First Great Western rebrands to Great Western Railway and related department changes

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

I think the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) branding is transferable - does First own the GWR mark, or is it the DfTs^» (Department for Transport - about)?

[Tim]

The mark is owned by FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Ltd.  https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00003064468

Doesn't mean of course that it can't be transferred to a new owner.  But my concern is that an incoming Franchisee will, with their usual hubris, want to stamp their own mark on the franchise. 

[TaplowGreen]

I agree that the rebrand has made a difference.  My main objection to it has not happened yet but it is when the franchise goes to the next operator they will change it again and the fine name of GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) will just be another here today gone tomorrow brand. 

I shouldn't. The main thing that triggered the rebrand was the short contract followed by a new franchise. So all the new trains need a transferable branding to avoid redoing them so soon, and the "First" name had to go. The turbos were just starting on a relivery programme, and most HST^▸ (High Speed Train) are not getting done.

I think the main thing that triggered the rebrand was the toxicity of the "First" brand in the eyes of the public and the poor standard of service - calling it GWR conveniently removes it from the immediate consciousness, but it doesn't fool too many people, it's the same crowd painted green (in some cases).

You don't change a brand because it's successful, it can be catastrophic to change what people know and are comfortable with - remember BA^» (British Airways - about)'s short lived "ethnic" tailfins?

It's good if it's engendered more team spirit and an acceptable level of customer focus amongst staff though, I will say that, although that's primarily an issue of organisational culture rather than brand.

Does First Group have IP Rights to the GWR brand? I thought it was one of Brunels, created many years ago? I can't see that they could stop any future franchisee using it - in any case if they'd lost the franchise, why would they care?

[didcotdean]

The 'GWR' logotype is a registered trademark for all kinds of goods including wallpaper, fish and jam ... see here.

[Tim]

Does First Group have IP Rights to the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) brand? I thought it was one of Brunels, created many years ago? I can't see that they could stop any future franchisee using it - in any case if they'd lost the franchise, why would they care?

-Yes FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Ltd have IP rights in the GWR brand including (but not limited to) the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) registered trademark linked to above.

- the name GWR was indeed created by Brunel, but any rights the original GWR had lapsed years ago through non-use.  (there is perhaps an interesting legal side argument about the use since by preserved railways, model makers etc).  Brunel's use would not stop FGW validly having IP in the GWR name.

- In any case the registered trademark is for the stylised letters, not the name on its own

- FGW might well be able to stop a future franchisee using their stylised GWR logo and it is possible that they would be able to stop others using the GWR name and possibly the green colour etc.   

- I think your "why would they care" comment shows a misunderstanding in how companies view brands.  They are assets and as such companies do care about others using them or certainly using them without payment.  Their logic will be, "if an incoming franchisee wants to retain the brand then they must see it has some value, therefore we should be entitled to a share of that value".

of course this could all be taken care of in agreements between DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) and FGW.  But I doubt DfT are on the ball enough for that. 

[Tim]

The 'GWR' logotype is a registered trademark for all kinds of goods including wallpaper, fish and jam ... see here.

Indeed it is.  Do they not sell jam on their trains?  Are kippers not available in the dining car?  Is there not wallpaper in their lounges? 

And had you noticed that Science Museum Enterprises (presumably the entity that operates the shop at the NRM^» (National Railway Museum, at York and Shildon - about)?) have this mark to the original logotype registered  https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00002636701

[didcotdean]

Indeed it is.  Do they not sell jam on their trains?  Are kippers not available in the dining car?  Is there not wallpaper in their lounges? 

Are the kippers stamped GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) though 

The interesting thing with the Science Museum Group registration of the shirt-button is that it is so recent. It is indeed the National Railway Museum behind most of their registrations with such others as Mallard and Flying Scotsman.

[TaplowGreen]

The 'GWR' logotype is a registered trademark for all kinds of goods including wallpaper, fish and jam ... see here.

Right, so it's the "GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)" (with the weird W) logo that's trademarked, not "Great Western Railway"

[LiskeardRich]

An attempt to register great western railway in upper cases was withdrawn on 28/5/15. There are no other 'great western railway' in words trademarks.
GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) on the other hand has 6 registered and 3 more in the application stages. IPOs website also gives us a clue how long the rebranding planning has been going on, the GWR current logo was registered in 2012

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmtext.htm

[IndustryInsider]

I think the main thing that triggered the rebrand was the toxicity of the "First" brand in the eyes of the public and the poor standard of service - calling it GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) conveniently removes it from the immediate consciousness, but it doesn't fool too many people, it's the same crowd painted green (in some cases).

I personally don't  think the brand had become particularly toxic.  Not saying it was a success story either, but compared with the late 2000s when there were fare protests and the I hate First Great Western campaign it was then when the brand would have been ditched if that was the case surely?

I know regular commuters might not be particularly happy with things at the moment, but it's hardly the open revolt that's going on at Southern currently, or affected First capital Connect, or going back further, Connex.

I think it had rather more to do with the fact that brand new or cascaded trains and new enhanced timetables were on the horizon for many routes and that a fresh start was deemed a sensible way to best capitalise on that. 

[ellendune]

IPOs website also gives us a clue how long the rebranding planning has been going on, the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) current logo was registered in 2012

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmtext.htm

Umm not quite - it says July 2014 so not that long.  The mark registered in 2012 was for the original 1920's GWR roundal logo - and that was registered by the Science Museum!

