| Author | Message | ||
| Paul (Pcelenta)
Junior Member Username: Pcelenta Post Number: 189 Registered: 7-2002 |
for inexpensive eats Wong Kee on Mott Street...not much on ambiance (look past the plastic table cloths) but real good food...for fancy and not your usual chinese fair (no General Tsao's chicken here) Canton on Division. Are you an alumnus? e-mail me privately. | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 549 Registered: 12-2001 |
Paul, ever since Phoenix Garden closed on Elizabeth Way behind the Bowery, i have not had the kind of Chinese food that i like best. What are your favorites? And who is your wife? As to ip enforcement in Chinatown, one of the most famous cases involved Warner Bros, who executed a seizure order against a small hole in the wall vendor for selling fake ET dolls. Although Warners was right on the merits, the court found its heavy handed tactics vexatious, and essentially sanctioned it. Martin: don't get too bent out of shape. If for, example, your newspaper continued to run ads for a business that sold cable descramblers, the HBO's of the world would have the right to go against the newpaper for fostering piracy/theft of service. That doesn't mean that the Scudie badge on the back of your non-ferrari exposes you to liablity (unless it is a counterfeit scudie badge). As to remanufactured goods, like racing cars, i think the law is elastic enough to permit the use of the ferrari name to identify the type of car that is being used, so long as the team are not misrepresenting themselves as being sponsored or endorsed by ferrari. Even ferrari's lawyer seems to admit as much (eg the distinction he makes between rebuilt cars and replicas).I finally got my copy of FML and read the piece. Frankly, at a certain point, the analogy he makes to Rolex watches just doesn't hold up, since those are not rebodied or repackaged in the same way ferraris are. Keep in mind that one of the reasons for TM law, apart from protecting the "franchise" of the original manufacturer of a product against bogus imitations, is to protect the public against bogus imitations. Now, you might know that a rebodied 308 does not a 288 GTO make, but i'm sure there have been instances over the years where some real parts, combined with faux ones, have been used as the basis to misrepresent the originality or provenance of a particular old car. The laws that protect against that kind of seller misrepresentation are not much different than the laws ferrari are relying on. So, if someone out there was offering the "37th"GTO as a barn find, and it was an admitted whore of prostituted parts, concocted to fool, and a magazine persisted in advertising it as such, even after being put on notice, you probably wouldn't have a problem with taking issue with the publisher, or would you? As to the rest of the jibes against lawyers, i probably hate em more than you, given that i have to deal with them constantly ( i am one, remember), but, if the country weren't run by the lawyers, it would probably be the politicians or the religious fanatics, so pick your poison. Somebody's got to make up the rules.... | ||
| Martin (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 3025 Registered: 5-2001 |
As I have learned from the Olive Garden 550 Team the body of the 550 is basically gone except the frame around the passenger compartment. A and B pilars. The engine is highly moded and has not much of the original engine left. The only help they got from the factory was some engineering in trying to plug some oil lines that run in the engine. They can not test in Fiorano (although the Olive Garden team is based in Modena) and they got no other help. How far is Ferrari Spa going to take this issue? Will they prevent us, that have Scuderia shields on the fender from reselling our cars? After all we are implying racing heritage! Is my fake "Challenge" sign on the back grounds for putting me into prison? I also put a aluminum shifter knob! Does that warrant the death penalty? Yopu can protect your brand and we all agree that the re-body shops should get it, but going after a publication like the FML is just a bad joke! It shows to me that somebody in their legal department is not thinking straight! | ||
| John Delvac (Johndelvac)
Junior Member Username: Johndelvac Post Number: 124 Registered: 11-2001 |
