Who owns the rights to the GT40 Body?

[Allan Feldman]

The FIA homologation papers #224 Group 4 sports cars issued 1 february 1966 showed the chassis numbers to commence from GT40/101 and GT40P/1000. the model is designated GT40 and further that the minimum number of 50 cars was constructed between 1 jan65 and 31 dec 65. hence the papers were issued 1 feb 1966.
A Ford GT40/103 won daytona in 1965

So what you are telling me that an edict in 1966 to homologate the GT40 for racing made all of the production chassised cars GT40 in hindsight? That was always going to happen as they were GT40P chassised. Even if as you state they included the first twelve Preproduction cars to make up the 50. Thats still in hindsight and has nothing to do with the original preproduction run! The GT/103 the 1965 Daytona winner was a preproduction car built in June 1964. This was outside the remit of the Homologation that you mentioned. It was like all of the first twelve preproduction cars a Ford GT. I love the GT40 but I want to get over this myth that when it first was built 1963/64 and up an till May 1965 when a production GT40/P1006 had the definative nose. Even though there were other Production chassis tubs completed.Including GT40/P1001 that was dress up as the GT 103 Daytona winner. All Preproduction cars are Ford GT's!!! When they were built that what they were called. End of story. Trevor just when was that tag GT40 103 attached to this car? 1966 or later?
Regards Allan

 

[Trevor Booth]

Alan
I am referring to the title of this thread, not when Ford called them GT40. It is not unreasonable to say that FAV probably called them GT40 some time in 1965.
How was the 65 daytona win reported, as a FORD GT or a FORD GT40, that would surely provide a clue as to when.
#103 was titled GT40103 before it was airfreighted to William Wonder 30 jan 66.

It would surely have been titled this before 31 dec 65 in order to be included in the homologated vehicles. The FIA would have viewed production records and in all probability some of the cars to verify FAV claim of 50 cars before 31 dec 65.


Correspondence from FORD USA to John Wyer, FAV in relation to the sale of #103 to William Wonder referred to the car as a FORD GT.

The attachment is the front page of the FIA papers. I have an FIA watermarked copy of the original document.

in terms of the thread subject confusing ???

 

[Allan Feldman]

Trevor
It not your correnspondence I am getting at. Its the thought that history could be distorted by Ford trying to homolagate the car for racing in 1966. The Ford GT (GT103) won Daytona in 1965 since it was a prepoduction car. Shelby himself says this car was a Ford GT.
I personally have no qualms about a production chassised car being call a Ford GT40 since that was its right. But prepoduction cars are usually experimental. And since in 1963 the Fords racing program was for a Ford GT that were the prepoduction car gets its name. The production run was for fully finished road or race cars. The magazines especially the USA ones referred to the small block 289 as the GT40 and the MKII as big blocks. But this was something of a nickname. In fact I still do not really know if the Longnose Big Block Ford at the 1965 Le Mans was officially called MKII's???
I have a dealers press release for the MKII just calling it that in 1966. Since in homolagation the GT40 named cars were small blocks 289 cars. And to make up the numbers the early preproduction cars were included. I think the Big block and MKII's (even though the later MKII's were on production chassis) could not of been included since they were not eligable for group four and they were classed as prototypes.
As for owning the rights for the Ford GT40 body. Ford holds that right since the design of the Ford GT and GT40 was Fords. Even the and front and rear clip for the Gulf cars came directly from the test bed of P1020 Ford France in the 1967 Le Mans. This had the first single rear taillights and the wider body. Although JWA and Alan Mann had much modified bodies the original design concept belongs to Ford. Maybe the modifications were patented to those individual companies?
Regards Allan

 

[Johan]

Allan, I do not think you know who owns the rights to the Ford GT40 body design. I know I don't know. Sure, you have an opinion, , Ford has an opinion, the original designer has an opinion(can't remember his name), Lola has an opinion etc., but you will never actually know who owns the rights until the claimed ownership was challenged in court and a ruling was determined. You have a lot of knowledge and a lot of opinions, but very little of the information is actual "Fact".

