The truth about Safir Engineering

[Jim Rosenthal]

As far as I know, it is, Alan.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

I am therefore minded to give up the struggle and dissolve Safir Engineering ltd. ...perhaps Ron might take an unprecedented step of pulling this thread, ...

Obviously I hope you don't give up, but that's easy for me to say. Regarding the strange ebay questions don't forget there's a fraction of the population that is plum crazy and they're all connected to the internet. And I still think (hope) the original post was a momentary triumph of ego over logic, and that the OP is probably not a terrorist. Keep in mind all they've done is post a pissy essay and then disappear into the night. They have a reputation to protect as well and I doubt they are stupid enough to continue harrassing you. It's too a small community for them to get away without substantial damage to themselves.

 

[Dan Barber]

For a kinda-related issue, see Jim Glickenhaus' experience with attempting (offerring?) to share P4/5C's glories with Ferrari in giving it a name.... http://www.gt40s.com/forum/video-pi...hould-make-ferrari-very-happy.html#post386825 To me this illustrates the "older" owner of the name pretending to be protecting their trademark, etc., when perhaps what is really going on is just an ego problem with "the new guy". Same thing I suspect is going on here.

My intuition is that there won't be any confusion when Andrew goes to market with his frames. Anyone in the market for a GT40 frame is likely to be famiiar with the whole story and isn't going to make something out of "Safir Engineering (Surrey)" beyond what it actually is. It (we?) are a pretty sophisticated market.

A really well made point Alan. I totally agree.

I have been at the rough end of unreasonable corporate bullying myself in the past and it is not a good situation to experience so my sympathy goes out to Andrew Komoso here as I can fully understand why he feels like throwing in the towel after receiving the accusations and personal attacks from the OP.

I am in no way an articulate legal expert so forgive me if my words are a bit basic in comparison to some of the other well presented postings on this thread but there are a few very odd things I have spotted about all this huge “drama” which Peter Thorp and Safir GT40 Spares seem to be creating. I will let you good people decide whether these are relevant or not but I am just making a few observations myself.



1. Peter Thorp mentions in his separate posting that “the real Safir Engineering was dissolved in the late 1990’s” but according to UK companies house records the only other company that seems to have existed was Safir Engineering Ltd No. 1202724 but that was dissolved on 20 November 2001 so I don't know if there was yet another company that existed which Mr Thorp was referring to but there is certainly no record of it on the Companies House Register in the UK that I just browsed through. Anyway, assuming the dates that Peter Thorp mention were just a basic misunderstanding
himself (which is still a bit odd if it was his company) the fact remains that the company name of “Safir Engineering Ltd” was legally up for grabs in the UK by anyone who wished to use this name and as there is absolutely no legal objection that Safir GT40 Spares or Peter Thorp or anyone else can rightfully lodge against Andrew Komoso in forming a fresh company in that name. Likewise anyone can form any variation of Safir Engineering Ltd forn example "The Original Safir Engineering Ltd". Even "Safir GT40 Spares Ltd" can be legally formed in the UK if anyone is interested.



2. Amongst the apparent objections of Safir GT40 Spares, one point seems to be the use of the word ‘Engineering’ in the new company Safir Engineering Ltd number 8041125. But strangely they do not use this word themselves in their own company name and also have no rights to block anyone using this generally accepted word that is listed in everyone’s dictionaries so the only grounds they seem to have is some loose ancient link they have with a company in the UK who they acquired some assets from many years ago. Now I have no legal training so am clearly a bit stupid as far as the technicalities are concerned but can someone explain to me what possible legal objection they can have to this? If the word was that important to them then why didn't they incorporate it into their own company name? If Safir GT40 Spares can clarify this then that would be the best thing all round I would say.



3. This leads me on to another question which is that if Safir GT40 Spares are so worried and upset about anyone in the UK passing themselves off as their own company then why did they not bother to secure all related variants of “Safir” in the UK, in particular why did they not form the company “Safir Engineering Ltd” themselves just to avoid this kind of situation which they suddenly feel so bad about? Could this be corporate embarrassment where they have made a boo boo and are trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted?