Gerald at FML should tell FNA to kiss his A.S.S. Does FNA expect to file suit against Auto Trader, Dupont Registry, the local newpaper and the FCA Bulletin for allowing people to advertise their trades? As much as I hate fake Ferraris, they should not be allowed to get away with this 1st ammendment infringement. It's not like Ferrari looses money over this stuff. The FML already has a Custom & Conversion section anyway. It's not like anyone is being fooled. FNA should stick to persuing mass replica manufacturers only. A fake Daytona or 250GTO is a sick joke. I don't even care for fake 288GTOs on 308's or cut Daytonas, but someone has to protect the rights of those who own old phoenix Ferraris reborn from the ashes. Let them send all of the letters they want. As long as no one is profiting from the sale of counterfit NEW Ferrari merchandise, they need to sit down and shut up. | ||
| Paul (Pcelenta)
Junior Member Username: Pcelenta Post Number: 187 Registered: 7-2002 |
Frank, when you come into NYC I'll take you down to Canal Street and you can see all of the great work that the lawyers are doing to protect trade marks and copyrights...then we can go grab some good chinese food  I'll thank my wife tonight she's a director at NYU Law. | ||
| Ken (Allyn)
Member Username: Allyn Post Number: 535 Registered: 10-2001 |
Chris is right. You'll notice "Kleenex brand" tissues, "Scotch brand" tape, etc. They have to keep their product names from becoming common words for the product. While Ferrari isn't quite so generic as Jello Brand gellatin, they do indeed have to defend themselves. You musicians might remember how Gibson lost the trademark 'humbucking' for their pickups by pulling a Carol Shelby: they waited far too long to trademark it and go to court. | ||
| Frank Parker (Parkerfe)
Intermediate Member Username: Parkerfe Post Number: 1439 Registered: 9-2001 |
Ernie, its not FNA but Ferarri Spa disputing the advertizing and sale of fake cars as Ferarris. FNA would allow the sale of their mothers as long as they got a cut and could charge for her needed services later. | ||
| Ernie Bonilla (Ernie)
Member Username: Ernie Post Number: 388 Registered: 11-2001 |
I have a perfect example of how FNA is a bunch of hypocrites. Let's take the area were Ferrari lives and breaths.....racing. I will use the 550 Maranello from the ProDrive racing team. These guys got absolutely NO help from the factory when they started. As a matter of fact they had to take a street legal 550 cause Ferrari wouldn't sell them a race version. Then can you guess what they did??? THEY REBODIED IT! They made the car wider changed the shape of the car for better aerodynamics, and even the engine doesn't have Ferrari internals. The only thing original about the engine is the block and the stroke length. A huge amount of the car was changed in order to make the car better. Using NON-FERRARI parts! So out goes a REBODIED Ferrari 550 Maranello for some racing at Le Mans. Mind you with no help from the factory. Now the car was pulverizing the competion until a oil line broke and BBQ'd the car. Then guess what.......OH NO they did it again. Yeah you guess it they brought it back from the ashes and can you believe they rebodied it again. My goodness these guys are brave aren't they. Mean while back a Ferrari headquarters, the talk of the town was how well the "550 Maranello" did at the race. Now why is it that a "private racing team" can rebody their Ferrari, but a "private owner" of a Ferrari can't? As I said before, they can suck nuts. | ||
| Cmparrf40 (Cmparrf40)
Member Username: Cmparrf40 Post Number: 451 Registered: 3-2002 |
Nick, I was waiting for someone to bring up the Cobra issue. It is this reason more than other that illustrates why Ferrari must be aggressive in protecting its name. Carrol Shelby basically abandoned the Cobra after its production run. After years of reproductions being made he realized that he was not participating financially in these reproductions. Mr. Shelby has lost every court case, including his most recent 2 months ago trying to stop these reproductions. The primary reason he lost (there are several reasons)is that he did not defend his trademark (William, please correct my terminology). Once it was established that Carrol had knowledge and did not act to prevent the "reproduction" he effectively gave up his rights. This has been established in every court case he has brought, and he has lost every time. If Ferrari fails to protect itself to just one maunfacturer, it could be argued that they have effectively given up there claim to there identity. Okay lawyers, please correct my errors! but the basic overview is correct. Chris | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Member Username: T88power Post Number: 823 Registered: 2-2001 |
