Ferrari - a lawyer's best friend?

Originally posted by Gareth

He calls it (it would appear) the Ferrari Limo, so I don't think he's claiming it's still a Ferrari 360 Modena, which would appear to be your defense?

Well, it does say in big red letters at the top "Ferrari 360 Modena Stretch Limousine"...

My defence would be that he's not using the trademark on his own creation, but that he bought a Ferrari, it had Ferrari badges, he still has a Ferrari and the badges are part of it. OK, a bit's been added to it, but if he changed the engine it would still be a Ferrari and therefore wears the Ferrari badge. He's not using the badge as a trademark for himself.

Well all I can say is tough titty for Ferrari. Even if they win their case, that is not going to stop people doing outrageous things to their cars - whether for commercial reasons or not - and many people will see them as prats for spoiling their fun. And as a matter of record, there are thousands of stretched or otherwise modified luxury cars on the road, some if not all plying for hire, with nary a sniff of a legal rottweiler anywhere close by. If Rolls really are SO quick to sue, why are there so many stretched versions of their cars all around the world?

I really don't think I am missing the point. I am simply saying that the law might just come down on Ferrari's side in this - but they are making themselves look silly in the process. And where does it end? As someone else posted, if I buy a Ferrari, and paint it a ghastly bilious puce with chartreuse bubbles - is Ferrari going to come after me waving writs for defamation? Or what if I put a satnav dome on the roof? Did Aston Martin object when James Bond put machines guns and ejector seats in his car? Or Lotus, when he converted their car into an amphibian?

If I decide to hang a Ferrari bonnet spray-painted with a naked blonde over my fireplace or art gallery, complete with prancing horse, are Ferrari's lawyers going to issue me with an order to remove the badge, seeing as the bonnet is no longer a Ferrari?

So if a car has a Ferrari badge im assuming it means it has been made by Ferrari right? Where did the extra 5m or whatever come from ?

Originally posted by LeD
Well all I can say is tough titty for Ferrari. Even if they win their case, that is not going to stop people doing outrageous things to their cars - whether for commercial reasons or not - and many people will see them as prats for spoiling their fun. And as a matter of record, there are thousands of stretched or otherwise modified luxury cars on the road, some if not all plying for hire, with nary a sniff of a legal rottweiler anywhere close by. If Rolls really are SO quick to sue, why are there so many stretched versions of their cars all around the world?

I really don't think I am missing the point. I am simply saying that the law might just come down on Ferrari's side in this - but they are making themselves look silly in the process. And where does it end? As someone else posted, if I buy a Ferrari, and paint it a ghastly bilious puce with chartreuse bubbles - is Ferrari going to come after me waving writs for defamation? Or what if I put a satnav dome on the roof? Did Aston Martin object when James Bond put machines guns and ejector seats in his car? Or Lotus, when he converted their car into an amphibian?

If I decide to hang a Ferrari bonnet spray-painted with a naked blonde over my fireplace or art gallery, complete with prancing horse, are Ferrari's lawyers going to issue me with an order to remove the badge, seeing as the bonnet is no longer a Ferrari?

I actually think Aston Martin would be quite pleased that the James Bond movies used their cars ;)

It has nothing to do with a paint job.Also People keep modifying things they buy, it can be a matchbox car but you dont see the companies complain. I think the reason why Ferrari reacted is because first of all it has a name to protect, making cars is what they do and 'are proud' about it. I really cant understand how people might think that its still a Ferrari. They would have to chop down the car to add the extra bit, which has nothing to do at all with Ferrari..

Originally posted by ensign14

Well, it does say in big red letters at the top "Ferrari 360 Modena Stretch Limousine"...

My defence would be that he's not using the trademark on his own creation, but that he bought a Ferrari, it had Ferrari badges, he still has a Ferrari and the badges are part of it. OK, a bit's been added to it, but if he changed the engine it would still be a Ferrari and therefore wears the Ferrari badge. He's not using the badge as a trademark for himself.

Actually, he is. He is trading on the Ferrari brand to promote his limo business. So he is perfectly within his rights to use a standard Ferrari to cart drunken wedding guests around, but if he uses a vehicle modified so as to damage the Ferrari brand, the company may come after him.

