Ford Motor Company v. Safir GT40 Spares, Ltd

[Ron Earp]

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 :/

I don't think I'd agree here. The suit seems to be about the shape. There isn't anything mentioned about about the underpinnings. Without inspecting the car an observer isn't going to know if the car sports a real numbered chassis from FAV or a tube frame made from steel.

It appears that Safir is trying to obtain a trademark on the shape. What they do with that trademark is known for sure only to them, but I think many on this thread have accurately predicted the outcome. Safir would use this trademark to generate licensing fees from manufacturer(s).

 

[TimB]

Presumably they could also go after Ford for the GT40 image used on parts boxes for years as well?

 

[Ardern Cars]

Well,
Now it's into the third page again. I've been involved in this issue for a year and a half and with the recent motion by Lee Holman to be released from the case I've taken another look. I've looked back at everything I know and for me it all ends up at the conversation I had with Bob Wood. I asked him point blank "if you win the shape what will you do?" There was a moment of silence and he responded with "Superformance wants exclusive rights to the GT40" I read into that as, they're not interested in royalties but are more interested in stopping other replicas. Now this is of course if Safir wins. With 3 pages of speculation again on another thread pertaining to this matter it still gets down to this. It will be subject to a court decision. It could go either way. One thing I know, Bob Wood and his partners at Safir are no dummies. If they win it will make life hard for all the GT40 replicas manufactures.
Chris
Vintage GT Coupes

 

[Ian K]

If that is true, and I am inclined to believe it is so (sounds like an old lawsuit
brought about by a man named Carroll who at the time had a licensing deal with
a company named Superformance), things do look bad for the GT40 replica
industry. And, I would be very disappointed with Bob Wood and Safir.

However, if this is the case, the aforementioned case and prior art may block
such a trademark.

It also seems to me that if it is true, Superformance's investment in GT40
replicas and license from Safir may not be paying off.

Ian

 

[John W]

so it sounds I may have been thinking in the right direction.
Trully sad, because I would not choose to go buy a superformance if they won, and bet this would likely stop a lot of people from owning a gt40 replica who could not afford to go that way even if they wanted to.

I do agree that companies have to protect their interests, but genuine cars and kit/component cars are different markets with different customers. The Superformance is in the middle ground, so most likely is the driver behind this imo.

 

[Allan Feldman]

Judging from what the Car companies dire situation is like with them going to the US government for loans and the credit crunch. I would not have thought that any company Ford and Holman and Moody included would be able to sit back and watch as the "Family Jewels" are taken away from you!!!
And would this court case be in retrospect to every GT40 Replica Built???
Regards Allan

 

[Keith]

Well, who cares anyway. I've always thought the GT40 "shape" sucks big time :uhoh2: so they (Safir and SPF) can have it. I suppose they never gave a thought to the certain fact that if it wasn't for many replica "40" manufacturers, they (and SPF) wouldn't have many horses running in this particular race at this time. Good to step in just when all the hard work has been done? Yeah... right. Hey guys, if you are ultimately successful in your quest - you may just consign the fanatical 40 following to finality (don't you just love alliteration?)

The timing stinks too....kick 'em all in the nuts while they're struggling why don't you.

Personally, I have always appreciated the GTD 40 aesthetically - much prettier than the original and, of course, more affordable too. :drunk:


PS. This may all be bullshit, but Mr Angry here would like to make a point even if it's not....

 

[Gregg]

The timing stinks too....kick 'em all in the nuts while they're struggling why don't you.

I haven't been following the lawsuit, but the caption implies that Ford implemented the suit, not the other way around. Did Ford commence the action? Is Safir struggling?

 

[Jac Mac]

I haven't been following the lawsuit, but the caption implies that Ford implemented the suit, not the other way around. Did Ford commence the action? Is Safir struggling?

Post #9 from Bob Wood seems to indicate that Safir are attempting to bring further clarafication in a continuing case with regard to shape in the trademark issue the way I read it, but the original action appears to have been brought by Ford in Randys #1 post.

But hey, Im no lawyer.

 

[Ardern Cars]

Safir is attempting to trademark the shape. Ford and Holman Automotive contested it. Holman filed a motion to be released. That's what started this thread.