My worst tenants have been lawyers... I will never again rent office space to a lawyer. Ernesto | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 1531 Registered: 9-2001 |
Frank - that gave me a good laugh. I normally thank our founding fathers, though I guess some of them were lawyers too | ||
| Martin (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 3009 Registered: 5-2001 |
Thanks Frank! | ||
| Frank Parker (Parkerfe)
Intermediate Member Username: Parkerfe Post Number: 1434 Registered: 9-2001 |
Paul, don't you mean that you THANK the lawyers ? Without protection for trade marks, copyrights, etc.. companies could not make back their developement cost before some hack came up with a replica that looked the same but was cheaper. I'm glad to see Ferrari taking this kind of action to protect its products. It protects us Ferrari/Dino owners too. The copycat cars can still be made and sold, they just can't be badged, advertized and/or sold as a Ferrari. That is a good thing. Lawyers, they are one of the best things about the U.S.A. as watchdogs of our rights and freedoms. Go out and thank a lawyer today. | ||
| Frank Parker (Parkerfe)
Intermediate Member Username: Parkerfe Post Number: 1433 Registered: 9-2001 |
No one likes lawyers until they need one. | ||
| Paul (Pcelenta)
Junior Member Username: Pcelenta Post Number: 186 Registered: 7-2002 |
Like Nick, I blame the US lawyers...one of the reasons (I repeat, one, as I am sure some will list the many quality reasons) why we lost Fiat,Alfa,lancia and all of the french car companies was that they all feared the preditory lawyers here in the states. an intersting story..a friend of mine on Long Island has the last name Ferrari and owns a auto repair shop/gas station..a number of years ago he had the prancing horse painted on his tow truck and had the stylized spelling of "ferrari" on it...someone saw this vehicle and he was later contacted and told to remove it. I am sure that FNA doesn't have someone driving all around checking for copyright violations..someone has to tip them off. | ||
| nick m........ (Nickm)
Junior Member Username: Nickm Post Number: 141 Registered: 8-2001 |
How do the Cobra manufacturers, 33-34 hot-rod new steel bodies (that are advertized in EVERY hot rod magazine) plus the ba-zillion other fiberglass bodied hotrods (copying older styles), Slantnose Porsche 911 companies that were everywhere 10 years ago (before the style got dated) Lamborghini kit cars, 550 Beck Spyder Porsches (Beck built more 550's than Porsche did originals), 356 Porsche Speedsters, etc.... etc... How are they all getting away with it? I dont get it. I know someone who was sued by Ferrari indirectly. Lawers here in the US sued on behalf of Ferrari, "Ferrari" won the lawsuit but was awarded no damages (Ferrari didnt care about damages) The US lawyers wanted to be paid for thier "work" ($10,000) which pretty much put the person I know out of business. I wonder if it is REALLY the lawyers here in the US that just found an easy way to make some money. Of course Ferrari in Italy would allow the US lawyers to sue on thier behalf, what does it matter to them??? All that's going to happen is, it cleans up Ferraris image a bit (no more kit cars out there). Its pretty obvious from my friends experience that Ferrari could have cared less, they didnt want any money. Everybody wants money, some dont care how they get it! | ||
| Martin (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 3002 Registered: 5-2001 |
Gheez, havn't they learned after Austrias GP, the Indy GP, the Import slap? I can not see where the FML should be held responsible for anything because they are advertising kit cars or re-bodies. I specifically remember several articles where the factory themselves rebodies cars to the likings of thier customers, even falsefied VINs to make the re-importation easier. When does somebody stand up and sue them for their agressive nature? If I had a factory re-bodies car I would. If I had a car that was cut but is a Ferrari I would as well. Now if they want to go after guys that copy their cars and put them on Corvette Chassis, feel free. I can see copyright there, but if I change the side stacks of my 348 for the 355 body paneling that is my personal choice. If Ferrari wants to pick a fight here and prevent me from ever selling my car by sueing newspapers and websites they are infringing into my personal freedom. I will get my new license plate: FNA FCK U | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 548 Registered: 12-2001 |
