't even a popular thing, yet the consumers had to have these products because they were fashionable. This is where the money came from which made as Senior said...made Junior a millionaire.

During my years as a kid, more of the brands which we are talking about were on the toys and such which, and here is where the missed opportunity exists, imprinting the brand onto the next generation of potential customers.Typically from what those in the industry tell me, the amount they end up paying for the license doesn't cover the attorney's fee of the brand owner to process the application.

Even the recent release of the 70 plus year old Opel Blitz truck by Tamiya was affected...nothing on the box reads "Opel Blitz" and the logo is misspelled on the model... 

Mfrs have gone as far as to trademark the shape of their products. If it even resembles their product they will now go after those who used it without permission!  Even when a model manufacturer leaves off the logo on the hood of a truck, the shape of the grill can now cause them grief due to this new trend to trademark shapes.

Thanks Chrysler for starting this with your Jeep grill.  General Dynamics has even sought to do it with the shape of the F-16's outline!

There are those out there trademarking words and commonly used phrases. I kid you not, my wife wrote a business piece and using technology to search for said words, the holder of a commonly used phrase demanded that we either remove it or pay a license fee to use it.

Speaking of Harley and copyright/trademark issues, in the mid 90's, they attempted to trademark the sound of their exhaust but dropped the case in 2000 .

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3