P-51 - who currently owns rights?

[norab]

Are you saying that boeing realise the P51 was rubbish?

no, that is not at all what I am saying, let us say that Boeing sells a "New" P-51 that is identical to a WWII fighter for, say, $1,800,000. Let us then speculate that because of a minor failure of some small part supplied by a subcontractor, that the "new" P-51 crashes into a crowded shopping mall at the height of the Christmas shopping season. Let us suppose that a hundred shoppers are killed, scores more are wounded and several stores burn down. Because Boeing did not install a ballistic parachute recovery system they are held liable for the deaths, injuries and property damages which could amount to a billion or more dollars in jury awards. That is what I mean by liability issues. it is not a reflection on the P-51 but it is the nature of the lawsuit happy society we live in that causes it.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

that is exactly my point. the firm the document has been issued to, in this case , Cal Pacific Airmotive, is specifically prohibited by the FAA from producing new aircraft of the P-51 type. they have the right to repair and rebuild them but the right to produce is retained by Boeing until it chooses to build them or licence someone else to, and because of liability issues that is unlikely to happen

Your proof of that???? The only thing they are lacking is a production certificate. They would have to apply for a production certificate and they are good to go.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

no, that is not at all what I am saying, let us say that Boeing sells a "New" P-51 that is identical to a WWII fighter for, say, $1,800,000. Let us then speculate that because of a minor failure of some small part supplied by a subcontractor, that the "new" P-51 crashes into a crowded shopping mall at the height of the Christmas shopping season. Let us suppose that a hundred shoppers are killed, scores more are wounded and several stores burn down. Because Boeing did not install a ballistic parachute recovery system they are held liable for the deaths, injuries and property damages which could amount to a billion or more dollars in jury awards. That is what I mean by liability issues. it is not a reflection on the P-51 but it is the nature of the lawsuit happy society we live in that causes it.

And that's why there have been several P-51s built up from scratch and labeled "North American P-51s" and Boeing haven't done squat against the builders.

Do you know what a TCDS is and what it means?

 

[norab]

and I qoute the FAA "The TCDS is a formal description of the aircraft, engine or propeller. It lists limitations and information required for type certification including airspeed limits, weight limits, thrust limitations, etc."
in the TCDS you cite as proof that Cal Pacific Airmotive has the right to build the P-51,one of the limitations set forth on page 3 specifically prohibits them from building new production aircraft . The originator, Cavalier never produced new P-51's, it rebuilt and modifed them

 

[FLYBOYJ]

and I qoute the FAA "The TCDS is a formal description of the aircraft, engine or propeller. It lists limitations and information required for type certification including airspeed limits, weight limits, thrust limitations, etc."
in the TCDS you cite as proof that Cal Pacific Airmotive has the right to build the P-51,one of the limitations set forth on page 3 specifically prohibits them from building new production aircraft . The originator, Cavalier never produced new P-51's, it rebuilt and modifed them

And that's because Cavalier or Cal Pacific Airmotive never applied for a manufacturing certificate. Their purpose was to rebuild or refurbish airframes, not build them, however the changeover is simple as there have been MANY companies who started out refurbishing aircraft and have gained ownership of the TCDS and went on to eventually get a production certificate and produce someone else's design. The most recent one I can think of is Cub Crafters building Super Cubs and Viking aircraft on the DHC-6. Owning the TCDS has advantages in producing parts for sale and gaining airworthiness certificates in other than experimental category.

Bottom line, Boeing cannot stop a TCDS holder who gains a production certificate or even a private individual from building a NA design based on trademark laws. There are people who have and continue to build Mustangs from the ground up and even if Boeing attempted to get them to stop, they (Boeing) are opening themselves up for liability lawsuits on all Mustangs currently flying.

