Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorac
Just put aside the emotion of this issue for a moment. The points that elmariachi makes are valid and interesting. What did the existing replica manufacturers do to make sure they where "square" with any trademark issues regarding these cars? Did they do anything or did they just decide to make a replica because it had been done before so there must not be any issue with it?
|
That would be a question for Dave Smith but as I understand it the courts have ruled against Shelby on the trade dress thing so it should be moot now, right? (I like saying "moot"). Did they contact Shelby before they started producing cars to ask if it was ok with him? Who knows. Would you ask permission to do something you thought you had the right to do?
Re: SPF... It's interesting that the claim of damage to a brand is occurring because of replicas when apparently the exchange of money through licensing suddenly stops that same damage from continuing??? Which is it?
If Shelby really wanted to put heat on FFR he would totally change his strategy. FFR claims to not want to be associated with the Shelby brand. What if Shelby approached other replica manufacturers and proposed some "authentication" process that resulted in some nominal fee? Include them in a registry category of some sort. Issue certificates signed by Shelby for $$$ a piece. It would create revenue for Shelby. He would be embracing his enthusiasts, etc. The courts say Shelby doesn't have a claim. He's concentrating on spite and burning money through litigation instead of making money.