Trademark dispute possible over Ford GT shape

[AlienDB7]

Cincinnati, Ohio - Safir GT40 Spares, the company that holds the trademark to the name originally planned for Ford's low-volume supercar, now wants to trademark the car's shape as well.

The GT40 was originally built by Ford between 1964 and 1969 for racing. When it was discontinued, several companies produced replicas, including the Cincinnati-based Safir. The company trademarked the GT40 name in 1985 and produced replicas, sequentially numbered from the last Ford car, until 1999.

Safir GT40 Spares, which sells replacement parts for the older cars, reportedly demanded US$40 million in royalties for use of the name when Ford reintroduced the car, first shown at the 2002 Detroit Auto Show. Ford declined and named the car GT instead.

Safir GT40 Spares is now trying to obtain a trademark on the car's unique shape from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. A successful trademark could result in royalties from Ford for every GT.

Ford has filed an objection to the application; both companies are withholding comment.

[blah]

what a bunch of low down dirty bastards. These people need to go to hell. :fist:

[possessed_beaver]

im sure they aren't in it for the money... they just want a fair go.. NOT!

[TransAm]

Now if they had trademarked the shape at the time they bought the rights to the car in 1985, they'd have a fair case. This, however, is as bad as those ambulance-chasing lawyers. :roll:

Good 'case study' for contracts management in the auto industry, however!

[T5]

That´s a fair case.
Ford can´t sell trademarks and then use it without permission or without paying royalties

[DeMoN]

Wow I didnt expect this to happen. When will the veredict be given? Im desperate to know what this ends with.

[sentra_dude]

That´s a fair case.
Ford can´t sell trademarks and then use it without permission or without paying royalties

Read it again.

Ford didn't sell a trademark on the shape to anyone, they sold a trademark to the name. These guys are just now trying to get a patent on the shape, so, after the fact, they can get royalties on each car. It is a blatant attempt to make a quick buck off Ford, and its pretty low down. :roll:

[RC45]

Hopefully this case will run it's course abnd then they will be awarded their royalty - $1 per car sold.. ;)

[gobs3z]

I don't understand why they sold the rights to the GT40 name in the first place, was Ford desperate for some money back then? There better be some countersueing going on.

[RC45]

I don't think Ford sold anything, it is just that they never did trademark the GT40 name - the Ohio company did though.

Now they are trying to trademark the shape/profile/likeness of the GT40 - and in so doing claim that Ford is selling a product that substantially looks like their trademarked product - which means Ford owes them royalty.

Nice work if you can get it... being the lawyers I mean - they are after all the only winners here.. :)

[666fast]

I don't think Ford sold anything, it is just that they never did trademark the GT40 name - the Ohio company did though.


Bingo. Ford never sold the name, never trademarked it either. Leaving it wide open for anyone who wanted to do it.

I doubt this company will get a damn thing out of it, I'm willing to bet that Ford has the money to tie this up in courts for years.

[ikon2003]

interesting. got a source for that or any more info?

[gobs3z]

But can't Ford just say they based the Ford GT after THEIR original Le Mans car, and make it the end of the story.

[SilviaEvo]

^^they could say that they got their shape from the original LM car who the Ohio company stole from them all they need is the patent and trademark on the Ford GT40 Le Mans but the Ohio company could say they took the GT40 Le Mans from their products so all in all its fucked up. also ford has that dispute for the Ford Mustang colored dials thing that this one dude apparently patented :?

[jon_s]

Nice work if you can get it... being the lawyers I mean - they are after all the only winners here.. :)

I suspect that Ford has its own legal department for these kind of issues, so the Lawyers for Ford at least will not get any extra money unless they are on some kind of success bonus scheme.

[Pwoarrr]

I don't think that little Ohio company is gonna be able to get the patent for the shape, there is going to be too much pressure from Ford for the government to do so. This may be taken to court, but again, we know who would win there too.....in the end Ford is gonna win the dispute.

[RC45]

Nice work if you can get it... being the lawyers I mean - they are after all the only winners here.. :)

I suspect that Ford has its own legal department for these kind of issues, so the Lawyers for Ford at least will not get any extra money unless they are on some kind of success bonus scheme.