I have not received my copy of FML, so i will have to refrain on commenting to that, but the issues raised are fascinating. Ferrari was successful a number of years ago in going against kit car makers, not only for duplicating their body designs, but for using or facilitating the use of false F badges on the bogus cars. There is at least one published opinion that i remember, and it probably went off, not on copyright grounds (for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that the threshold for protection of nonutilitarian designs is quite high, the older designs were probably never treated as copyrighted works under US law, etc), but instead under the Lanham Act and its proscription against false designations of origin, in sec 43(a). This is the same statute that gives protection to restaurant indicia, packaging shapes and style (like the Fantastic bottle) and virtually anything else that can function as an indentifier of origin. Having said that, the test for copyright infringement is not whether you make a profit, or even redistribute, but whether you copy an actionable amount of a protected work. As to rebodies of original cars, there is law that deals with "repackaged goods" in the TM area that is broad enough to address these concerns, as long as there is no false marketing. I also recall hearing that a factory in Europe, reknown for its recreations of classic F cars, was forced to stop a year or two ago. Its a pretty famous TM folks, and even without the words "Ferrari," the designs (like the stylized appearance of the Marlboro package) can be treated as a TM, at least under US law. A publisher could conceivably be held liable for fostering a market of counterfeiting, much like Napster was held liable for the conduct of end users of its software. In fact, the case which formed the lynchpin of the Napster decision involved a swap meet, where the owner of the grounds was held vicariously and contributorily liable for the activities of the independent vendors, given that he had good reason to know that they were engaged in selling piratical stuff. End of lecture. Regards. | ||
| Rob Lay (Rob328gts)
Board Administrator Username: Rob328gts Post Number: 2454 Registered: 12-2000 |
We had a previous sponsor go to court against Ferrari earlier this year over importing Euro models. It's not very becoming how litigious they are to impede our attempt at a free market system. I believe Ferrari lost the import battle. | ||
| Ken Thomas (Future328driver)
Junior Member Username: Future328driver Post Number: 211 Registered: 12-2001 |
Along the same lines, check out the post "IS THIS LEGAL?" from late September. Seems somebody is making a fairly good 360 body kit. | ||
| william speer (Wspeer)
Junior Member Username: Wspeer Post Number: 53 Registered: 8-2002 |
the thing that is interesting about this is that ferrari is suggesting that the rebodies of ferraris into "more appealing" shapes violates ferrari's trade marks. most ferraris of this vintage have been rebodied into their origianl shape or at least had remedial work done to correct rust or accident on the track. are these ferraris subject to the copyright infringement? better yet, are the cars that have had to have parts fabricated subject to this, as ferrari has long since stopped making parts? it would seem to me that if ferrari wanted to truely pursue this, they would have to be honest with themselves, i don't think a single ferrari in existence exists today in the same form as it left the factory. true, i can see the arguements for rebodied ferraris or "replicas built on corvette chassis", but i think i could argue in court that my ferrari is just that, a ferrari- a chassis and an engine, just as it left the factory. what i choose to body it as is my business and not that of the factory. if i decide to sell it and represent it to the buyer as my creation- ferrari can not prevent me from doing so. copyright infringement would be a matter of me profiting at anothers expense-i think most rebodies are being sold for much less than the cost of their building. | ||