I note again: Ferrari does not have to win its case to accomplish its goal here. I am sure this story made "Limo Operators Monthly" or its UK equivalent and all livery owners are now contemplating the thousands in legal costs they are up against for even trying it.

If Ferrari so desperately wants to protect their cars, they need to lease them all like the GM EV1. If not, then IMO the "owner" of the car can do as he pleases.

I wouldn't ride in it anyways. Like all Ferrari's it will catch fire and being stuck further in to the car will make escape all that much more difficult....maybe that is why Ferrari have this bug up their butt! their penchant for winnie roasting is no secret. Undoubtedly Ferrari are on a life saving campaign.

Originally posted by Cotchin

That is a clear case of trademark infringement -- not for Ferrari, but for Hello Kitty. But since Hello Kitty would presumably have no problem with it, would even find it beneficial in promoting its brand, no case here. Ferrari has no case unless there is something commercial going on here.

I had a quick look at passing off. The key thing is "that there is a misrepresentation by the defendant (whether or not intentional) leading or likely to lead the public to believe that goods or services offered by the defendant are goods or services of the claimant". That is where Ferrari will fall down IMO on two grounds - firstly, it is still a Ferrari, albeit a modified one, so there is no misrepresentation; secondly, even if that defence fails, no-one is likely to believe that Ferrari's gone into the stretch limo business.

Originally posted by Lazarus II
[B
I wouldn't ride in it anyways. Like all Ferrari's it will catch fire and being stuck further in to the car will make escape all that much more difficult....maybe that is why Ferrari have this bug up their butt! their penchant for winnie roasting is no secret. Undoubtedly Ferrari are on a life saving campaign. [/B]

I couldnt have expected anything different after looking at your signature I cant say the Ferrari's are the more reliable cars out there and at least the older models are certainly not for everyday use. If you neglect the human factor (driving at excessive speeds or dangerously), recently the police at my country were quite shocked by how safe a Ferrari was, after it was involved in an accident. No im not comparing it to a Hammer.

Originally posted by LeD
And as a matter of record, there are thousands of stretched or otherwise modified luxury cars on the road, some if not all plying for hire, with nary a sniff of a legal rottweiler anywhere close by. If Rolls really are SO quick to sue, why are there so many stretched versions of their cars all around the world?

Do you understand how a stretched Rolls is not necessarily injurious to the Rolls brand, but a stretched Ferrari is is injurious to the Ferrari brand?

And do you understand that while you may modify your own car however you like for your own personal use, you cannot trade on another company's brand image in your business, if it is injurious to that other brand?

Side note: As a matter of fact, Rolls-Royce and other automakers have vigorously pursued the stretch-building industry at times -- when they falsely claim to build "official factory" conversions, or when their modifications are patently unsafe.

Originally posted by Bloggsworth

The Mona Lisa has been stolen many times, occasionally by cutting it from within its frame, thereby losing a proportion of the canvas, is it now incorrectly displayed as "The Mona Lisa" because it is not now as it was?

If I find one of those little pieces and affix it to a piece of canvas, can I then legitametely sell it as an original work of art titled "The Mona Lisa"?

OK,OK - you lawyers got to me - I promise to change the badge. Is this alright???

In my opinion this is a clear case (disclaimer: I know nothing about law, I'm just considering the moral justification for the court case).

If somebody would buy a product from my company, alter it in a way which potentially reduces its performance I'd be pretty pissed if that person would still go around telling people that it was made by my company. Surely it could be argued that the changes are obvious enough that it would be evident to everyone that the product has been modified afterwards. But who is to determine when the changes are obvious enough? And should the changes be evident to everyone or would it be enough if only trained professionals could tell them apart. Do the changes have to be visible outside a casing (or a body in the case of a car)?

So my opinion is that in cases like this the company (i.e. Ferrari) have the right draw the line when the modifications go too far.

Slightly OT: I have to quote my colleague on this issue: "I don't know whether Ferrari should win the court case or not but I do know what should be done to a person who cuts a 360 Modena in half!"

Just my $.02.

Cheers,

--
mjsv

Originally posted by LeD
Oh come on, McGuire - did lady Penelope get sued by Rolls-Royce for driving around in an eight-wheeler stretch Roller in Thunderbirds??

