Based on this it's likely that the Barraca connection is a myth and Enzo simply stole the design from Stuttgart.
Someone noticed a golf shirt I was wearing with the F logo, and I entertained him as he made my lunch, with that entire story.......
Someone noticed my car with a F logo and proceeded to have a conversation about Ford Mustangs. I didn't even try to correct them, it was Arkansas.
..the punch line to my story, is the observation as to what happens right AFTER the horse raises his tail!!! He laughed SO hard!!
So getting back to the original topic of the lawsuit filed by Lou Chinetti against Ferrari in the Southern Distric Federal Court - anyone able to post his complaint? I puit up the link for the Ferrari response. Jeff
Check out the differences. Position of the horse, positions of the legs, tail and mane hair. They are all different. Has Stuttgart expressed a problem with the the S F horse??? Personally I would be more concerned wth the S F horse being displayed on a replica/ reproduction car in a format to deceive tongascrew
Yes Stuttgart had a prancing horse badge hundreds of years before Enzo Ferrari started to use his in 1932, but no one from Stuttgart ever felt the need to bring a lawsuit to stop Ferrari from using it, and frankly, Stuttgart would have more rights to try to stop Ferrari from using their trademark logo than Chinetti does, based on the inferences being made about the origins of the Ferrari badge! Enzo Ferrari's version of how he came to have the prancing horse badge is here: http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1066503_ferrari-explains-the-history-of-the-prancing-horse-video (It also debunks the statements made on Wiki and other sites that Count Francesco Baracca's prancing horse was originally a red horse on a white background. Ferrari himself said that the horse was always black and that he chose to change the background colour to yellow). As for the law suit, Chinetti's wasting his money if he honestly thinks a US court is going to remove Ferrari's right to their own trademark - that is never going to happen in a Trillion, Billion years! I can't see him winning his case either if it 's based mainly on the fact that without a Classiche certificate, his cars are worth less than with a certificate - that's down to free market forces, not Ferrari at the end of the day. Ferrari don't force anyone to have to have a Classiche certificate, you simply opt to have it or not. The fact that most buyers prefer to buy a car with a certificate is not Ferrari's doing, it's the buyers, as they believe (rightly or wrongly), that it gives the car a better provenance to guarantee it future value. As for the criteria that Ferrari sets for it's certificate, that's up to them, there's no legal standard that Ferrari have to adhere to, they set their own standards that they find acceptable. The fact that Chinetti disagrees with how they judge cars for their own certificate is his problem, not Ferrari's, they're not breaking any laws. Surely though, the basis of Chineti's cars were still based on the original chassis, body and engines that left Maranello, albeit modified for racing, with Ferrari's blessing, so therefore, as far a Ferrari were concerned there was no need to contest them having prancing horse badges on them? As for the prancing horse badge, Ferrari aren't as restrictive as some companies when it comes to the use of their trademark: Avanti gas stations and Ducati have both used a logo that looks strangely familiar (and yet Ferrari have never stopped either of them using it!) Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Its my understanding that Ferrari have no exclusivity on the use of the prancing horse by itself, however when it is incorporated with other symbols (such as the Ferrari font and the rectangular badge with the italina colours ) then it becomes part of the Ferrari logo. M
No disrespect intended to anyone, but since when have the Italians made any sense to the rest of the World? They are renowned for doing things their own way! An interesting article that appears to support this: http://blawg.lehmanlaw.com/english/archives/2007/07/18/257.html Part of which states: In the Court, Ferrari averred that the Ferrari, along with the graphic of the horse which is closely tied to the Ferrari mark, should enjoy protection as famous trademarks because the Ferrari trademark has become well known around the world, and it has also gained considerable familiarity among Chinese consumers. However, the Court flatly rejected Ferraris claim of fame for its heroic horsy. It states three reasons: 1. Ferrari failed to provide evidence of the use and advertisement relative to the trademark at issue, meaning the horse. Ferrari proffered evidence supporting the famous status of a related trademarkFerrari, but that is not sufficient to prove that that the mark in question is entitled to protection as requested. 2. China has established an independent system to recognize famous trademarks. The recognition of Ferrari as a famous trademark does not equate to the recognition of the horse graphic. 3. The focal issue in the suit is not the Ferrari trademark; rather it is the horse graphic. The horse cannot be bootstrapped to the Ferrari trademark for like protection. That seems to imply that Ferrari cannot stop prevent anyone from using the horse logo. (In the case of this site however, it may be an issue due to the fact that the site is directly related to all things Ferrari S.p.A. , be it road cars or racing cars)
What Ferrari fail to realize is the damage that aggressive litigation like theirs does to ones brand. Regardless of their "legal" argument or what their corporate ownership rights may be, the fact is that this sue-happiness is the mark of a personality that is NOT friendly and who does not play nice, even with their own friends. That leaves an extraordinarily bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. As much as I love their history and the classic GT and sports racing cars they've produced, I have zero interest in their new cars and I openly root against them in F1. Why? Because I get the sense -- right or wrong -- that they aren't nice people. That they don't play fair. That they're arrogant to the detriment of even their biggest fans. Some day, this aggressive stance will hurt that company, badly.
Hear, hear! This is largely why I today regard Ferrari as a deceaced manufacturer, and that new cars have little if any relation to the ones built in the 50's and 60's. A lot like Bugatti, now I came to think about it! Best wishes, Kare
There is a "before Bugatti" and a "after Bugatti. Now we have a "before Enzo Ferrari" and an "after Enzo Ferrari".
