Ford Motor Company v. Safir GT40 Spares, Ltd

D

It baffles me as to which GT40 shape you could trademark. There were so many. I would venture a guess, that the GT40 falls into a generic mid-engine configuration /shape. I was involved in a law suit in the '70's where I was sued for using a person's car shape in my business logo. The shape I used was a "head on shot" of the 917 Porsche. The person's car was a B16 Chevron Coupe. I showed the court pictures of every mid engine race car I could find. The court said that they all looked pretty much the same, so it must be a generic shape and configuration. The court saw in my favor. What got me, is I sold the guy the Chevron!
Bill Hough is Datonabill & FRPGUY
 
RichardH

RichardH

AKA The Mad Hat Man
as a diversion. Dont you think this looks similar to a GT40 design?

xj220_88_spencer_l.jpg


mid engined, 2 seater, air scoops ont side, clear cover over engine. As Bill said - the defining thing about the '40 is that it almost redesigned the 'look' of racing cars from the moment it was introduced.
 
K

Keith

Moderator
Er no actually Richard, it looks a little like the Home Page of Jag-Lovers.org, but, using a little imagination.... I get your point.. :)
 
I

Ivan

Lifetime Supporter
lets see if i carnt help :thumbsup: but yeah it dose look kinda GT40'ish, smoother though
xj220.jpg
 
Last edited:
D

I got to check out a 220 at a friends shop a month ago. It's a big car with nice lines. Do I dare say it's just another generic mid engine car.... I really can't. I wish I could have heard it run. I'll have to see if it's still there. The guy that runs the shop is a talented fabricator and does beautiful TIG welding.
 
RichardH

RichardH

AKA The Mad Hat Man
My point was - that to describe a GT40 generically to cover all models, it could describe a multitude of other cars as well. Bearing in mind the XJ220 was designed about 30 years after the '40, I would suggest that there are more similarities than not; and that is only one car.
 
Ron Earp

Ron Earp

Admin
Maybe you guys mean XJ13 - from the same era, mid engine, engine exposed to view. At least I think that is what you mean, the 220 would have no bearing on this discussion as pointed out it was about 30 years too late.

1966-Jaguar-XJ13_222537a.jpg
 
C

Cliff Beer

I would venture to guess that Bob/Safir are attempting to trademark the shape of the GT40 through it's major permutations - Mk I, II, etc. One notion worth mentioning in the area of trademark law is that of "confusingly similar." What this means is that the trademark covers the particular shape/style of the mark plus anything else which is close - said another way, "confusingly similar." Said yet a third way, if the non-trademarked mark is "confusingly similar" to the trademarked mark ie. an average person might confuse the two, then the holder of the trademarked mark can, by court order, prevent the use of the non-trademarked mark. Practically speaking, as applied to the GT40 shape, this means that Bob/Safir would be able to prevent the use/production of any car shaped/styled which is the actual shape of the original GT40s (all major permutations) and anything that looks at all like them ("confusingly similar").

So, for you GT40 replica manufacturers, just because you might use a slightly different turn of the fender or different headlight surround or seam line etc., if it looks at all like a GT40 then you're still not going to be able to make and sell the car without the permission of Safir (translation: pay a license fee to them). Not good.
 
actvpwr

Ardern Cars

I'm lead to believe it's not going to be a licencing arrangement but more like a cease and desist. It's an attempt to give Superformance a monopoly and get royalties from the Ford GT production.
Chris
 
4

40 Bud

I believe that Cliff's comments in the last paragraph of his posting of Dec.3 nails it. If someone doesn't prove that the gt40 has been in the public domain for a long time-certainly since the early 80's- then Safir wins and we lose. Valkeri, Kellison, KVA and GTD come to mind as early examples of replication that might qualify. I believe that Ford UK actually used GTD's in car shows during the mid or late 80's. I have also seen GTD's used for tire manufacturers displays. It seems to me that there is enough evidence around to say that whoever might have had a right to the shape indulged the replication of it often and in numerous ways and therefore condoned its replication. Just my $.02 worth.
 
J

John W

Won't the inclusion of the various alternate manufacturers being included in many of the books about GT40s also indicate its continued use ?

And how about Tornado and ERA, who have continued to supply for a number of years, how can they suddenly lose the right to manufacture ?
I know Caterham forced Westfield to change their design, but then westfield started out as a Caterham agent, so there was a clear(er) copyright infringement of a product that had never ceased manufacture.
 
Ron Earp

Ron Earp

Admin
How about replicas appearing in numerous GT40 publications - the front cover of one famous GT40 book about "real" GT40s! I think this one was a GTD if I recall correctly.
51EEDS565TL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg


Jac Mac, I think I could expand on that paragraph quite a bit.
 
D

John W, how about Mirage? Would Safir be able to go after them for copying the shape and modifying it. It's like the Datsun 240 Z. It pretty much looks like a Cobra Daytona Coupe. They copyed the Daytona shape & configuration modified a little.
 
A

Allan Feldman

How can Safir go after the Mirage? It was not counted for homologation as a Ford when it raced as not enough of them had been built.It was officially a Mirage M1. Not a Ford. Also have not some of the new Ford GT tuners (I have forgotten the manufacturer) produced a 720 Mirage? How will his effect the name ??
The KVA MKIII that Ken Attwell created was built by students at the Technical College under his supervision if I am right. When I was sent by Ken Attwell to the Swansea plant to view it was not substituting for any GT40. It was just a Replica MKIII with a 1600 engine. Were any GTD used as substitutes for the real GT40's?
I think Ford would still step in with copyright also Holman and Moody, Alan Mann and Shelby might get envolved??
If as I get this right SAFIR took over the remander of JWA. Then they would only have rights over the Gulf car shape. And contridicting myself the Mirage race cars that JWA Made and then only if thats what rights they bought???
Only if this could be proved to be unique. As the JWA Gulf GT40 was based on the Ford France GT40 /P1020 in 1967 with the gulf tail section and single tail lights.
Regards Allan
 
Last edited:
D

Great points Allam! If this ever got into a Court, everyone would have to be brought up to speed on the complicated history of the GT40. It might be overwhelming for most people!
 
J

John W

Given that it was a race car that underwent continued development and evolution, and then continuous kit versions since the 80s whilst the owners (ford / safir) made nothing (or very few), I'd say makes it a right nightmare.
So is that mkI early, mkI longnose, mkIGulf, mkIIa, mkIIb, mkIII, etc, all of which look different but are still recognised to those in the know as a gt40...

I don't think anyone is actually trying to pass off their cars as originals (with one notable documented 'sbarro' exception). There might be some 'ford coupe' dvla registrations, but the cars are all clearly not originals to those that know.
I would guess that this is an effort to combat (or get royalties from) the newer companies that are starting to supply monocoques that look much closer / exactly the same as the originals. Worrying for those of us with these on order :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top