 

[norab]

"And that's because Cavalier or Cal Pacific Airmotive never applied for a manufacturing certificate" so you are saying that as of this moment, they are not allowed to produce new aircraft. that was my piont, what might happen in the future is speculative. the fact is that at this moment they are not allowed to because Boeing still retains that right until some future action changes the situation, So the correct answer at this partiular instant is that Boeing holds the rights which was the original question

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"And that's because Cavalier or Cal Pacific Airmotive never applied for a manufacturing certificate" so you are saying that as of this moment, they are not allowed to produce new aircraft. that was my piont, what might happen in the future is speculative. the fact is that at this moment they are not allowed to because Boeing still retains that right until some future action changes the situation, So the correct answer at this partiular instant is that Boeing holds the rights which was the original question

The fact that Cal Pacific Airmotive chooses not to produce airframes is a decision by personal choice, not by any rights held by Boeing. They make parts and components and owning the TC makes the certification of those items easier when they are sold on the open makrket. I have showed where one manufactuer has produced another manufactuer's design, you show me where Boeing will prevent a TC holder or an individial from building a P-51 from the ground up and I'll give more creedence to your argument. In the mean time here's the link to a "P-51" that was built from the ground up that crashed during a landing accident at Oshkosh a few years ago. I see no one from Boeing trying to sue these folks.

FAA Registry - Aircraft - N-Number Results

 

[drgondog]

If you look on page 3 of the PDF you link to, it specifically says on the right hand side of the line headed Production basis " production of new aircraft is not allowed"

Norab - Joe is right.

The only exercise of authority that Boeing may exercise is the grant of inherited Tooling, lines drawings, test data, etc that Boeing acquired from NAA in the merger.

Neither Boeing, nor anybody else except the FAA has any authority over someone building a brand new look alike' Mustang AND flying it.

IIRC Cavalier got the remaining tooling from NAA back in the 60's when they built the COIN vesrion, so Boeing doesn't even have that asset in hand.

Look, you can trademark certain aspects of a novel idea and application, you can copyright the Name but you can't stop someone from building a 'new' airframe that is 99.99% identical to the Mustang (or the Me 262, or 75% scale Fw 190/51D, etc, etc.). If Boeing had ANY exercise over the Mustangs built in the 1940's they would disavow ALL rights to the Mustangs due to the liability of any crash and loss of property and lives.

When they bought NAA, I suspect it was largely an asset purchase as contrasted with a true merger in which all assets AND liabilities were assumed by the parent company. An asset purchase allows the acquiring company to include ONLY that which is useful in the on-going venture. As NAA had already sold much of what was the 'Original' P-51 series, Boeing was not in psotion to build Mustangs without completely re-designing and building tooling from a blank piece of paper -

 

[norab]

I do not dispute the right to build a copycat or similar or for that matter identical aircraft, my point is that to build such an aircraft and legaly register the trademarked name "P-51 Mustang" as opposed to a P5151 or L51 or any of the other near designations requires Boeing's permission because they own the name. The qriginal question was who own's the rights to "P-51" and that is Boeing

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I do not dispute the right to build a copycat or similar or for that matter identical aircraft, my point is that to build such an aircraft and legaly register the trademarked name "P-51 Mustang" as opposed to a P5151 or L51 or any of the other near designations requires Boeing's permission because they own the name. The qriginal question was who own's the rights to "P-51" and that is Boeing

"On Thursday, September 09, 2010, a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for P-51. This trademark is owned by Honsa Ergonomic Technologies, Inc., 1300 -11th St. W., Milan, IL 61264.

The correspondent listed for P-51 is JAY R. HAMILTON of HAMILTON IP LAW, PC, 331 W. 3RD ST., NVC SUITE 120 DAVENPORT, IA 52801 . The P-51 trademark is filed in the category of Machinery Products . The description provided to the USPTO for P-51 is Air powered tools, namely, hammers, weld destruct tools, chipping hammers and riveters; Pneumatic hammers; Pneumatic hammers.