They declined to make the car for the (fairly) recent film, and it was left to Ford, IIRC, to knock something up for them.

And I believe the one from the series was probably(;)) just a model...and I doubt even Ferrari would sue if you got yourself a plastic model Ferrari kit and glued a lump of plastic in the middle.

Originally posted by ensign14
I had a quick look at passing off. The key thing is "that there is a misrepresentation by the defendant (whether or not intentional) leading or likely to lead the public to believe that goods or services offered by the defendant are goods or services of the claimant". That is where Ferrari will fall down IMO on two grounds - firstly, it is still a Ferrari, albeit a modified one, so there is no misrepresentation; secondly, even if that defence fails, no-one is likely to believe that Ferrari's gone into the stretch limo business.

I'm sure Ferrari's lawyers will argue that this car is no longer capable of performing as a Ferrari does, and that the company has made a huge investment over the years in creating a performance image for its brand, not a stretch-limo image. Where this guy is in trouble is in deliberately representing the car as a "Ferrari" and that it is indeed all the name suggests -- he is essentially claiming that this car can perform as a Ferrari does, which can be proven untrue in about 3 seconds.

This is all terribly amusing to me as I am a well-known Hater on Ferraris over on the technical board.

It didnt stop others, so you dont hate Ferrari enough apparently

It won't be a question of performance, as a Ferrari in poor condition is still a Ferrari. Nosing around on his website, however, I think I find the problem he has:

The world’s first and only Stretched Ferrari F1 360 Limousine.This unique vehicle was designed By Dan Cawley of Style Limousines Manchester England www.stylelimousines.co.uk Renowned for His Unique and crazy Limo’s Dan Commissioned Carbonyte Uk To build this vehicle, Carbonyte UK is the pioneer of HotFusion Composite Manufacturing Technology that was used on the McLaren SLR Supercar

Ferrari Limo is attracting the automotive press from around the world already only 50% complete the build has been filmed for the Canadian Discovery Channel and been featured in The Chauffeur Magazine also featured on many automotive websites around the globe.

That suggests it is pretty much nearly a ground-up creation. In which case it WOULD be passing off as there's a direct misrepresentation - "this is a Ferrari when it's not". That would defeat the second limb of the misrepresentation test as well; it would look as if Ferrari had sold a car for stretching, when it did not.

Originally posted by ensign14

I'd say it's not even close. The whole point about "Like A Virgin" is that it is a creative work (remember the law does not look into how good something is) and its sole value is in its creativity. When you buy a copy of the song you don't buy a license to deal with the music as you see fit for your own creative work.

If it still uses original suspension, engine, axles, transmission and steering assembly, as far as the DVLA is concerned it is still the original car.

I think that you described pretty well what I meant, but came to another conclusion. A Ferrari is also 'a creative work'. When someone wants to earn money or reputation on someone elses creative work the copyright laws kicks in. What if he buys another Ferrari 360 Moden, cuts it in half again, but this time he also buys a Fiat Uno that he also cuts in half. He then add the rear of the Uno to the front of the Ferrari, the front of the Uno to the rear of the Ferrari. He takes one picture of each car, one from the front and one from the rear and then out puts them on Ebay. "Two Ferrari 360 Modena 2007". I know that is fraud and will not be covered by copyright laws. But somewhere in between different laws and rules intersect. That is why I find this an interesting case.

Originally posted by McGuire


But it's not a private car; it's a commercial vehicle. This limo operator is presumably using the Ferrari brand to attract customers. To the detriment of the Ferrari brand, its lawyers will undoubtedly claim.

I'm inclined to agree. He's using their name, butn ot ALL of that car is now Ferrari; e.g., if he's fitted a second row of seats with poor quality leather and stitching then it's unfair that his passengers/customers should/could/might think it's Ferrari's handiwork.

Originally posted by LeD
OK,OK - you lawyers got to me - I promise to change the badge. Is this alright???

I reckon no, didn't they go after Jamiroquai in the mid 90s over this album cover?


http://loser.miniwin...hout.Moving.jpg

Originally posted by ensign14
I... secondly, even if that defence fails, no-one is likely to believe that Ferrari's gone into the stretch limo business.

Mr E., you know better than that; there's no shortage of dumb blondes and footballers out there who wouldn't question it if they saw a dumper truck with a Ferrari badge.

