Ford Motor Company v. Safir GT40 Spares, Ltd

[Safir GT40 Spares]

Oh, wow! I find it difficult to fatham how the one erroneous post about the North Carolina filing has rekindled all of this discussion! There are some valid positions stated above, and there are some that are not, and I do not have the time right now to go back and comment on each. I will do so in the near future.

Ron, thank you for not banning me from the forum as did the moderator on the Ford GT Forum site!!!! My initial posting, having been asked not to post, stated that there was not law suit pending in a federal court as the NC filing might indicate, and that the procedural place at which our case stands in the USPTO could/would/will not encomber anyone. Mr. Moderator did not understand that, I surmise, and used his power to preclude me/Safir from making any statements or defending our positions. So be it. Thank you, Ron, again for offering me/Safir this "forum"; which forum you have built and maintained to the betterment of all of us that cherish the GT40!

As I have said above,I will address all of the issues raised when I have more time to sit at the computer; probably between Christmas and New Year's.

The quick story about a visual trademark is whether or not the shape/visual image/color etc. conjurs in the mind of a person viewing it another trademarkable or trademarked word. If I were to ask all of you as to what word mark comes to mind when you see a red winged horse, how many would quickly say "Mobile Oil"? How about the colors of turquois and deep red/purple on a can? Hawaiian Punch? Is anything shaped like a 911 Porsche other than a 911 Prosche? The latter iterations of the 911 even though significantly modified still look like a 911. When someone sees a car shaped like a GT40, the question usually asked of the owner is that a real GT40. The shape conjurs in the mind of the viewer Safir's registered GT40 trademark. A tennent of trademark law says that each are equally trademarkable. As such, Safir sought to register the shape in essence to protect our word mark as "confusion" (a basis of the need for trademark protection as noted above) was beginning to become evident. That was several years ago, and Ford has been fighting us since our initial application. This action (fighting) is a procedural thing in the USPTO. It is not a law suit in a federal court. Anyone is free to go to the USPTO site and follow all of the proceedings, arguments, and filings in the Ford, H&M, and Safir dealings. Some might find the positions of Ford and H&M even amusing at times.

At this time I ask all of you to understand that it is not Safir's position to cause anyone hardship as it pertains to the shape of our beloved GT40.

Best regards to you all,

Bob

 

[Ian K]

Well Bob, to be fair, the 912, 930 and 935 do look like a 911

As long as Safir is not intending on preventing other "circa 1965-69 Ford GT"
replica builders from continuing to conduct business, then it's a non issue.
But, if this an attempt by Superformance to corner the market, then all bets
are off.

I look forward to clarification.

Ian

 

[Price Walton]

Frankly, given the rarity, value and known ownership of the originals, whenever I see a GT40 shape, I immediately assume it's a replica, built by somebody who knows what they're doing. I therefore am filled with admiration at the creator of that vehicle, in the knowledge that they have achieved something I aspire to, demonstrating the skills I hope to possess.

I have no admiration for somebody laying claim to something they didn't create, regardless of whether the creator was silly, naiive or even foolish.

 

[Randy V]

Bob,

Thank you for your further clarification. I meant no harm in asking the question that I did when I started this thread. I had stumbled upon the North Carolina filing while doing web searches for other information regarding the GT40. I simply put it up here for clarification - which you seem to have provided.

Thank you.

 

Mr. Woods!
Kindly allow me to set the records straight.
Please be accurate when you post why you were banned and all posts deleted at The Ford GT Forum - Powered by vBulletin You were asked not to post further while your action was in the courts. Our policy is once the threat of litigation is made, or started, we will not allow the litigants to post. You ignored that request which I openly posted and added four or five more posts. Every board has their rules, you choose to ignore ours, you will not ever be welcomed back.
God Bless America,
Daniel S Bonyhadi
Moderator - The Ford GT Forum - Powered by vBulletin

 

[Safir GT40 Spares]

Randy,

It is better that you did raise the issue on this forum, as it was done on the other from which I have been banned, and I now have a place where Safir can respond. Thank you!

Ian,

I do not fully understand your initial point about the other Porsche models. Your seem to be augmenting my point with a caveat that I was incorrect in my statement. It is my contention that the various iterations/modifications of the original 911 shape, no matter how radical (whale tails, 935s, 912s, etc.) conjur in the mind "Porsche" regardless of the model or year. It is for that reason that Porsche has trademarked the shape, as has Volkswagen for the Beetle shape, GM for the Hummer, and Ferrari for many of its models.

