Thank you, Murray
Bob Wood
Thank you, Murray! I/we appreciate the acknowledgement of "our side".MGNut said:
Bob Wood
Who owns the rights to the GT40 Body?
- Thread starter ChrisMartino
- Start date
BobWood said:
The Road and Track did list Automotive News Weekly as the source for the info. But I’m not sure why your referring to that article as “B.S.” the article basically stated that you asked for 40 mil and Ford declined, and you just confirmed that actually happened. So that obviously wasn’t B.S., now granted there was more to the story, but isn’t there always.
Either way thanks for filling us in on the whole story.
Yeah, it was nice to hear your side, Bob.
Please don't sue me for trademark infringement over the shape of my car!
Please don't sue me for trademark infringement over the shape of my car!
Safir's General Dissatisfaction
DBLDREW,
Having read thr R&T article, DBLDREW, I must admit that it did not cast the very negative slant on Safir that ANW did. However, we at Safir have a general dissatisfaction with all of the publications in that not one, not one contacted us for the true story. Had DeLorenzo contacted us, we would have told him that Ford would not make us an offer, and that Ford told us that our GT40 trademark was not worth much to Ford when their "market equation" was used. That printed, maybe the public would not have the impression that we were/are "hosers", but that it was/is the Ford Motor Company who did not negotiate in good faith and really did not care much about the tradematk. It was DeLorenzo who, in fact, referred to us as "hosers" in a subsequent article. DeLorenzo would never return my phone calls, never would acknowledge that he "learned" the real story from my very lengthy voice mails, and never retracted the "hosers". That certainly is B.S.!
As DBLDREW aptly states there is always a second side to the story. We feel that all of the publications had a journalistic obligation to get that second side instead of simply following ANW's lead and making Safir look so very bad.
In contrast, Keith Martin in Sportscar Market did retract his negative comments after having spoken to us.
DBLDREW said:
DBLDREW,
Having read thr R&T article, DBLDREW, I must admit that it did not cast the very negative slant on Safir that ANW did. However, we at Safir have a general dissatisfaction with all of the publications in that not one, not one contacted us for the true story. Had DeLorenzo contacted us, we would have told him that Ford would not make us an offer, and that Ford told us that our GT40 trademark was not worth much to Ford when their "market equation" was used. That printed, maybe the public would not have the impression that we were/are "hosers", but that it was/is the Ford Motor Company who did not negotiate in good faith and really did not care much about the tradematk. It was DeLorenzo who, in fact, referred to us as "hosers" in a subsequent article. DeLorenzo would never return my phone calls, never would acknowledge that he "learned" the real story from my very lengthy voice mails, and never retracted the "hosers". That certainly is B.S.!
As DBLDREW aptly states there is always a second side to the story. We feel that all of the publications had a journalistic obligation to get that second side instead of simply following ANW's lead and making Safir look so very bad.
In contrast, Keith Martin in Sportscar Market did retract his negative comments after having spoken to us.
Thank you for your comments!
Please do not fear a suit from us for making your own car. We hope that you enjoy it, and if you need any parts please give us a call.
Bob Wood
Please do not fear a suit from us for making your own car. We hope that you enjoy it, and if you need any parts please give us a call.
Bob Wood
Ron Earp
Admin
Thanks for posting the story Bob, that makes an interesting read. I've heard so many versions of it and read about as many, that it makes it hard to know the truth. It appears to me that Ford wasn't really prepared to pay much of anything for the name. Doing so would have essentially admitted lack of long term planning or vision. Naturally, we all know that they don't have a long term plan or vision, but they like to think they do.
Nice contribution and I hope you enjoy our community and come back often.
Ron
Nice contribution and I hope you enjoy our community and come back often.
Ron
As a Marketing type I can see why some at Ford would prefer the car to be
badged as the GT rather than GT40. Leaning too much on your heritage
can be a double edged sword. However it certainly sounds like Ford
was less than professional in their handling of the issue.
MikeD
badged as the GT rather than GT40. Leaning too much on your heritage
can be a double edged sword. However it certainly sounds like Ford
was less than professional in their handling of the issue.
MikeD
Thank you, Ron!!
Ron, thank you for the the sympathetic comments and the understanding that Ford was not prepared to pay much of anything for the trademark. Brady Pack, John Sadler, and I all have MkV GT40 cars, each of which has more value than what Ford was really prepared to offer. As such we would not sell. There have beem those who have felt (and written so in various columns, blogs, etc.) that we should have just given Ford the name. From which, one must deduce that the name did mean much to those some enthusiasts. Instead of castigating us, Ford should/would have been the subject of the castigation had the public really known how little Ford cared about the great GT40 trademark.