4. In the separate thread about the sale of the GT40 monocoque referred to by Safir GT40 Spares Llc the posting by Peter Thorp is headed “Peter Thorp of Safir Engineering Ltd”. N
ow this needs a bit of clarification as he is clearly implying that he is an officer of Safir Engineering Ltd and as the only company in existence at the date of his posting is is AK’s company Safir Engineering Ltd No 8041125 then Peter Thorp is either registered as a co-director of that company (which I doubt) or is otherwise clearly holding himself out to be a director of that company. Either way it makes no real difference in a UK court as I found out myself. So at least if Safir GT40 Spares come up with a law suit against Safir Engineering Ltd then AK will have a colleague to share the burden of the defence case with! Shooting yourself in the foot is not a good thing to do Mr Thorp!


5. Re. Forum etiquette.........my own interpretation of Ron Earps No1 forum rule is that all forum users should be polite, professional and respectful. From my own interpretation of the OPs posting and the fact that they have failed to produce any of the evidence that has been requested in order to support what seem to be at worst fairly libellous claims against AK and at best very insulting comments then this surely is a direct major breach of the fundamental forum rules? Otherwise are we saying that anyone on the forum can make wild unsubstantiated accusations against any other forum member as & when we choose to without any intervention by the moderators? I hope that is not the case. I would ask the forum moderators themselves to comment on this point and give it some clarity for everyone’s sake otherwise otherwise it makes a mockery of the whole situation.

For your reference here’s Ron Earp’s rule No’1 pasted below. How many breaches can you count?

1. Enjoy The Forum: GT40s.com is a web forum for the hobbyist. A place to stop in and relax. Keep threads on topic. Please respect your fellow members and don’t write something that you wouldn’t say face to face to them in my living room. Notice it is written “my living room” because you are not on your own forum. If your comments are deemed inappropriate you’ll find yourself suspended for a short while. In short, don’t berate, belittle, or ridicule your fellow forum member. Offenders will find themselves banned. GT40s.com reserves the right to terminate any user or member at any time for any reason.





6. Re. Skeletons in the cupboard?

There are 3 points to make under this heading. Maybe they are not related or relevant to aything that has been said so far so you will need to decide whether some or none or all of this huge drama is actually genuine or whether this could in fact be some form of smoke screen. I am not suggesting anything but am simply copying/pasting separate pieces of information below

(i) Firstly I spotted an interesting little Note within the final set of Financial Statements filed by Peter Thorp’s old company that I just download from companies house website.


“12. TRANSACTIONS WITH DIRECTORS

Following discussions with the Inland Revenue Mr P A Thorp agreed to pay an amount of £6,000 to the company to conclude the enquiry into the taxation liability arising from his acquisition of a motor vehicle from the company on 30 September 1999 at its estimated market value of £80,000.”

Maybe Peter Thorp can throw some light on this but from my understanding this kind of situation normally arises when an asset has been transferred out of a company’s ownership at a value below market value which then gets picked up by Inland Revenue and becomes the subject of an enquiry until such point that the correct tax thereon is substantiated and paid over.

(ii) the company
Safir GT40 Spares stated that “Closing the company ends liability, and ensures that there is a final handshake with the tax man. Safir Engineering officially dissolved November 2001.”

Now why mention this point in particular? A company can indeed be dissolved in the UK without any “handshake” with the tax man. Certainly it could back then although in the last few years it is more unlikely as the Inland Revenue now automatically detect any companies that are in the process of being dissolved and can lodge a formal objection against any dissolution until such time that they are satisfied that the company’s tax situation is up to date, but back in the days of when Peter Thorps company was dissolved the system was not automated and companies could easily be dissolved without the Inland revenue realising. In fact many companies were dissolved owing huge VAT and tax liabilities and then started up the next day with the same directors but having a clean slate. The same thing still goes on even today despite Inland Revenue best efforts to curb this.



(iii) point 3 are some comments made by both Peter Thorp and Safir GT40 Spares

Peter Thorp: “As per attached February 2000 announcement, body molds patterns and inventory were transferred to a new entity, Safir GT40 Spares,
“

Safir GT40 Spares “Prior to the dissolution of company number 01202724 (Safir Engineering), all assets were removed. Body moulds, casting patterns, inventory, the GT40 trademark, etc. were all transferred to US Company SafirGT40 Spares, Limited. In order for the original company 01202724 (Safir Engineering) to have continued, this company would have to have been purchased as a share transfer sale prior to being dissolved. There was no such share sale, .....
“

I picked up on certain key words, “assets removed” and “assets transferred”.