The USPTO has given the P-51 trademark serial number of 85126133. The current federal status of this trademark filing is NEW APPLICATION - RECORD INITIALIZED NOT ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER."

http://www.trademarkia.com/p51-85126133.html

These people also bought the rights to "B-17" "B-25" and "P-38."

 

[norab]

FlyboyJ you are again trying to confuse the issue with partial information. Trademarks are issued ib different areas of endeavor. That trademark is in the area of cutting tools, there can be multiple different trademakes of the same phrase. if you had looked farther in the TESS database instead of just stopping at the first listing of "P-51" you would have found seven "P-51"'s , addintionally you would have found seven "P-51 Mustang"'s and one hundred and sixty two "Mustang"'s
I will now share an email I sent to Boeing yesterday and their reply received today.

Hello Norab,

Thank you for your inquiry. Yes, the P-51 Mustang is a trademark of The Boeing Company. You did not state your purpose, but I'm assuming it is related to a consumer product use. For all consumer product licensing questions, contact Gail Roth ([email protected]). Gail licenses Boeing logos and current and historical product trademarks for models, toys, software games, posters, cards, calendars, etc.

Regards,
Kevin


Kevin S. Kelly
Trademark and Copyright Licensing
Intellectual Property Management
Business Development Licensing
Images: www.BoeingImages.com
Trademarks: Boeing: Boeing Trademarks and Copyrights



-----Original Message-----
From norab
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:50 PM
To: GRP Trademarks
Subject-51 Mustang trademark

dear Sirs
does Boeing own the trademark for aircraft applications of the P-51
Mustang? What are the requirements for licencened use of this trademark
if it belongs to Boeing? Your aid in this matter is appreciated

Norab

If you or any of the other members wish to, I suggest that you please contact Boeing directly, just as I did, for the information

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

that is exactly my point. the firm the document has been issued to, in this case , Cal Pacific Airmotive, is specifically prohibited by the FAA from producing new aircraft of the P-51 type. they have the right to repair and rebuild them but the right to produce is retained by Boeing until it chooses to build them or licence someone else to, and because of liability issues that is unlikely to happen

As far as I know Flugwerk (the same company doing the Bf 109s) is building brand new P-51s. I remember reading something about it on their website.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

norab, I think you're really beating this to death. Bottom line, there have been and continue to be people building "P-51s" "P-51 Mustangs" and "Mustangs" from scratch and attaching either or both names to the aircraft. Regardless of what you have received from Boeing, these folks are using the name and building near identical aircraft to the original Boeing product. No one is stopping them from either building the aircraft or using the name despite what Boeing may have said to you and I think there is a reason for that. So great, a contact from Boeing told you they own the trademark of "P-51 Mustang." Was this guy on the ramp last week at Reno where there were at least a dozen "Thunder Mustangs" using the designation "P-51" on their airworthiness certificate?

 

[Messy1]

Similar issues have risen with Shelby Cobras, and companies producing Cobra replicas. Companies are still building Cobra replicas, but they no longer can call them Shelby Cobras as Carroll Shelby finally pressed legal matters. The companies making Cobra replicas must now call them "Cobra Kit Cars" IIRC. Shelby cannot stop them from making replicas of his original Cobra, but he can limit the usage of his name. I would think this may fall into the same situation.

 

[drgondog]

Simply Boeing, Lockheed, etc have attempted to cash in on model airplane, replica, etc products for many years but thus far few to zero have succombed to the implied threat of Trademark ownership.

Perhaps because it never occurred to Boeing (or NAA back in the day) to make an issue out of Cleveland, Revell, mongram, etc back in the 40's and 50's and thus lost out on a window for a legal challenge.

As a point of curiosity, Boeng's only possible trademark for model purpses might have been Model 299 versus B-17 - which was the US Government designation for the 299. Bell has a reasonable claim to model 205 but the Army designated it UH-1E and the nickname Huey certainly did not originate at Bell - their only opportunity to Copyright or Trademark 'Huey" would have been after it was a common slang name like Jug for P-47 or Thud for F-105.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Putting this back into perspective the original question...