The site is a tremendous asset to our beloved GT40 automobiles, and I applaud you, Ron, for having made it so very successful! I will be back daily!
Best regards,
Brady, John, and me, Bob Wood
Ron Earp said:
Ron, thank you for the the sympathetic comments and the understanding that Ford was not prepared to pay much of anything for the trademark. Brady Pack, John Sadler, and I all have MkV GT40 cars, each of which has more value than what Ford was really prepared to offer. As such we would not sell. There have beem those who have felt (and written so in various columns, blogs, etc.) that we should have just given Ford the name. From which, one must deduce that the name did mean much to those some enthusiasts. Instead of castigating us, Ford should/would have been the subject of the castigation had the public really known how little Ford cared about the great GT40 trademark.
The site is a tremendous asset to our beloved GT40 automobiles, and I applaud you, Ron, for having made it so very successful! I will be back daily!
Best regards,
Brady, John, and me, Bob Wood
Less than professional
Mike,
Your comment about Ford being less than professional is the first that we have received from someone other than those closely surrounding us. It makes me believe that now there are some who are able to spread the real story. Whereas we will never be able to reach the masses as the publications did, our hope is that those such as yourself and the others who are the true enthusiasts will learn that Safir never did anything to scuttle the new "GT40" program, and the the car is not a "GT40" because Ford did not care if it was a "GT40" or not. Thank you!
Bob Wood
MikeDD said:
Mike,
Your comment about Ford being less than professional is the first that we have received from someone other than those closely surrounding us. It makes me believe that now there are some who are able to spread the real story. Whereas we will never be able to reach the masses as the publications did, our hope is that those such as yourself and the others who are the true enthusiasts will learn that Safir never did anything to scuttle the new "GT40" program, and the the car is not a "GT40" because Ford did not care if it was a "GT40" or not. Thank you!
Bob Wood
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
right...
Glad you weighed in on this, Bob!!
Glad you weighed in on this, Bob!!
A most professional reply Mr. Wood. Ford being a huge beaurecrautic company loves to sling mud in order to make itself look damaged. And the magazine editors, thought to be impartial, always look to see who is paying their advertising first, impartiality last. Very sad.
If we need parts, how do we contact you?
Regards
Bill D
If we need parts, how do we contact you?
Regards
Bill D
Interesting story. Unfortunately, it is, in short, a comedy of errors from all perspectives - inability to respect the practical market value of a word mark, ineffectual negotiating tactics, poor management of PR, etc. I think it's a shame that human ego and inexperience led to the outcome here. It would have been great to see the GT40 mark popularly used again to capitalize upon a rich racing heritage with a worthy modern sports car such as the new Ford GT. Instead, everyone goes away empty handed - Safir, Ford, and the buying public who might have really enjoyed the resurrection of the US's 60's triumph over the european titans of the time.
Thank you, Bill
Bill,
Thank you for the kind words! I can be reached at 513-672-8105 office, 513-310-4119 cell, 513-831-5628 home, [email protected], [email protected], 513-831-5638 home fax.
Bob
Bill D said:
Bill,
Thank you for the kind words! I can be reached at 513-672-8105 office, 513-310-4119 cell, 513-831-5628 home, [email protected], [email protected], 513-831-5638 home fax.
Bob
Howard Jones
Supporter
Oh and the other thing I have learned besides the comment earlier about lawyers is to never talk to reporters about anything you want them to print accurately.
I totally agree with Howard.
Lynn Larsen
Lynn Larsen
Bob,
It sounds like you would be surprised at just how many people have heard and had no problem believing that you all were willing to talk with Ford, and if they had not been such royal PITAs, they could have easily regained rights to the name. Granted we knew none of the detail that you have presented, but we had a feeling for the flavor of interaction.
Lynn
It sounds like you would be surprised at just how many people have heard and had no problem believing that you all were willing to talk with Ford, and if they had not been such royal PITAs, they could have easily regained rights to the name. Granted we knew none of the detail that you have presented, but we had a feeling for the flavor of interaction.
Lynn
Lynn,
Thank you. It is encouraging that many people could and did understand that it might have been a Ford problem. Ford could have regained the trademark, and all would have been happier with brand new GT40s. However, Superformance might not have had the name, and that would have been a shame, as those cars are so authentic and deserving to be called GT40s. The Superformance GT40s are more affordable for the GT40 enthusiast, and will be more true to the enthusiast's desires.
Bob
Thank you. It is encouraging that many people could and did understand that it might have been a Ford problem. Ford could have regained the trademark, and all would have been happier with brand new GT40s. However, Superformance might not have had the name, and that would have been a shame, as those cars are so authentic and deserving to be called GT40s. The Superformance GT40s are more affordable for the GT40 enthusiast, and will be more true to the enthusiast's desires.
Bob
