I'm being sued by Ferrari

Corps are hypersensitive about protecting their brand name. If they don't, they can lose it if it becomes generic.

Jeep is noted for this bcaus people call all 4 wheel drives Jeeps. Same with Kleenex.

Plus, people can rightly assume that since you are using the name and are thus sanctioned by SF or are a subsidiary of the company. Unless reversed, this could result in their legal liabilities for your actions. At the least you would have to indemnify SF from any suits resulting from your actions whether intentional or accidental.

I am sure that Fchat had to get permission to use the name Ferrari.

Imagine someone using YOUR name w/o your permission. Normally this is called "identity theft."

Good luck.

 

Scott, I have come to expect nothing less from you. You are simply one of the best

 

Paul, how about just posting something like "Exotic Car Wiring Diagrams" in the appropriate places and let the vehicle owners inquire if you have a wiring diagram for a '90 348?........

 

Sad to hear this. Hope you resolve this peacefully.

 

We could always just play their game. Anyone remember the major F1 sponsor who's logo must not be shown? How about a non descriptive logo for those who are producing parts for cars. What ever brand it may be. Or could just referrer to Ferrari as "that which shall not be mentioned" (Harry Potter).

I remember a 60 Minutes episode where In 1996 McDonald's forced Scottish sandwich shop owner Mary Blair of Fenny Stratford, Buckinghamshire to drop McMunchies as her trading name. 60 Minutes contacted the person in charge of the McDonald Clan in Scotland. He said McDonald's Corp had never ask their permission to use the name.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

This is Horse sh*t! (pun intended)

 

As many of the posts have suggested this is a fairly standard process

In the UK I believe several of the teams in Ferrari race series have received these letters about the sign-writing on their trucks !

 

Why would you think you could use the property of a company for profit without their expressed consent?

 

This is such a great online community.
Kudos to you.

 

As trivial as this sounds, the greater picture for the trademark owner is not the income you may generate, but the risk that by allowing you to use their name they expose themselves to the "course of conduct" issue where anyone, including big for-profit outfits use their trademark under the premise that Ferrari has allowed others to use it for free.

They have a responsibility to their shareholders to protect their intellectual property. If they didn't, the brand name would be devalued and all of the Ferrari fans around the world would have less to enjoy. It's not personal. Give them their brand name or alternatively negotiate a licensing agreement that proves to the world that you didn't get it for free.
Ferrari is probably the most prolific licensor on the planet and that's what they are protecting.

 

I agree, not sure that a cease-and-desist letter is all that out of line.

Just clean it up as sparta49 and toggie suggest.

 

Why are these cases universally corporate harassment? Ferrari is protecting their trademark, as is their right and actually their obligation as well. If the OP is using the prancing horse or other Ferrari images, to sell non-authorized non-Ferrari products, it is probably infringing. It doesn't matter that it's a valuable service.

 

every manufacturer does this. The two worst are BMW and VW. I worked a t a bmw dealer where we were required to wear white dress shirts and have the BMW logo embroidered on them per Penske rules. It felt awesome to have a BMW big wig who was in town come up to me and tell me that I was wearing an unauthorized shirt, and for me to tell them the name of the embroidery company for using there trademark without permission... I know of several people who are in court with BMW over there websites as well

AWESOME...

VW is very very similar.

 

Scott, I'm curious about you mentioning that there are no copyright markings and that they can 'pound sand' since the OP legally registered the domain. In my experience (IP practice was a big, although not primary, part of my in-house practice), author has a copyright in a document when he creates it, and markings (or absence thereof) are usually irrelevant to the issue of whether valid copyright exists. I do tend to agree though that the OP most likely made sufficient modifications to the original copyrighted diagrams not to create copyright infringement claims. Let me know if I'm missing something here.

As to legal domain registration, as you noted, that is a trademark issue, and it's good for OP to keep in mind that Ferrari can get an injunction to force him to transfer the domains over to Ferrari for free, regardless of legal ownership, who registered them first or why, if likelihood of confusion regarding origin or affiliation can be shown.

From in-house counsel perspective, OP's best approach is to make the recommended changes re removal of Ferrari's trademarks and adding disclaimers, and then get with the author of the seize & desist letter to discuss what other steps he can take to get them comfortable. In any case, this is not a problem that will just go away if OP does nothing.

 

Right on. It's a simple fix to avoid this situation.

 

I am an in-house attorney for a major corporation and I have experience in these types of issues. IP practice is a large portion of what I do and I am actively involved in policing improper uses of my company's trademarks.

According to the c/d letter, the issue is related to the use of the "ferrari" mark in the website, so this appears to be a trademark domain name issue. The problem that you will encounter here is that Ferrari has registered is trademarks in various countries and the laws in those countries will vary regarding the extent to which using a Ferrari mark in a URL is allowable. What may be acceptable under US law is not necessarily what will be deemed acceptable under the laws of another country. Because the URL is global in reach, you will be impacted by the laws of all jurisdictions in which Ferrari has registered the marks.

As LIL-SQUID noted, it is best to be pragmatic in dealing with Ferrari on these issues and to work out a resolution that is satisfactory for Ferrari. The more open you are to resolving this amicably with Ferrari, the more likely you are to avoid escalating the issue into a fight that you do not want to be in.

 

and by the sounds of it lose that battle...

 

Damn in-house lawyers, being pragmatic and always looking to save on outside counsel costs Came across this today, thought you might get a grin out of it too (not in any way to be interpreted as a jab against IP lawyers, who RULE! lol)
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

and what does ferrari stand to lose out on? what do they gain from suing him?

stuuuuupid

 

Sorry -- it's not stupid (nor evil) on Ferrari's part to act this way. If a business doesn't always vigorously defend its IP/trademarks/copyrights, it can lose the future right to do so (i.e., F can't let Paul slide and then go after a replica maker).

 

Even the FCA has been "asked" to drop the logo. From what I understand, Ferrari will officially recognize our club in exchange for our ditching the logo.

 

I'm not surprised this is happening. It was always my understanding that you can't use any corporation's logo without their consent. I think it's just that they are now starting to enforce it more aggressively. Given the breadth of the web and the millions of sites out there that use their logo they are going to be real busy!

Of course I have a dog in this race and I'm particularly interested to see where they stand in the future with regards to artwork.

 

I have two points.

1) You cannot blame Ferrari for protecting their properties and rights. In fact, they are forced to do it or risk losing it. If the tables were turned and Ferrari were using his trademark and logo for their business without permission, for sure the OP would be issuing a legal claim against Ferrari.

2) If I were the OP, I would not be discussing this in an open forum. Don't be surprised if you get a second letter.

 

While I sympathize with you, Paul... From a legal standpoint, Ferrari is correct. You simply can't do it the way you are doing it. They (Ferrari) will probably be satisfied if you just "cease and desist" your activities that they object to --- I doubt seriously they would try to collect any damages from you.

 

DITTO ---- heed this advice. You are opening yourself up to more (and potentially serious) litigation here --- the last thing you want is to have a "defamation element" added to the complaint.

There is no way in hell you can win.... but, you can choose to what degree of losing you suffer --- best to make it as small as possible.