Maybe there is a financial link? When Ferrari profits from it, they don't restrict it. Certainly they have ties to Ducati. Onno
I somehow doubt it! Ferrari are no more aggressive about protecting their trademarks and IP's than any other company, be they Ford, Coca-cola, McDonald's, Disney, Harley Davidson, Apple or whoever! (In fact, based on the number of kit car companies churning out thousands of cheap replicas in different countries and not getting shut down instantly, they're not as aggressive as they could be!) It's not just companies either, individuals who own trademarks and IP's will defend them just as aggressively as Ferrari would! (Don't believe Me? - build yourself a replica of a certain one-off Ferrari and see how long it takes before the litigation starts! ) To try and pull this thread back on topic (which is, after all, not about Ferrari filing a lawsuit but being on the receiving end of a lawsuit) : Do I take it then then your distaste of this: "sue-happiness", also extends to Chinetti and his attempt to have Ferrari's trademarks removed? After all, His lawsuit does seem to be based on him throwing teddy out the cot because the World prefers their Ferrari's to come with Factory backed certificates these days and he doesn't like it as he can't/won't, get a certificate and so his cars are worth less on the open market. As I have previously posted, Ferrari do not force, and have not forced anyone into having to get their cars certified, it's simply the way the free market has gone after they made the service available. Ferrari haven't told owners and buyers that cars must be certified, it's simply a preference made out of free will. At no point have Ferrari announced that cars with certificates are worth more, it's simply the free markets perception that has made it the case that cars certified by the factory are worth more. It's no different really to the markets difference in valuation between cars that have been restored and cars that have not. The difference in valuation between cars with their original bodies still and those that do not have their original bodies. The difference in valuation between high mileage cars and low mileage cars. The difference in valuation between an original Ferrari 365 GTS/4 and a converted 365 GTB/4 into spyder configuration. Ferrari does not set the values differential on these options, the free market does. Chinetti's claim that he cannot sell his cars without classiche certification is a nonsense! He can still sell them, but the market will not pay as much for them. If he wants what he believes to be the "true market value" of the cars, he knows what he needs to do. (However, it's very likely that his previous, successful legal dispute with Ferrari has now come back to bite him in the arse big time! To be fair to Ferrari though, they are under no legal obligation to certify anybodies car, so if they do not wish to certify his cars [for whatever reason], that's up to them [It's merely legal/business chess at the end of the day] Is it fair?: probably not. Is it nice?: not really. Is it merely the way some business goes?: well, yes, it is! ). As I see the argument being made, it's a bit like owning a Le Mans winning Ferrari that does not have it's original race engine any more but has a replacement engine fitted. The car is worth less with the replacement engine. Then you discover the current owner of the original engine from your car and attempt to buy it to increase the value of your car, but the engine owner refuses to sell. So you then try to sue the owner of the engine for the loss of value to your car. No court is going to uphold such a claim! And I cannot seriously see any US court taking it on upon themselves to declare Ferrari's Trademarks that they've owned for decades, suddenly being no longer valid because an owner cannot get as much money for his cars in a free market without their certificate.
3 years ago on the TECHNO CLASSICA Show in Essen, Germany, a Ferrari-dealer had two classic Ferraris on his stand, that was located next to the official Classiche stand represented by another German Ferrari dealer. Italian people from the Classiche-Dept. forced the other dealer to remove one of the two displayed classic Ferraris, (a 330GTC very original, all matching-no.`s and well known for that!) due to the fact it had no certification by Ferrari. The car was replaced then by a modern 360! Hard to understand all this.
mr Ferrari was just as ruthless, if not more ruthless, in protecting the interests of his company as the current board of directors is. No real change there and it is part of what made Ferrari a strong company.
According to a F Chat post by "andymont" the famous original B&W sepia image showing Baracca standing next to his plane and given to E F by the parents of the pilot was recoloured to show the horse as black on a white background and not the original red on white. Unlike the original which shows the whole horse and more,this colored copy only shows half of the cavallino. In fact the original prancing horse was the long standing emblem of the "Piedmonte Royal Cavalry Regement". I would tend to agree with the premiss that the black cavallino by itself is probably not exclusive to Ferrari unless accompanied by the yellow background and other Ferrari symbols. tongascrew
No, I read just fine, thank you. My point is general & simple: Ferrari's aggressive stance (instances documented throughout this thread, not just in the lawsuit referred to) alienates friends of the marque, forces actions by former & potential partners such as Chinetti and creates general antipathy for the brand. When times get tough -- as they do for everyone at some point in time (be it a poor model line or a particularly heavy downturn) -- brand equity and good will is necessary to weather them. I think Ferrari's hostility may leave the company with less than they may realize.
Certainly agree, New money comes and goes, old money would say, dont be so vulgar. And as for those that are saying look at other brands that protect their assets including the value of the name, trademarks etc. I would suggest brands such as the one's quoted are not "forcing" their clients to bring items back to their producer for certification, by using trade practices that may be anti - trust. What is more interesting would be Ferrari's ability to impel clients to restore cars (by them at great cost) so as to meet some originality standard. "Impel" is not of itself illegal BUT when does "impel" become "force" ?? and wouldnt that be anti - competitive ?