"At this time I ask all of you to understand that it is not Safir's position to cause anyone hardship as it pertains to the shape of our beloved GT40." I will post more in the near future on this statement that I posted above.

Freewheel,

Safir has never claimed that we created the shape. It is our claim (which claim is supported by your easy recognition of a vehicle which you readily deam to be a replica)
that the very recognizable shape conjurs in the mind of the viewer our wordmark,
"GT40". Safir has purchased the trademark, and has invested considerable funds in protecting the mark. We must do certain things in order to keep the trademark active as it pertains to the laws of the US as governed by the USPTO.

The "GT40" trademark which appears on Safir's products and Superformance's products allows the customer to be assured that a certain level of quality is inherent with the product. We know that all of the products that we provide have the best quality that we can achieve. Our castings, clutches, flywheels, ring gears, fiberglass products, machined products, etc. are the best quality made by the best shops to do so. The Superformance products are second to none in the build quality and design. It is that level of quality that the mark commands. Vehicles which are recognized as a "GT40" due to its shape might not have the quality that someone has come to expect from genuine "GT40" products.

As one is able to see, Freewheel, the issue is much more complicated than Safir simply laying claim to something that we did not create.

Best regards,

Bob

 

[Safir GT40 Spares]

Dan,

My last name is "Wood"; I worked my "s" of years ago.

"and that the procedural place at which our case stands in the USPTO could/would/will not encomber anyone." I prefaced my posting on your forum with that same statement. There is no case in the courts, and the procedural place with our application and Ford's opposition is not one of litigation. Certainly I do have a much better understanding of the situation than do you, and you have regulations of your forum; which regulations I did violate. However, no one was ever placed at risk, a position which will become more apparent in the future.

"Forever banned" is your decision and position, and I will and must respect it. I did violate your rules; which rules were established to protect people under certain circumstances. I alone knew that those circumstances did not exist in this instance, and thought that my statement assured you that they did not exist also. It was for that reason that I answered those questions, thinking that the information was more useful and interesting that would be "being silenced" when there was no risk.

It is my opinion that "Forever banned" is more of a disservice to the Ford GT Forum people than it is punishment to me. However, I violated the rules, and I must accept the consequences.

I apologized to you in a private e-mail last week, and I will apologize to you in this forum here for all to see. I am sorry that I violated your request/order.

Best regards, Dan

Bob Wood (no "s")

 

[Ron Earp]

The "GT40" trademark which appears on Safir's products and Superformance's products allows the customer to be assured that a certain level of quality is inherent with the product. We know that all of the products that we provide have the best quality that we can achieve. Our castings, clutches, flywheels, ring gears, fiberglass products, machined products, etc. are the best quality made by the best shops to do so. The Superformance products are second to none in the build quality and design. It is that level of quality that the mark commands. Vehicles which are recognized as a "GT40" due to its shape might not have the quality that someone has come to expect from genuine "GT40" products.

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the informative post.

I'll ask a simple question that I think deserves a simple yes/no answer. Does Safir intend to extract payment from other manufacturers of GT40 replicas or prevent them from building GT40 replicas?

Thanks,
Ron

 

[Ian K]

Ian,

I do not fully understand your initial point about the other Porsche models. Your seem to be augmenting my point with a caveat that I was incorrect in my statement. It is my contention that the various iterations/modifications of the original 911 shape, no matter how radical (whale tails, 935s, 912s, etc.) conjur in the mind "Porsche" regardless of the model or year. It is for that reason that Porsche has trademarked the shape

Bob, I was jokingly replying to this statement you made:

Is anything shaped like a 911 Porsche other than a 911 Prosche?

The answer is yes - the 912, 930 and 935 are all shaped like a 911, but are not
a 911 (from a marketing perspective).

As far as Superformance products being "second to none in the build quality and design",
well, that is best left to later judgment and colored by opinion.

Ian

 

[RichardH]

"At this time I ask all of you to understand that it is not Safir's position to cause anyone hardship as it pertains to the shape of our beloved GT40." I will post more in the near future on this statement that I posted above.


The "GT40" trademark which appears on Safir's products and Superformance's products allows the customer to be assured that a certain level of quality is inherent with the product.

I may not know much about trademark law - but those two comments seem to contradict each other.
The first implies that you are not interested in "going after" other manufacturers of GT40 clones.
The second implies that only Safir products are "good enough" to be called a GT40, and by default nothing other than a Safir product could be called such.