[stuving]

We did poke about in the contract details about this before - partly in a secondary thread. But, in all its glory, here is Schedule 14.2 section 2 of the Franchise Agreement (22 March 2015):

2. Brand Licences And Branding

Brand Licences

2.1	The Franchisee shall comply with its obligations under each of the Brand Licences.

2.2

Subject to any applicable obligations or restrictions on the Franchisee (including the terms of the Rolling Stock Leases), the Franchisee may apply registered or unregistered trademarks (including company names, livery and other distinctive get-up) to any assets owned or used by it in the operation and provision of the Franchise Services.

(a)

Subject to paragraphs 2.2(c) and 2.2(g), the Franchisee may:

(i)

in respect of unregistered Marks, provide or procure the provision of an irrevocable undertaking to any relevant Successor Operator to the effect that neither it nor the owner of the Marks will enforce such rights as it may have or may in the future have in respect of such Marks against such Successor Operator and its successors; and

(ii)

in respect of registered Marks, grant or procure the grant of an irrevocable licence to use such Marks to such Successor Operator and its successors.

(b)

Any such licence or undertaking under paragraph 2.2(a) shall be in such form as the Secretary of State shall reasonably require except that the terms of any such licence and, to the extent appropriate, any such undertaking shall accord with the provisions of paragraph 8.3 of Schedule 15.4 (Provisions Applying on and after Termination).

(c)

Subject to paragraph 2.2(g), to the extent that:

(i)

the Franchisee does not provide a relevant undertaking or licence in accordance with paragraph 2.2(a);

(ii)

the Secretary of State considers the relevant Marks to be so distinctive or otherwise such that a Successor Operator could not reasonably be asked to use the relevant assets to which the Marks are applied; or

(iii)

the Franchisee has not otherwise removed or covered such Marks in such a way as may be reasonably acceptable to the Secretary of State prior to the expiry of the Franchise Period, then the Franchisee shall pay to the relevant Successor Operator such amount as may be agreed between the Franchisee and such Successor Operator, as being the reasonable cost (including any Value Added Tax for which credit is not available under Sections 25 and 26 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994) of covering such Marks or otherwise removing all indications of or reference to the Marks in a manner reasonably acceptable to the Secretary of State. Such amount shall not in any event exceed the cost to the Successor Operator of replacing such Marks with its own. If the Franchisee and the relevant Successor Operator fail to agree such cost within 28 days of the expiry of the Franchise Period, the Franchisee shall submit such dispute for resolution in accordance with such dispute resolution procedures as the Secretary of State may require.

(d)

The amount to be paid to a Successor Operator under paragraph 2.2(c) may include the reasonable cost of:

(i)

removing or covering Marks from the exterior of any rolling stock vehicle;

(ii)

removing or covering interior indications of the Marks including upholstery and carpets;

(iii)

replacing or covering all station or other signs including bill boards; and

(iv)

otherwise ensuring that such removal, covering or replacement is effected with all reasonable care and in such manner that the relevant assets may reasonably continue to be used by a Successor Operator in the provision of the Franchise Services.

(e)

The Franchisee shall, in addition to making a payment under paragraph 2.2(c) grant or procure the grant of a licence or undertaking complying with paragraphs 2.2(a) and 2.2(b) except that such licence shall only be for such period as may be agreed between the Franchisee and the Successor Operator as being reasonably required by the Successor Operator to remove the Marks from all relevant assets without causing excessive disruption to the operation of services similar to the Franchise Services provided by such Successor Operator. If such period cannot be agreed, the Franchisee shall submit such dispute for resolution in accordance with such dispute resolution procedures as the Secretary of State may require.

(f)

The Secretary of State shall determine at or around the end of the Franchise Period, and after consultation with the Franchisee, the maximum liability of the Franchisee under paragraph 2.2(c) and the maximum length of licence or undertaking under paragraph 2.2(e);

(g)

The provisions of paragraphs 2.2(a) to 2.2(f) shall not apply to the extent that the relevant asset is not to be used by a Successor Operator in the provision of services similar to the Franchise Services. The Secretary of State shall notify the Franchisee as soon as he becomes aware of whether or not any such asset is to be so used.

Non-designation of New Brands

2.3	The Secretary of State agrees not to designate as a Primary Franchise Asset any registered or unregistered trademark which is developed by the Franchisee.

What counts as a "distinctive get-up"? Your guess is as good as mine.

I do think the idea for a rebranding came out of the discussions about the abortive 15-year franchise, and the introduction of IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.), in 2012. When DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) realised the difficulty of coping with the first few years (even before they knew how much the volts would be delayed), they started to explore an interim "franchise" with FGW^▸ (First Great Western). IEPs need a paint job of some kind, and DfT have to represent the interest of the following franchisee. The rest follows.

[LiskeardRich]

IPOs website also gives us a clue how long the rebranding planning has been going on, the GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) current logo was registered in 2012

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmtext.htm

Umm not quite - it says July 2014 so not that long.  The mark registered in 2012 was for the original 1920's GWR roundal logo - and that was registered by the Science Museum!

Oops I was looking at the wrong line! Wonder if the science museum had a tip off and got the original logo protected?

[Tim]

Are the kippers stamped GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) though 

No, they say GWR all the way through like a stick of rock. 

More seriously, they are arguably sold under the sign of GWR ie listed on a branded menu, served on branded crockery.  That sort of thing. 

[patch38]

Is it still just the two Classs 43 sets in the new GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) livery? There were two green power cars sandwiching a rake of old-scheme FGW^▸ (First Great Western) carriages at Swindon earlier today.