FCA Vote No

Which ever way we go, there is uncertainty, regardless if we vote "yes" or "no"

My bottom line is that I am not prepared to cop a totally one sided agreement that is potentially just a marketing coupe for Ferrari, and nothing else.

I can think of one very real possibilty if we vote "yes", that I doubt that many (a) have envisaged, or (b) that have realised how it could easily be one. Let's say the word "classique" and see where you can take that.

 

Why not.

It could under the proposed agreement (have you worked out how?), and as I recall there was a bit of a bun fight in Australia over this exact issue not so long ago.

 

This is Ferrari speaking - "that's Ok we don't want you anyway". We in Ferari are really only interested in the better class of car and specially if it is new. As you recall we got rid of all the spare parts for old cars some time ago. We got happy to get rid of you too.

Sorry about the sarcasm, its effecting me badly

 

What did we achieve last time around - a bit more in our direction, though not as much as some of you think we got.

And what did NZ get when they got on the front foot a lot quicker than us - a lot more that we have and about as much as we'd need to be happy.
- they have provisions for arbitration for example, we do not.

Is it impossible to do better - absolutely not.

Is it possible to worse - yes, but is "worse" that much worse than where we are heading.

 

You are assuming that the case is unwinnable. Where is our competent advice to that effect. FCA is not Ferrari's name and Ferrari do not own their name. A decade or two ago one of the few things Ferrari did own as the famous Ferrari wordmark - but only so long as it was in black AND in that recognition is the statement with words like "this registration does not give ownership of the name Ferrari"

You are right in that they would say that. But Ferrari is a surname rather like Smith and the general rule is people, no matter how famous, do not have rights to a surname in Trademark law. If it was "E.A Ferrari" there'd be a good chance, but there is not even the slightest chance of any claim to Ferrari Club Australia as being something Ferrari own or control, standing up. If you want to disagree with me go and cite a piece of legal precedent or find something on the IPAustralia web site that supports your otherwise (so far as all I know tells me) baseless claim. I agree with you that Ferrari would claim as you say, but I disagree that they would/could win it. It would cost us, and the choice to so spend would have to be based on a good probability of winning. Privately email me the National Committee's legal advice on this - bet you can't because there is none is there? You apparently have some experience in this area, so show us a case that relates to ours and that supports your view - you won't find it, you are boxing at shadows.

Like I asked before, show as a case that relates out of all this stuff you know, and by the way, its not trade practices for the most part, it's Trade Mark. There are only two broad areas where Ferrari could cause grief - deceptive conduct (which is trade practices), and trade mark infringement.

The car club business is clearly not a business that makes cars and so there is no way that the use of Ferrari in that arena by us is misleading. The main battleground is in the Trade Mark area - and the essence of that is that it is about "marks in trade", the clear marking of things that you make or sell or provide so as to be distinguishable from others.

There is no trademark over the name Ferarri Club Australia, though there is for a graphic that includes those words along with a lot of other stuff, horses and flags and things.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WORLD NAME. Being world wide helps a little, but its more about having a big cheque book than the little guy having no rights - basically this is code for, the little runs like a headless chook 'cause he's scared of spending mony. Here we are the great big FCA, full of important and (some wealthy) members and we are worried about spending $50,000, when some little company in the country somewhere has just fought and won the Ugh boot case - and where their grounds would have been far weaker than ours.

Pity that you chose the wrong route, legally speaking. There is a clear conflict between the proposed Agreement and the current FCA Rules and so a proper Rule Change vote is needed, else the adoption of the Agreement will be illegal. (Yeah I know one firm said there was not a conflict but they are clearly wrong) This is because the committee is not entitled to give away basic provisions in the FCA Rules - and particularly when they do it in a way that is essentially mis-informed, misleading and not consistent (as I understand it) with FCA rules/policies about how votes on business are supposed to be conducted.

In some ways it will have little effect, but the club will need approval and have to report on nearly everything it does, with no gurantee that Ferrari won't spit the dummy at any time. And if they do there will be no basis on which the club could change things. One possible issue is that any Rally sponsor will hve to be endorsed by Ferrari. There probably is not a good chance that they would endorse a $100K deal with Caltex or Touch of Class for the next Rally. It is potentially just like interacting with CAMS where they tell you what the bill is regardless of what the past has been and regardless of what their rules have been and regardless of how unfair or unworkable it is - you'll just have to cop it. It is provocative but entirely feasible and realistic to say that we will all be required to have our cars clasique certified prior to entering any state or national concoursn a few years time. Of course ferrari will be entirely understanding of getting all the documentation in place so they'll give us 3 years warning. You don't like it, tough, go and start you own club. Blast, why didn't I fight way back when I was told to !

If the vote is No that will NOT BE the end of it. There are two options. Ferrari will come back again, and concede something more as they have on about two occassions now, or they will demand that we stop using the name Ferrari Club Australia. We would have to defend that and there are grounds to do this.

If we lost, game over, things would be pretty much where we are going to, and we'd be a few dollars less in the bank account - not too big a deal as we've lost the same order of money on a rally before today. If we won, Ferrari would pretty much have to either make an agreement with is that was in line with the one they have with NZ, OR go off and re-organise all its existing IP. If they are consistent, which one do you think they'd opt for?

 

Read the end bit then.

 

The big pictrure is obvious and has a lot of depth - you only talking about one bit.

So why did not they do that in NZ?

 

I'm with you and probably everyone else, but who is prepared to fight for it, and risk a little, or is everyone going to turn to jelly and cop it and then complain later if all their prayers and hopes are dashed by the reality.

There is no right of wrong, and I know court cases on a matter of principle are unwise, but in this case, till I'm shown otherwise - an informed advice from the National Committee from a competent lawyer in the field would be a good start - its No from me.