Thank God Audi don't make GT40's

Lambo · 03-11-08, 02:07 AM

I don't think you would want to be a Lamborghini replica company at the moment.

Mamma mia! Legendary automaker sues local firm

Regards
Lambo

Bill Hara · 03-11-08, 03:10 AM

If you think about it, Lambos' (real) and Lambos' (fake) cater to 2 completely different types of people. On the one hand, the guy that can afford the real one would HATE to drive a replica. The guy with the replica in mind would never spend the big dollars to get a real one - why would he when he can build one for 1/5th the price. Kind of like the guys buying Ford GT's instead of GT40 replicas.

The reality is there are more Lambos on the road, real or replica, and they make Lamborghini look good - unless the replica is of a low standard, which makes them look bad. By all accounts, these copies were high quality.

Dimi · 03-11-08, 03:57 AM

The main problem is that this replica manufacturer created his own demise by making and supplying Lambo fake badges and insignia's.

They may well have left him alone if he hadn't tried to replicate every detail and should have named the car something else.

This was just asking for the powers that be to come down on him.

I respect him for his enterprise but pity him for his stupidity.

Dimi

Marcus · 03-11-08, 04:07 AM

He clearly broke the commonly accepted and legally defined rules of the game by utilising and selling Lamborghini badges and insignia thus pretending to the general public spotting his replicas that these cars are of true Lamborghini origin.

If I were Lamborghini´s counsel, I could perhaps put up with a well made replica (although there would be injunctive relief at hand) but labelling the whole thing as a genuine product just breaks the camel´s back.

BTW...resorting to the excuse that one just supplies the badges whereas it´s left up to the customers to put them onto the car doesn´t help as this at least in some countries still means facilitating the violation of trademark rights.

Best,

Marcus

Cliff Beer · 03-12-08, 02:42 AM

Lamborghini probably has a pretty solid case against the replica constructor here, however, a permanent injunction is highly unlikely (disfavored in the law). More likely it's a typical damages calculation situation, however, I'm puzzled as to how Lamborghini will show damages because, as is said above, it's unlikely that a buyer/builder of a replica would have gone and bought a real one in the absence of a replica. So, net, where are the damages?

I suppose if I was Lambos attorey I would instead just try to show some incremental damages related to dilution of the brand health but that's still going to be a tough sell. The replica builder here isn't in such a bad position in my view.

Marcus · 03-12-08, 04:12 AM

Loss of licence fees the replica manufacturer should have paid to Lamborghini are the kind of damages usually claimed. It´s no problem for a court to determine them based upon the plaintiff´s pleading presenting other prejudicial cases.

Doug Clark · 03-12-08, 04:41 AM

One more

I'm sorry if it were my design that somebody stole I'd be after them whether the copies would good bad or in between. Copies of cars devalue a brand such as Ferrari or Lamborghini bad copies devalue it even more, one of the things that people are buying with these cars is exclusivity if there's the question in peoples mind is that real? Is it a copy? again devalues the brand.

David S. · 03-12-08, 10:24 PM

Well Doug it's all about money. The design I am replicating is 39 years old. Chevron (RTM)(now two of them) is still building cars as for Lola (RTM) Marcus. How long does someone own the rights to a design that is no longer made, is it under Copywrite law or patents,or is it considered art. I can see using trademarks as a no no. The large auto manufacturers have to supply parts for ten years after that your on your own. Is that the life span of a car?

Fran Hall RCR · 03-12-08, 11:30 PM

OEM does not need to supply for ten years any longer..

The new Ford GT already has parts listed as NLA...after only being out of production for 18 months.......

Rich A · 03-13-08, 12:02 AM

If they (Lamborghini or Ferrari) think they are losing so much money why don't they make their own cheaper replicas.
Otherwise charge them (NAERC) for falsely representing/using the Lamborghini name, badges and insignia.
Basically like what CS did with his badges and insignias.

Doug Clark · 03-13-08, 04:38 AM

At some point things do become public domain, unless of course you've got enough money such as Disney who intend to hold onto Mickey Mouse for ever for example.
Even more stupid are things like the rights to Happy Birthday being held and you'd better pay royalties if you wish to sing it for a profit!

Back to cars. Pure race cars such (as the 917) seem to be treated differently and others such as the 7, '40 and Cobra seem to have got a confused enough history to make it impossible for the barn door to be closed on those designs.

If you search the web you'll find people doing really horrible things to crappy old cars to make them look like Ferrari's or whatever I can't workout why it'd be in Ferrari's interest to let this go ahead. Ferrari & Lambo don't want to sell cheap cars, if you can 't afford the car you're supposed to buy the T shirt or hat or whatever other crap they condescend to make for the average person, anyone been in a Ferrari store for example?

On the other hand looking at GT-40's I think their actually doing ford favor by keeping the memory alive of it being a performance brand.

The 10 year thing is a bit of a joke, how long for example is Fran allowed to make SLC's before someone can splash it and make a copy?

The lack of clarity in the situation is one of the things that tinges the whole kit-car industry, if there was a clear set of rules on the subject then everyone would be better off for it.

David S. · 03-13-08, 09:26 AM

Well Doug,
Large auto manufacturers have teams of lawyers, and if you infringe on a trademark you will get slapped for it. Of course all in the name of the original car owners. As for Fran's design most GTP cars look all alike to me. His design has a bit of Riley, Lola T92 etc. I like it and if some one copies it what is he going to do. Maybe he should register the "Superlite " trademark and go after the guys that try to pass it off as a Superlite coupe.

As for service parts Fran. The big three are not doing very well. The parts suppliers are dropping like flies. The new GT40 was a low volume car and I think that the people who supplied various parts are no longer around. Hence when you order a part it's on backorder or not available. When they get enough for a run to cover their setup costs they may show up again and probably out of asia.
Dave

Cliff Beer · 03-16-08, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcus

Loss of licence fees the replica manufacturer should have paid to Lamborghini are the kind of damages usually claimed. It´s no problem for a court to determine them based upon the plaintiff´s pleading presenting other prejudicial cases.

"Loss of license fees" would not be relevant here in a court of law as these parties had no contractual obligation nor privity of contract in any sense. Damages would be evaluated using other means, none of which clearly indicate a certain amount. However, given that expectation damages would likely yield very little because of the aforementioned lack of loss of sales, the diminution of brand health is typically the next best argument. It has been used in several similar cases here in US courts in recent years at least.