Continuation Cars

[REAL 1]

If the issue is improper or unauthorized use of the names "Cobra", "Daytona" or any other protected mark or name Shelby and SAI is 100% correct and justified in my opinion and I wish them luck. Period.

As to the shape of the coupe, a perhaps more tenuous claim.

[Excaliber]

I agree Evan, but this is not the case. I can't see where Shelby has a leg to stand on here. It is at best a frivilous suit and I would expect FFR to counter sue on those grounds.

As to the shape of the Coupe, in a previous settlement on this issue Shelby agreed to dismiss any future claims as it concerns FFR and the "shape" of their replica "Coupe". I would expect this portion of the suit to be dismissed easily as a result.

EDIT: Look I don't like or want to be a Shelby or SPF "basher". But I don't want to bury the truth, as I see it either. I have, through out my adult career made choices as to who I would like to do business with. Working for them, with them, investing with them, whatever. Along the way I've had to make some tough decisions, "Are these the people/person I want to support, to do business with?" We will all draw that line somewhere with somebody. Just don't lie to YOURSELF to justify entering a partnership that you know in your heart doesn't feel right.

[Bernica]

So, where's Peter Brock in all of this litigation about the Coupe? After all, it was his brainchild and design. I suppose he does reside under the SAI "thumb" as an employee of SAI at that time.....

[RedBarchetta]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Just don't lie to YOURSELF to justify entering a partnership that you know in your heart doesn't feel right.

So, Ernie, let me ask you this. If Shelby found a way to argue (for his gain) the intellectual property rights on the Cobra design, its naming conventions, etc. and reigned in every copycat manufacturer out there, does that mean that you wouldn't own a Cobra because he wasn't playing nice? Don't beat up the guy (in this case, SPF) that decided to back away from a gun fight because they didn't want to unload their war chest on lawyers and decided to rather unload the same war chest on growing their business. Smart? Arguably. Cunning? Absolutely. Strategic? The jury is still out.

-Dean

[Excaliber]

I have no problem supporting Shelby and his right to his products as well as his right to defend his products. His right to license his products as well! He wanted to stop ALL other manufactuers from producing the shape/design of the Cobra. OK, fair enough, let's take it to court. He did, he lost, it's public domain. ERA, FFR or who ever can legally build a replica car now, so can SPF. They didn't NEED a Shelby license to do so. They CHOSE to get one for increased profit. It wasn't the "lawyers" who said, "Do it". It was the bean counters!

In pursuit of "profit" (greed is good?) they really stuck it to the rest of the replica industry by their word's and deed. I wonder would I be OK with a continuation Shelby in my garage? Maybe, I really don't know. Would it "eat at me" to the point where I would eventually sell it because it just didn't feel comfortable? I don't know...

Would I feel comfortable with an SPF in my garage? No way! UNLESS it was a friend who needed my help or a place to park his car for a bit. I'll still admire and enjoy his car with him. For me? Don't want one, wouldn't have one if you gave it to me, it would be a curse.

[REAL 1]

First, is there a lawsuit currently pending by SAI against any replica manufacturer?

Second, lets be sure we understand the claim clearly?

Third, lets make sure we are clear on the previous settlement terms.

Then we can talk intelligently about this. Likely we are missing something here.

Further, I see nothing wrong with SPF paying for the license from SAI to receive the status so to speak of being a licensed Shelby replica. Just because SPF doesn't need the "license" from SAI to build replicas doesn't mean they don't value the cache' of being an officially licensed Shelby replica. I doubt there is anything in the previous settlement that would stop such a voluntary deal between two business interests. If others don't want the "license" they don't have to pay for it if you are right on the terms of the previous settlement. Apparently SPF saw value in the "license" and the relationship enough to pay for it. They are smart in my book.

Are you sure the previous settlement incorporated the shape of the Daytona in the terms that were deemed in the public domain?

As far as not owning a SPF or Shelby because you don't like the fact SAI may be suing another replica manufacture and trying to stop them from making a competing product, first if its not a meritorious claim it will lose or be thrown out. If it is he may win and therefore was entitled to relief. Third, this would not be the first time business interests sought injunctions against competitors. It happens all the time.

Let me ask you this. Do you own any equipment or cars manufactured by companies who supported the German war effort in WWII or Japanese companies that manufactured equipment for the Japanese war effort. Why not boycott them?

[Excaliber]

Once again, here is the link to the actual documents filed in court in December of 2008. There are lot's of "smart" people in business, that does not mean I, personally, care to do business with them.

http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/c...ctory-five.pdf

Shelby first filed against FFR in 2000. Cobra trademark, snake emblem and Cobra body shape were the primary concerns. FFR wasn't using the Cobra name anyway, so it was no problem reaching an agreement on that issue. Trade dress was the killer deal, loosing THAT would have put them out of business. Would have put ALL replica manufacturers out of business if you didn't get a Shelby license deal. Before the suit could be completed Shelby/FFR reached an agreement, a consent judgement. Shelby agreed to dismiss with prejudice claims related to the trade dress of FFR kits. Including the Type 65 Coupe. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that Shelby cannot bring suit again over a trade dress issue of the Coupe (at least against FFR)?

At any rate, SPF continued the trade dress suit as it concerns the Cobra shape. They prevailed, Cobra shape became public domain. Perhaps to avoid further litigation, such as FFR is having to defend itself against right now, AGAIN, SPF did decide to "throw in the towel" based on legal expenses. Their public statements, their method of doing business reveal, to me, a more plausible explanation. Profits, pure and simple. Bolstering Shelby's motivation to continue to go after all who oppose him. I don't believe Shelby will stop with FFR or affiliated web sites in sympathy with FFR. The question is: Who's next? Where/when will it stop?

"Understanding" the claims clearly is a bit difficult, I'm not schooled enough to really get into that part. It looks to me like a "scatter gun" approach, throw some stuff out there and see what sticks. Something like 8 points in the filing asking for relief.

EDIT: I'm not sure it's a good idea to be discussing this topic in any kind of depth. What with the law suit still underway. I simply wanted to state my opinion on the matter, not get dragged into something that could hurt FFR or even reflect poorly on CC.