I would also argue, as Ian stated, as to "Quality" - a car built for racing has different "quality" constraints to a road car (as most "clones" are). If you are saying (and I doubt that you are) that your cars are to "original Ford quality" and have to be stripped and rebuilt after a short period of hectic activity, then most people would agree, that for road use, the word "quality" is a misnomer. No-one would disagree that F1 cars are at the fore-front of technology, but you would not describe them as "quality" vehicles to pop down to the shops every day for 10 years, or comfort, or many other parameters.

 

[Safir GT40 Spares]

Ian,

I feel so foolish...

It is our opinion that the Superformance cars deserve the genuine "GT40" trademerk.

best regards,

Bob

 

[Safir GT40 Spares]

Ron,

Only Safir and Superformance have the rights to sell a vehilcle with "GT40" as a trade name. Other makers of cars that look like GT40s cannot call their cars GT40s without violating our trademark. If companies do so, we will rely on trademark law to afford us and our trademark all of the protection that those laws provide.

In reference to the shape, your simple answer is "no".

As always, Ron, my best regards,

Bob

 

[Ron Earp]

Hi Bob,

Thank you for the answer to the question. It is one that I know most folks were most interested in knowing the answer to. So it sounds like as long as the manufacturer does not use GT40 in the name then they will not have any problems.

Thanks,
Ron

 

[Russ Noble]

Sounds good!

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet....."

 

[RichardH]

:cry:interesting. I have just been watching the roaring forties advert atthe top of this page.... Replica GT40's:thumbsdown:

 

[Gregg]

Ron,

Only Safir and Superformance have the rights to sell a vehilcle with "GT40" as a trade name. Other makers of cars that look like GT40s cannot call their cars GT40s without violating our trademark. If companies do so, we will rely on trademark law to afford us and our trademark all of the protection that those laws provide.

In reference to the shape, your simple answer is "no".

As always, Ron, my best regards,

Bob

Well I guess I am still a little confused. If your only concerned about the trademark "GT40" name which you represent you own, why are you trying to trademark the shape? It is clear that you will protect your mark "GT40" which you have every right to do and after investing time, money etc. in the name, one would expect you to try and protect the mark. If you are successful in trademarking the shape, doesn't logic dictate that you will seek trademark protection/enforcement against the shape to extract a licensing fee from any "GT40" manufacturer or in the alternative, render Superformance the only permitted replica company??

 

[Ian K]

Ian,

I feel so foolish...

It is our opinion that the Superformance cars deserve the genuine "GT40" trademerk.

best regards,

Bob

No problem - I expected that is what you meant to say.

As I said hinted at before, it seems that what Safir and Superformance are trying to
do is what Shelby (and Superformance) settled with - just like Cobra replicas, only
SPF can call theirs a "GT40". All others must call them something else (ERA GT, CAV GT,
etc.)

Ian

 

[Doug S.]

I don't think so, Gregg--to my way of thinking, Safir have trademarked the name GT40 only, or at least as I understand it that is all they are attempting to protect. If in fact they do possess the rights to the name only, IMHO then that is the only interest the law will allow them to protect.

As for the RF, I suspect a change in terminology to name it the Roaring Forties GT might well get them out from under the gun, what I'd like to know is....could that be followed up by a statement such as "....styled in the manner of the original GT40" without being targeted by Safir?

I mean, Bob's right, even if the name were changed to the Roaring Forties GT, it would still look pretty dadgum close to the shape of the item whose "image" is retrieved at the mention of the name Safir is attempting to protect. History is full of look-alikes, the Opel GT was a miniature Vette, the Datsun 240Z was very closely styled to the Daytona.....profiles evoke images, that's human nature. It is my sincere hope that the shape is in the public domain by now.....the name is already protected, why no effort to protect the shape before now, other than for "royalty" purposes?

Doesn't this seem very much like the Shelby Cobra litigation? Has that been settled in Shelby's favor on the issue of the shape? Not to my knowledge, but......a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Doug

 

[Ardern Cars]

Bob,
Thank you for ending the discussion.
Your Friend
Chris
Vintage GT Coupes
Have a great Christmas

 

[Ian K]

It's as I said above - Shelby has no control over the shape, but the manufacturers
cannot call them Cobra replicas or use Cobra badging. However, even Factory Five
states on their site that it is a replica of a Cobra.

Mk3 Roadster

So, I believe that is what Safir is after - nobody can all them GT40s without an
agreement, but they can say that they are replicas of the GT40.

Ian