Here are a couple of things, "Straight from the Horse’s Mouth"

Lockheed is represented by EMI. EMI is a licensing firm...not a law firm.
Pratt & Whitney is represented by TRI, again a licensing firm not a law firm.
I've worked for both firms and for both clients.

There are two different topics here. The first is the use of a company's name, trademarks, and designs by a separate company in an effort to make money. Sorry...you can't do it without the permission of the intellectual property rights holder. That permission is called a license. It can be an effort to make money, but it also tries to protect the consumer by making sure the licensed products are of the same quality as the trademark would suggest and that the product truly is what it says it is. If it says it’s a Wasp Jr. then it is our job to make sure that is exactly what it is and to make sure the licensee has what they need to make the best product possible. Yes, because of all the hoops a licensee has to jump through as well as the royalty the licensee has to pay to the IP rights holder these products cost more than unlicensed products.

The second topic that Bob Wilcox brought up is more of a marketing concept. Manufacturers pick up licenses to use well know trademarks for a number of reasons. The main reason is that it cost millions of dollars and decades to create a trademark of your own that becomes well known and trusted. So why not share a trademark that is already there.

Both of these things I have the responsibility of doing in the hobby industry for Pratt & Whitney. Stop all the infringement… if I can’t then Pratt & Whitney’s legal department will take care of it. And create a presence for Pratt & Whitney in the hobby industry. Why? Because it works, it’s international, well known, admired, and trusted trademark.

The concept is simple, create a line of products for the model aviation industry that are the best of best. Consolidate all these manufacturers under one trade name, Pratt & Whitney, that way they can share marketing dollars, advertising, retail space, and share of mind in the consumer. These products will not be for the bargain hunter, but they will be for the person looking for the top of line products in the industry. This also makes it easier for the retailers as well. An entire line of multiple products under one name can be more appealing than a store full of thousands of different names for thousands of different products. This is not “What I think” (I’m not that smart) these are things that much smarter people figured out a long time ago and have proven them successful time and time again. (Maytag, GE, Westinghouse, Honda, Craftsman, Stanley, John Deer, and if anyone honestly thinks that NIKE is capable of making all the product that carry the NIKE trademark then they are truly naïve.)

EASYTIGER is correct in saying that Pratt & Whitney may not even go for a licensed turbine, because of obvious liability issues. But we ARE already the exclusive licensing agent for P&W. I approached Bob Wilcox with a legitimate concept that he had a difficult time understanding or taking seriously. Licensing is fairly new in regards to military vehicles, but not new to the hobby industry. Nobody is questioning the need of a license for the use of Chevy, Ford, Ferrari, or Porsche…but they did 20 years ago with many of the same arguments and concerns that are posted here and on other forums.

Nathan Gallow
TRI Licensing