First someone that made that to a Ferrari should be....

Now he can make that but should not brand it as Ferrari.

Btw didnt had Rolls-Royce a rule that stated that their cars cannot do racing? I remember my father telling me that.

Originally posted by StefanV

What if he buys another Ferrari 360 Moden, cuts it in half again, but this time he also buys a Fiat Uno that he also cuts in half. He then add the rear of the Uno to the front of the Ferrari, the front of the Uno to the rear of the Ferrari. He takes one picture of each car, one from the front and one from the rear and then out puts them on Ebay. "Two Ferrari 360 Modena 2007". I know that is fraud and will not be covered by copyright laws. But somewhere in between different laws and rules intersect. That is why I find this an interesting case.

And breach of contract/misrepresentation. Of course this happens all the time in the classic car market - buy a Bugatti intact, take the engine out, build a new chassis around the engine, put a new engine in the original chassis, hey presto 2 Bugattis. Is that any worse than a sister example that blew its engine in a race in 1937 and had a new one put in then?

Originally posted by Group B

Mr E., you know better than that; there's no shortage of dumb blondes and footballers out there who wouldn't question it if they saw a dumper truck with a Ferrari badge.

The law recognizes the test of "a moron in a hurry", which is some way above those particular groupings.

Originally posted by StefanV
It is an interesting case, bordering traditional copyright cases. A bit as if I take "Like a Virgin" by Madonna and add 2 minutes of my own stuff in the middle of it and out it up on Youtube with the title 'Madonna: Like a Virgin'.
Emphasis is on 'a bit'

LMAO why choose that song? Subconscious choice?

As much as I love Ferrari, they're being petty and stupid on this. The man paid for the car and can thus do whatever the hell he wants with it, including replacing the Ferrari logos with Lada ones if he so desires. Companies need to stop being petty over minor things like this. If the guy was rebadging Fords and then using the cars as Ferraris in a commercial venture it's one thing, but in this case the car is still a Ferrari, just uglier.

It's not petty, it's the foundation of copyright and licensing law.

So it looks like another ex McLaren engineer has seen the exact specs of a Ferrari up close. Along with Crawley, Ex McLaren engineer Chris Wright built it.

Maybe that is why they are suing.

Seeing copyright law is about copying or reproduction and nothing has actually been copied or reproduced, you can hardly say its at its foundation!

Originally posted by marcus123
Seeing copyright law is about copying or reproduction and nothing has actually been copied or reproduced, you can hardly say its at its foundation!

That's the point - this car MIGHT be a copy.

Originally posted by marcus123
Seeing copyright law is about copying or reproduction and nothing has actually been copied or reproduced, you can hardly say its at its foundation!

Hmm, by that reasoning, you could make your own scarf, shove it in a bag with some Armani gloves, and sell it as an Armani scarf & gloves set.

Originally posted by Teez
As much as I love Ferrari, they're being petty and stupid on this. The man paid for the car and can thus do whatever the hell he wants with it, including replacing the Ferrari logos with Lada ones if he so desires. Companies need to stop being petty over minor things like this. If the guy was rebadging Fords and then using the cars as Ferraris in a commercial venture it's one thing, but in this case the car is still a Ferrari, just uglier.

If they aren't "petty" about these things, the next guy will take it one step further, and the next guy another step, until finally you have a guy taking a Datsun 280Z and branding it off as a Ferrari. The problem is which little step steps over the line? You say "its one thing", but in law it is not, a judge may very well say, "Ferrari, since you did not speak out about the Limo guy altering your cars, you can't now complain about a guy placing stickers on a Datson and proclaiming them Ferarris".

Originally posted by hobbes


Nothing like that. You are saying that i can buy a Ferrari hood and place it on my Fiat and be okay with it. The badge is referring to the whole of the car

Obviously not; the car in your example is still a Fiat. But if you buy a Fiat & replace the bonnet with a lighter, fibre glass equivalent its still a Fiat, no?

Same with this guy.