 

[Allan Feldman]

So let me get this right. You do not know who owns the rights to a car developed and designed for Ford. Len Bailey, Roy Lunn, Eric Broadley and various other all working for Ford designed the Ford GT car in 1964. Why then is this uncertainty that the body design has nothing to do with Ford? That is factual. The name was the Ford GT And later for the production car the Ford GT40.
Even the Gulf cars in 1968/69 were credit are Fords for Manufacturer points in the champonship. Who since then has claimed the design of the bodywork??
Regards Allan

 

[Johan]

Allan, the cars have been copied for a long time and Ford is not trying stop it to my knowledge, but yes "you got it right" that I don't know who owns the rights to the GT40 or Ford GT bodies as a protected shape. You said:
"Why then is this uncertainty that the body design has nothing to do with Ford? That is factual. "

Factual ? It is not even a proper sentence as a double negative. I never said that Ford "Didn't have nothing to do with it". Looking over the past couple of pages, some stuff you get right and some stuff you get wrong, just like everyone else. I think we're on the same page. Call it your "opinion" and you're safe.

 

[Bill D]

Several years ago, Carroll Shelby sued Factory Five Racing for (I believe) trade dress infringement. Ol' CS said he owned the rights to the Cobra body style. Well, FFR won. They contended that the body design had been in the public domain for a very long time and CS did nothing to stop it. He never filed papers to protect the design. Hence, his suit was thrown out. FFR had to stop calling it a Cobra since Ford owns the rights to that name. And FFR couldn't sell Cobra badges.

I believe this same principle applies to the GT40 body.

 

[Johan]

Well stated Bill.

 

[Jac Mac]

I hate to bring this up, but it may very well be the dreaded CS who decided on the GT '40' moniker, might be wrong but I seem to remember an article or perhaps chapter in one of many books " Shelbys Wildlife" by Wyss comes to mind, where they were discussing a name for the then Ford GT in his w/shop in Venice CA. As I remember it various names etc were bandied round until 'he' said, how high is it? A quick measurement got 40", so '' GT40 " it was.!!

A similar story surrounded the GT350 Mustang- It was 350 paces to the end of the building!

This is one case of be careful what you ask for, If CS or his lawyer buddies read this you might all be getting registered mail

Ron-- feel free to scrub this post if you feel threatened.

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Who owns the rights to the GT40 Body?

I do. I bought 'em from a guy on the corner who also had good deals on watches. I think his name was Lewis.

 

[Doug Clark]

Having read this I fail to see why Carrol Shelby would think that he had any claim at all to the Cobra body shape.
Can anyone explain why he thought he did?

 

[40 Bud]

Didn't Mr Engliss and Mr. Shelby have a lengthy discussion about that some time back? I believe Brian won that argument.

 

[Allan Feldman]

Johan
Of course its my opinion. But two factual things need to be cleared up. If you are talking about the GT40 body shape. Firstly when was the car officially called a GT40? And what constitues the GT40 bodyshape?
Then legal arguements can apply. Does the term GT40 apply to the car with the definative shape. First seen publically on the FAV entry GT40/P1006 at Le Mans in June 1965? Does it include all shapes from 1963 onwards?
It might constitute a complete legal definition of the Ford GT40 bodyshape and then this would have to include the MKIII as well. Just saying that because replicas have been made its in the public domain might not work. I am thinking of such anomilies as the front twin nostral panels on some of the replicas CAV, GTD and KVA (etc) spring to mind being taken originally from a MKIII. Thus being more narrower than a MK1. I am thinking and correct me if I am wrong if it went to a court of law such things would be brought up.
This was the Cobra message. I thought they were AC bodies?
Just because Shelby mentioned GT40 in conversation about its height of 40.5 inches. It does not constitute a legal and binding argument.According to Ronnie Spain GT112 official documentation mentions GT40. But with the production car being officially called GT40. It brings me back to when the decision was officially introduced. And was it given to past Ford GT and future developments of then Ford GT40?
Regards Allan