"I was wondering if anyone has any idea who currently owns the rights (presumably the copyright in the original drawings/blueprints etc.) to the P-51 Mustang?"

I think one must define the purpose here - to either build models or to build real P-51s from the ground up.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Simply Boeing, Lockheed, etc have attempted to cash in on model airplane, replica, etc products for many years but thus far few to zero have succombed to the implied threat of Trademark ownership.

Perhaps because it never occurred to Boeing (or NAA back in the day) to make an issue out of Cleveland, Revell, mongram, etc back in the 40's and 50's and thus lost out on a window for a legal challenge.

As a point of curiosity, Boeng's only possible trademark for model purpses might have been Model 299 versus B-17 - which was the US Government designation for the 299. Bell has a reasonable claim to model 205 but the Army designated it UH-1E and the nickname Huey certainly did not originate at Bell - their only opportunity to Copyright or Trademark 'Huey" would have been after it was a common slang name like Jug for P-47 or Thud for F-105.

Spot on!

 

[zoomar]

FlyboyJ I will now share an email I sent to Boeing yesterday and their reply received today.

If you or any of the other members wish to, I suggest that you please contact Boeing directly, just as I did, for the information

No substitute for actualy talking to people. The fact that many firms apparently choose not to take legal action against firms and people who use trademarked names and designs in homebuilds, scale modelling, and computer flight sims, doesn't mean the trademark doesn't exist and that one could be prosecuted. As was hinted at by an earlier poster, Northrop-Grumman almost took the computer game makers Ubisoft and IC Maddox to the cleaners over the fact they included Grumman planes (Wildcats, Hellcats, and Avengers) in the combat flight sim "Pacific Fighters" without asking permission and paying for the rights to the names and images. The fact that the modern holders of other historic designs and trademarks chose not to claim rights doesn't mean they can't. Probably, many of them feel the inclusion of their trademarked names and aircraft in a computer game generated enough positive PR to make up for the small amout of money it would have taken Ubisoft to buy the rights. Anyway, this was a big stink in the IL-2 Sturmovik flight sim community.

 

[krieghund]

Do you think Heinkel Flugzeugwerke (Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm) could lay claim to this He100 replica?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

No substitute for actualy talking to people. The fact that many firms apparently choose not to take legal action against firms and people who use trademarked names and designs in homebuilds, scale modelling, and computer flight sims, doesn't mean the trademark doesn't exist and that one could be prosecuted. As was hinted at by an earlier poster, Northrop-Grumman almost took the computer game makers Ubisoft and IC Maddox to the cleaners over the fact they included Grumman planes (Wildcats, Hellcats, and Avengers) in the combat flight sim "Pacific Fighters" without asking permission and paying for the rights to the names and images. The fact that the modern holders of other historic designs and trademarks chose not to claim rights doesn't mean they can't. Probably, many of them feel the inclusion of their trademarked names and aircraft in a computer game generated enough positive PR to make up for the small amout of money it would have taken Ubisoft to buy the rights. Anyway, this was a big stink in the IL-2 Sturmovik flight sim community.

I think trademark infringement lawsuits would be more realistic towards those companies who sell Sims and software as real money is being exchanged with little or no product liability risks by claiming copyright in the sale of these devices. In the case of REAL aircraft, you're looking at opening a liability can of worms that could go back as far as when the first "N" number was put on a P-51 to the next 3/4 scale replica getting ready to roll out of a hanger. Additionally, as already stated, the FAA has made it quite easy for people to reproduce such aircraft with 99% accuracy in many cases they used some of the "trademarks" in question when they initiated the TCDS, which in my mind would implicate them as well. To the typical corporate attorney, is this worth it?

Another thing to look at is building a P-51 or several of them from ground up considered "consumer product use?"