He bought a Ferrari & replaced a couple of panels with lighter more streamlined fibre glass units.*








* yes, I know I'm only trolling and I'll stop now as, frankly, the guy has committed a crime against humanity in attempting to produce a 'stretch' Ferrari. Reminds me vaguely of the 'Top Gear' team's stretch limo efforts

Originally posted by Lord Snooty

yes, I know I'm only trolling and I'll stop now as, frankly, the guy has committed a crime against humanity in attempting to produce a 'stretch' Ferrari. Reminds me vaguely of the 'Top Gear' team's stretch limo efforts

But top gear used a Saab, Fiat Panda and a MG i think God it looks so ugly

Originally posted by hobbes


But top gear used a Saab, Fiat Panda and a MG i think God it looks so ugly

You're spot on there. Clarkson's stretch Fiat was a triumph of modern engineering. His pulley system for gaining access to the rear seats was described (by James May) as "an ingenious solution to a problem that should never have existed in the first place".



They got away with it as they used a lot of humour, which the stretch Ferrari guy obviously lacks; the number plate attempts to spell 'style' S7YLL



Stoning to death is probably too good for him.

Originally posted by McGuire


I'm sure Ferrari's lawyers will argue that this car is no longer capable of performing as a Ferrari does, and that the company has made a huge investment over the years in creating a performance image for its brand, not a stretch-limo image. Where this guy is in trouble is in deliberately representing the car as a "Ferrari" and that it is indeed all the name suggests -- he is essentially claiming that this car can perform as a Ferrari does, which can be proven untrue in about 3 seconds.

This is all terribly amusing to me as I am a well-known Hater on Ferraris over on the technical board.

It is a Ferrari that has been stretched, that is an accurate description of the vehicle I don't see where Ferrari have a leg to stand on so long as the owner calls it what it is, a stretched Ferrari. Do the front and back parts suddenly stop being Ferrari made parts?

Ferrari look the fools on this one, which is nothing new for them.

Originally posted by SlateGray


It is a Ferrari that has been stretched, that is an accurate description of the vehicle I don't see where Ferrari have a leg to stand on so long as the owner calls it what it is, a stretched Ferrari. Do the front and back parts suddenly stop being Ferrari made parts?

So you don't think that Ferrari has the right to decide how their (Ferraris) brand is used by others to promote/market their (not Ferraris) business?

--
mjsv

Originally posted by marcus123
Seeing copyright law is about copying or reproduction and nothing has actually been copied or reproduced, you can hardly say its at its foundation!

That is not the whole copyright law. The copyright is extremely complex and you have to consider intellectual property as well. That is why I, in my example, added my own material into the Madonna song. I did not make my own version, just added content into hers and presented it as a Madonna song. Maybe the content I added was advertising for my company? If I would put that on Youtube or publish it in some other way I have no doubt I would hear from her lawyers if my "composition" reached an audience.

So what about the Ferrari? How much of the original car is there really? Original engine? How comfortable is a limo with original Modena 360 suspension? Is it well built? I can imagine it is not rented by coal miners normally. Maybe one of those that is being driven around in that car is a potential Ferrari customer? Maybe that person looks around and thinks: "****, this is not the quality I am looking for"?

Maybe Ferrari could let it slip. Maybe they simply hate being associated with limousines.

Originally posted by SlateGray


It is a Ferrari that has been stretched, that is an accurate description of the vehicle I don't see where Ferrari have a leg to stand on so long as the owner calls it what it is, a stretched Ferrari. Do the front and back parts suddenly stop being Ferrari made parts?

Ferrari look the fools on this one, which is nothing new for them.

It has not, in the proper sense of the word, been "stretched", which would mean using the original material of the car; it has been added to. If I cut you in half and add the torsos of several other people in the middle, would you still be SlateGray?

Or, perhaps, if the Ferrari had been cut in half, and then the elongated section welded in the middle was comprised of multiple Lamborghini bodies, would it "still" be a Ferrari? Or a Lamborghini? or a Ferraborghini?

Seems clear it would not be fair to call it a "Ferrari", so why should that be different because the middle section looks like it is welded together from a heap of scrap metal rather than from another known car manufacturer?

the person who buys a ferrari can obviously make any changes he wants. but cannot put the ferrari badge in the worked object.

Originally posted by lukywill
the person who buys a ferrari can obviously make any changes he wants. but cannot put the ferrari badge in the worked object.

You see Will, you missed your vocation...you should have been a Ferrari lawyer!