But luckily we have had specific unpromptd assurances (albeit from a 3rd party) that a final handshake was done between the UK tax man and the old dissolved company Safir Engineering Ltd otherwise there could have been some doubt that these asset removals & transfers might not have been at full market value with correct UK tax being paid by Safir Engineering Ltd prior to dissolution of the company.



Anyway, must dash off as I am just popping out to Starbucks.....



All the best...

Dan

 

[TrevS]

Hi all

As an outsider looking in at Andrew's new company I thought that Andrew had acquired the rights to the name to the original Safir Engineering. So it's actually that he just re-registered the name at company house which is fair enough but to me it was confusing and I thought he had bought out the previous company and taken control of the name (brand).

Also I read in fortification that his new car is to be offered as a Safir MkVI. Again I thought this was an official Safir product that was following on from Safir's previous cars so again this is a little misleading, just my two cents.

Andrew, can I also ask what racing your new FIA approved chassis would be eligible for?

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Ive held off on this, but I am going to venture an opinion here, which may not be liked by all. I was and still am interested in Andrew's project, of resurrecting various GT40 bits from period into an assembled car. I think that it's welcome that those old pieces will get to be part of a race car again. I've said so publicly here and I stand by those statements.

But I don't approve of Andrew resurrecting the Safir corporate name and planning to sell GT40 chassis or cars or whatever. I think it's an attempt to trade on the existence of the prior UK company whose assets were sold to my friends in the USA and Canada. Pack, Sadler and Wood paid a significant amount for the assets of that company- they didn't get it for free by a long chalk. Their opportunity to make back their investment is limited in the sense that not very many people are interested in owning or restoring one of these automobiles. Besides completing my car, selling parts, and licensing the numbering to HiTech Auto in S.A., they have limited opportunities for gain. Given that, and the fact that they BOUGHT the assets fair and square, Andrew's present creation of a company bearing the name of the old one, at little cost to him or none, doesn't seem fair to me, and I hope he reconsiders. I believe he's poaching on their turf. There are a lot of companies building GT40 cars who have not bothered to pay any attention whatever to the trade dress owned by Safir GT40 Spares in North America. HiTech was the only one that did. I think Andrew is mistaken in his present course, and ought to rethink it. And then do differently. If he wants to build GT40 replicas, fine- lots of people have done that and most of them have little profit to show for it. But he should not revive the Safir name and try to trade on something that morally belongs to someone else, IMHO. I think it's indefensible.

 

[Keith]

This may be a parallel thought and I hope not to drift away from the main topic but I have never understood the practice of placing authentic manufacturer chassis plates on replicas. To me, the actions do not seem to have the best intentions in a similar way to discussion of the issues raised by this thread.

But, it can be taken either way can't it.

I suppose it is down to the original intention and that is for people to make their own minds up about. It seems however, that what might have started as a Good Idea can equally become a Bad Idea quite organically.

 

[Andrew Komosa]

Hi Jim & Keith.. yes, I agree with you in hindsight. I have written to both Bob Wood and John Sadler explaining that I had no intention to step on their toes. I did not fully understand, or consider, how they would feel about a similarly-named company producing cars. I did nothing illegal to my knowledge, but as I said, hindsight, is a wonderful tool to have prior to the event! I shall not be producing any Safir-badged GT40 replica. Thanks to everyone for their support and advice, what began as a good idea, has turned to mush, but I cannot blame messers Thorp, Wood and Sadler for getting so concerned. If only I had spoken with Peter Thorp first, or one of the Safir guys had contacted me on hearing about the prospect of another Safir MkVI, then I would not have begun this venture... Andrew

 

[Keith]

Again, in hindsight, I think that is the wise move. I would have to say that your achievements thus far given the limitations you have to endure would have stopped many others a long time ago...

Good luck with your venture...

 

[Ron R.]

Jim, Andrew,

Jim, I wish I could have said it as well as you, but I agree 100%, and had actually typed my thoughts on the subject several times...only to lose them to computer glitches or thinking better of it and deleting the post myself (did that 3 times). When the computer froze this morning, I took it as a sign. I'm glad I did.

Andrew, as they say, the best laid plans...I will give you credit. There was some fairly sharp criticism early on, and you handled it better than I would have. If this truely is the end of your project as "Safir Engineering", I will say that it is a most graceful exit (and I mean that as a complement). Admittedly, it would be neat to say "My company, Safir Engineering", but I'm not sure that I would conduct business as such.

Sincerely, I wish you good luck.