I wouldn't count on it - corporate lawyer and head council positions in the US are very lucrative positions... sure the lower rung guys are just legal dept. paper pushers, but you can be sure HUGE cash is made by lead council... :)

[blah]

My sis is a coporate lawyer but hates the sleazyness of it and what they do.

[jon_s]

Humm, sounding silly here, but what are council positions?

Forgive me for defending my corner, but I have yet (granted, a short period of time) to deal with anything in the corporate department that I would consider sleazy. Unfortunately I have little knowledge of US corporate departments or American codes of conduct. What I do know from from passing work onto our American offices is that they get paid a hell of a lot more than the Brits do!

Most of the work I deal with usually involves two companies who are of equal financial and legal strength. One company has a grievance with the other and want to slogg it out!! Who am I to stop them lol.

The biggest winners are usually the law firms themselves not the solicitors. I get a set salary which is not performance dependant. Although we do have target for billable hours. Not a feature unknown in many different areas.

The way I see it, is this. I have dedicated the last 5-6 years to becoming a lawyer, I have just under a year left before I qualitfy, by which time 7 years of my life will have been dedicated to law. My law firm has spent just over £100,000 (including a years salary) to train me. After all that, I will damn well charge a client for my advice. What then pisses me off is the builder who just fixed the roof charged £120 for 10 mins work. That works out at over £700 an hour which is a lot more than the most senior partner in my firm would change a client. Anyway, this has nothing to do with the post! Sorry.

[TransAm]

Humm, sounding silly here, but what are council positions?

Forgive me for defending my corner, but I have yet (granted, a short period of time) to deal with anything in the corporate department that I would consider sleazy. Unfortunately I have little knowledge of US corporate departments or American codes of conduct. What I do know from from passing work onto our American offices is that they get paid a hell of a lot more than the Brits do!



Same in my industry, Jon_S - US get about twice as much, and pay alot less tax (in TX at least)

[neilo63]

The US legal system is a joke it seems. Rational thought seems not to exist. :fist:

[graywolf624]

After all that, I will damn well charge a client for my advice. What then pisses me off is the builder who just fixed the roof charged £120 for 10 mins work.
The question is, which person has contributed more to society? I don't see lawyer services in gdp.

Sorry, I have to defend the builder. Especially in a world where tort reform is desperately needed.

The lawyers have run amuck.

[jon_s]

You can defend who you like, but at least put up a decent argument. I would love to know what the world tort system is. Perhaps you could explain? :?

Even if you meant litigation, how in any way is for example the litigation procedures (as it is the procedures that you are really getting at) in the UK and the US the same? Every country is different. I am 100% sure that you are aware of this, but you cannot make a statement like that without being challenged.

The UK has recently undergone a radical reformation with regard to civil and commercial litigation procedures. To sum up in the words of Lord Woolf, “if a case fails to settle out of court, then the legal system has failed”. This sets the tone of our entire system. As soon as a claim is issued every party is actively encouraged to peruse ADR (alternative dispute resolution) and the possibility of settlement. Failure to attempt these will result in adverse cost consequences. Since the new system has been put in place, people no longer seek aggressive uncompromising lawyers, but those who look for commercial solutions. A survey was done a year after the new system, one of the many findings:
“70 per cent of respondents were in the private sector, with 30 per cent in London. From the replies, a change in culture is emerging. Nearly two thirds did not think the reforms would make them less likely to start proceedings but 43 per cent said they were settling cases earlier and almost half said their lawyers were handling disputes differently. Mediation, or alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is also on the rise: 41 per cent have used it, compared with 30 per cent.”
The new Civil Procedure Rules are in no way a perfect solution. It has its faults. One side effect is the fact that a lot of cases don’t settle until on the “court steps”. I have no doubt that the Rules will evolve over my career.
There are without doubt bad practices going on both in the UK and the US. However, refrain from painting the whole profession with the same brush. Believe it or not there are many who try their hardest every day to provide an efficient, cost effective and above all, professional service. There are so many factors to consider when presenting options to a client, but at the end of the day, regardless of the advice, they are free to do what they want.