| magoo (Magoo)
Advanced Member Username: Magoo Post Number: 3242 Registered: 2-2001 |
Ferrari is doing the same thing Rolex did, "Cornering the market for their product." If you own a Rolex you know the story. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 482 Registered: 1-2002 |
LOL, Bill! Heck, I have a S-F shield sticker on my 5 hp Murray push mower. It looks good against the black plastic of the engine housing. I guess I had better get a lawyer now!! | ||
| William Badurski (Billb)
Junior Member Username: Billb Post Number: 81 Registered: 6-2001 |
I have a Ferrari chrome "prancing horse" medallion on the hood of my John Deere lawn tractor. Please do not tell anyone. | ||
| J. Grande (Jay)
Member Username: Jay Post Number: 640 Registered: 10-2001 |
I can put a Ferrari nose badge on my Astro van, does that mean Ferrari lawyers will come after me also? I understand that their designs are copyright but I think sometimes they go too far. | ||
| Paul (Pcelenta)
Junior Member Username: Pcelenta Post Number: 185 Registered: 7-2002 |
It is funny that the Firm that started it all...Vin# restamping, re-body race cars and sell to retail customers as "new" cars...have the balls to pull this type of stuff...a rebodied corvette is one thing...but an accurate rebody on a 250 pf coupe or GTE ...come on! | ||
| Ernie Bonilla (Ernie)
Member Username: Ernie Post Number: 385 Registered: 11-2001 |
Ferrari can suck nuts in my opinion. All these guys want to do is monoplolize the market so that they can EXTREAMLY over charge the people that own the cars. I love the cars, but the way the company does business after the fact is aweful. So until they change there tune in how they charge people for some of the CRAP they put in the cars, i.e. power windows, electrics, computers, clutches, O2 sensors, leaky tops, on and on...........they will get no simpathy from me. | ||
| Terry Springer (Tspringer)
Member Username: Tspringer Post Number: 298 Registered: 4-2002 |
Silly to me. Someone with something like one of the Norwood '59 250TR replicas would not be able to advertise it in FML? I guess they would just advertise it as: Ferrari 3.0 V12 engine for sale, correct with 6 webers. Engine is attached to a custom built car that looks exactly like a '59 Testa Rossa. Engine $100,000... attached car included. I also do not car anything about a Corvette based Daytona, but something like the Norwood TR.... yummie!!! | ||
| Don Vollum (Donv)
New member Username: Donv Post Number: 28 Registered: 1-2002 |
Where do you draw the line, though? As the editorial pointed out, we all agree that a Daytona Spyder replica based on a Corvette shouldn't be there. But, how about a cut Daytona coupe? By some standards (including the one the Ferrari attorney appears to be using), it would seem to qualify as a replica. I don't agree, of course. Now, what about a 250TR replica built on a 250GTE chassis? Certainly a replica, but still a Ferrari. Now, what about a period rebody of a race car? While I don't read FML to learn about Corvette-based replicas, I do like to read about cut Daytona coupes and Ferrari-based race car replicas. Just my $0.02, anyway. | ||
| Phil Bryson (Phildo)
New member Username: Phildo Post Number: 25 Registered: 8-2002 |
I know it's a debate with strong opinons on both sides but, personally, I don't read FML to see replicas | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 1515 Registered: 9-2001 |
I hear you art - it was more a joke - anyway I did find it interesting that Ferrari sent a letter to someone who has done a great deal for the mark here in the US. It looks like all replica ads are gone from FML | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 716 Registered: 6-2001 |
I don't think that Rob has anything to worry about. Ferrari Market Letter is a different sort of web site and their primary business is the sale of Ferraris and keeping track of the market in Ferrari. This is a chat room. Rob should have little or no liability for what is put out on the site. Art7 | ||
| J. Grande (Jay)
Member Username: Jay Post Number: 634 Registered: 10-2001 |
Sorry Tom what is FML? | ||
| TomD (Tifosi)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi Post Number: 1513 Registered: 9-2001 |
Did you guys see the article in FML on how Ferrari Spa's lawyer sent them a letter regarding them carrying ads for replicas and reproductions? Rob watch out |