They are right that it is not a Ferrari 360 modena, its just mostly one and anyone who see's it will call it that. Getting him to remove any badging is only a petty move to satisfy their childish ego's.

No, it's called law. This is very very basic stuff.

If you buy a designer dress, say for arguments sake a creation by Roberto Cavalli, then chop it in half and add part of something else in the middle, then sow it back together....you can't any longer call it a Roberto Cavalli creation. Because part of it was not designed or built by Cavalli, but by you.

No different to the Stretch Ferrari, part of it is not a Ferrari, part of it was not built or designed by Ferrari. So legally you cannot call it a Ferrari.

Given that the guy who did this is apparently using the vehicle in a business and publicly calling it a Ferrari, I do believe that Ferrari has a case.
I can also confirm that Ferrari are very zealous in their protection of their brand and authentication of Ferraris. Many years ago I was consulting for a leasing company that found itself suddenly running a vehicle hire operation after the owners defaulted on payments. One of the vehicles on their books was a Ferrari that had been obtained by the previous owners of the business after it was stolen and recovered from a lake. They had it repaired and overhauled and back on the road. The leasing company decided to value all of the vehicles, including the Ferrari. They called in a guy from a Ferrari dealership to examine the car. His report essentially said "you can call it what you want for sales purposes, but if asked we will not authenticate this as a Ferrari, because it has been rebuilt with a large number of non-Ferrari parts". It seemed that a lot of the parts in the car were either non-Ferrari parts or imitation parts. As a result the value of the vehicle was way less than what it could have been sold for.
Having said all this, just because you can take legal action does not always mean that you should. Worst case scenario is that the guy will present himself as a martyr ("honest creative small businessman is bullied by pompous big performance car company") which will result in a lot of negative publicity. Ferrari would be wise to keep this one out of court.

Originally posted by gshevlin
Giv
Having said all this, just because you can take legal action does not always mean that you should. Worst case scenario is that the guy will present himself as a martyr ("honest creative small businessman is bullied by pompous big performance car company") which will result in a lot of negative publicity. Ferrari would be wise to keep this one out of court.

I do not really think the people who buy Ferraris would be too bothered by this sort of "negative" publicity.
In fact they should make it as public as they can to prove to their clientele that their brand is truly unique.

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


I reckon no, didn't they go after Jamiroquai in the mid 90s over this album cover?


http://loser.miniwin...hout.Moving.jpg

I don't think so (well I didn't hear anything about it), in fact wasn't he one of the people Ferrari offered an Enzo to buy new?

Originally posted by SlateGray
It is a Ferrari that has been stretched, that is an accurate description of the vehicle I don't see where Ferrari have a leg to stand on so long as the owner calls it what it is, a stretched Ferrari. Do the front and back parts suddenly stop being Ferrari made parts?

A Ferrari 360 that is 5m longer than manufactured is not a Ferrari 360. The front and back ends may still be "Ferrari," but that 5 meters of **** in between renders the car something other than what it is.

Back in my patent/trademark law days, we represented a blue-chip electronics manufacturer who made 8-channel 2-way radios. One of their licensed service centers was converting the 8-channel radios into 16-channel radios using a different manufacturer's components, yet still selling the radios in their originally branded casings. The owner of that licensed service center ended up paying hundreds of thousands in damages and barely skated incarceration on fraud charges.

Point is, don't hold something out to the public to be that which it is not.

Last time I looked, US law didn't apply in the UK (yet).

Originally posted by Scudetto

Point is, don't hold something out to the public to be that which it is not.

Well if he is calling it a stretched Ferrari as opposed to a Ferrari 360 then his description is accurate, I would agree with you if he was calling it a Ferrari 360 without mention of the alterations that have been made to the Ferrari. It is an altered Ferrari. That is accurate.

No one expects you or any of the other Ferrari fans to see anything but the company line on this so you opinion is basically valueless on this question.

Originally posted by Chiara
No different to the Stretch Ferrari, part of it is not a Ferrari; part of it was not built or designed by Ferrari. So legally you cannot call it a Ferrari.

You don't call it a "Ferrari" you accurately call it an "altered Ferrari" or a "stretched Ferrari" It is in fact a Ferrari car that has been altered.