[jakaracman]

My 0.02$:
It's not the lawyers fault thet judicial system looks stupid. It's jurors and judges fault. Yaou can make an stupid litigation so expensive for both sides (compared to what they get) taht meaningless litigation will stop. Lawyers are just doing their job the best they can (expensive, yes, but that's the market price), but id both sides would not be able to afford court case except when there's be a real chance of big payoff, that would solve it (UK reform is a step in the right direction) ...

[graywolf624]

Even if you meant litigation, how in any way is for example the litigation procedures (as it is the procedures that you are really getting at) in the UK and the US the same? Every country is different. I am 100% sure that you are aware of this, but you cannot make a statement like that without being challenged.

I didn't say they weren't needed. I said they dont give to gdp. They are a necessary evil. (like an accountant or the irs) I also didnt judge their morality. I mearly stated like accountants they aren''t contributing to GDP.

As for world, I wasnt refering to some world tort system but rather stating that civil suits in most developed countries are out of control(extreme example being here).

In the US we've also got an overabundance of them, especially the trial lawyer/ambulance chasers (read scum of the earth).

[gogglibear]

talk about a sorry bunch of guys looking for a quick buck. SOmeone should go tell the theres no cheat code for money in real life.

[5vz-fe]

I think you guys lost me.....

Remember a few years back, Ford or GM has a concept car that resembles the Jeep grill or something....and we are talking about lawsuits between the two companies already. Now how does these replica works, we are talking exact copy of a car from a different company. Do they need to reach some kinda agreement before hand?

[jon_s]

The GDP is not the only way to ascertain a sectors contribution to society.

I do in fact agree that for example that there are too many frivolous cases. particularly in the US, but not exclusively. The gunlaw suit that was posted I personally think is a complete sham. I also believe that things need to be done about it, as do: http://www.atra.org/ The UK, would do well to learn from any changes you make. Civil Litigation will always be a contentious issue as it lends itself well to the press.

(side note: I was watching ER last night, in fact it was just before I posted the above, and there was some silly lawyer in the Hospital trying to get 'trade' from everyone. I could not believe that it was allowed in the US!)

With all its faults, litigation is still only only one aspect of a lawyers possible work. I believe that we provide an invaluable service to many varied clients. Without Commercial Property lawyers, no shopping malls would be built, but then without Environmental Lawyers, no development would go un challenged. Without Employment Lawyers, you would not be able to enforce your statutory protection or have a job in the first place. If there were no Commercial Lawyers, no contract would be valid or satisfy a clients needs.

There are scum lawyers which mainly comprise of no win no fee -(in the UK, success fee is set before the case, and based on risk, whereas in the US the success fee is contingent on damages awarded)- Personal injury Lawyers have got themselves a bad reputation, however they have provided a valuable life line to the bona fide claimant.

Just remember that what is portrayed in the press may well have some truth to it, but is far from the whole story.

[graywolf624]

The GDP is not the only way to ascertain a sectors contribution to society
Never said it was. I said it was a necessary evil. If people could get along and agree on things and not try to screw each other we wouldnt need them.. but then we would live in utopia and we wouldnt need war or anything else.. so eh..
Still Id voluntarily pay my roof builder more money then my lawyer if I thought my lawyer wouldnt suck as a result.

[jon_s]

The GDP is not the only way to ascertain a sectors contribution to society
Never said it was. I said it was a necessary evil. If people could get along and agree on things and not try to screw each other we wouldnt need them.. but then we would live in utopia and we wouldnt need war or anything else.. so eh..
Still Id voluntarily pay my roof builder more money then my lawyer if I thought my lawyer wouldnt suck as a result.

Well, that is fair enough :P

[bmagni]

what a bunch of low down dirty bastards. These people need to go to hell. :fist:

Reminds me the people who register internet domains and then ask for money... Bastards!

LOL, i remember a guy selling in ebay the domain www.ferrarienzof60.com and others like that all for 200 grand !!! then for like 10o, then 2000 and then he wasnt there anymore...
also long time ago www.bmw.com.mx was Buenos y Malos Webs, lots ofstuff like that...
its just people looking for money