 

[Gregg]

Post #9 from Bob Wood seems to indicate that Safir are attempting to bring further clarafication in a continuing case with regard to shape in the trademark issue the way I read it, but the original action appears to have been brought by Ford in Randys #1 post.

But hey, Im no lawyer.

Jac, you're probably sharper than most attorneys. I guess now I have to read the entire thread.

Randy, thanks for the quick synopsis.

 

[Al Jones]

I would also pay attention to Chris' post #43.In addition,it was Chris who actually spoke to Wood and had 1st hand information.. It seems Ford is the plaintiff but be careful of who is doing what - the legal term 'movant' means this is the party who is asking the court to do something here.With Holman not released,this may be forcing or countering the issue of the earlier suit,with Holman 'asking' the court to decide(pre-emptively) in Ford's favor thereby relieving any claims,past or future, against Holman as well as his former alliance,Ford. Food for thought. A.J.

 

[fostereast]

My thoughts are (maybe wrongly so) that in the auto parts after market, people are able to offer parts for sale as long as they are not patented. The shape of a car may be trademarked, but offering a single body panel does not mean you have stolen the shape or infringed on the trademark. With that logic, I would assume that as long as the manufacturer offers the panels for sale individually, there would be no infringement.

I guess it would muddy up the marketing for the manufacturers though, to build there web sites and brochures around this idea of "we sell individual panels, only"

 

[Doug S.]

It would seem to me that since the "shape" has been in "existence" for so long, it would be difficult to copyright.

There is a story of a gentleman who invented some handles for a wheelbarrow that made it easier to control. He applied for the patent. The patent office, in thier infinite wisdom, realized there was no patent on the wheelbarrow and granted this guy the patent not only on the handles but also the wheelbarrow. That was, as you can imagine, not welcomed by all the companies that make lawn-care eqipment, so it was challenged. The end result was that the patent on the handles was upheld, but the wheelbarrow, having been around for so long without any patent, was determined to be in the public domain and therefore not patentable.

Perhaps this is the same situation with the shape of the GT40???

A bit simplistic, I know, but it seems that there should have been some attempts to trademark, copyright, whatever, the shape WAAAY back when it was new, too late now?

Doug

 

[CraigB]

I always thought there was a 25/30 year limit on any patent for a machine or 50 years after death of artist for works of art. If Ford have sold their rights to the name (as has been previously reported) surely the original 25/30 year deal means the GT40 has been public domain since 1994/1999??

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Ford never sold the name rights, they never trademarked the "GT40" tag and did not enfirce use so when Safir (UK) found it available, they trademarked it. If perhaps Pontiac had never trademarked "Firebird" for automotive use and it was open, you could file for it. You would own the name but not the "trade dress" (design) for the trademark.

 

[40 Bud]

How the hell can someone trademark something that has been available in the public domain for years?

 

[CraigB]

Ford never sold the name rights, they never trademarked the "GT40" tag and did not enfirce use so when Safir (UK) found it available, they trademarked it.

So how can Safir claim copyright over a body shape that they did not develop but to which they "own" the right to the name to?

As far as I am aware the GT40 name was only ever semi-officially applied to the Mk.I and Mk.III as the Mk.II was officially referred to as the "Ford Mk.II project" or the "Ford XL"?? same for the Mk.IV that was a "J-Car", as Allen English has already stated the Mirage was a Mirage chassis not a Ford.

NONE of the above were ever homologated anyway as they raced under "Sports Prototype" rules rather than "Sportscars" anyway as not nearly enough were ever made

 

[CraigB]

I think the question the courts have to ask is

"Did you originally make it?"

If so you MAY have a case, if not, why should you have the rights to shape that you did nor have ANY input into the design of now your tenure of the name is up.

I'm pretty sure the P51 Mustang is out of copyright now. I wonder how much it would cost to get the rights to that design!!

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

That Ford never trademarked the "GT40" name is their error. They did use the name as many parts have "GT40" cast in them despite what Carroll Shelby may have claimed. The legalities of trademark/trade dress/patent law are best left to lawyers. I don't know the fine legalities (but I could call #1 son) but common sense to me has the shape in public domain. But then courts do things that we don't see as logical.......say one O. J Simpson some years back...............