Well then Kooljock, it sounds as if I was correct. Lionel retained ownership of its name and merely licensed it to General Mills when it sold them its other assets. (A lease of an intellectual property right is called a license.)
But here is the sad part. When the owner of a tradename (such as Lionel Company) licenses a tradename to a manufacturer (such as General Mills), the licensor must and does retain a final right of approval, in the license agreement, as to the quality, condition, and design of the products upon which the tradename will be displayed or stamped, as well as the manner and mode of how the tradename will appear in marketing material. Why? Because if the do not retain this right of approval, then the license is regarded as a "naked license", which means that the licensee could slap the name on any type of product, of any type of quality, it desired (no matter how junky), and use the tradename in advertising, in any manner or mode it desired. If this happens, then the tradename becomes worthless and generic. Eventually, it is regarded as available for public use.
So, sadly, Lionel company gave its final approval to General Mills, on all of the cheapened products it made. Why did they do this? Because Lionel needed those royalty payments for each item sold, and if they were too tough on standards with General Mills, then General Mills would just stop using the license and stop paying the royalties.
In most of these types of instances, to get the approval, the licensee would send to the licensor a package with the final design and products specs, and the proposed advertising materials, and the licensor would give it a "quick once over", make a few small suggestions for corrections, and then after the corrections are made, grant its approval for to the licensee. Out the door the product would go, and the licensor would get its royalty.
Mannyrock