insulted by a kit car

If it harms the brand it's a problem. If it's intension is to deceive, it's a problem. It may not be a counterfeit but it can still be a problem. Like I said earlier, a company with rights to the name Stratos tried to make a new car with a Ferrari running gear and other parts. Their plans got crushed by Ferrari and it would have ended badly for them in court had they proceeded.

 

I agree VR. Art is art. Be it cars, paintings, watches, music. I'm surprised car builder doesn't see the correlation.

That being said I disagree that only a worker in maranello can bend aluminum to a high level. BTW that maranello fabricator didn't design the design. He's just the fabricator. A great artist/designer can come from anywhere. I'm sure there is a next "master" starving on the streets of NY right now - painting on sidewalks. Picasso wasn't born famous. There are plenty of unbelievable designers and artists in the world who's names we will never know. BTW Didn't a 20 (something) year old kid design the Mirua?

 

And it doesn't stop there, many fake parts are showing up in the aerospace industry and ending up installed on commercial aircraft. Think about that the next time you board a flight. It might have been a very talented person that made that counterfeit bolt holding the engine on, no harm done right?

 

But that staving guy on the street has a god given right to create his own design and become famous as Enzo Ferrari did, not to do it off the Ferrari name. That is the difference.

 

So, taking this to the logical next step, I assume those of you who are saying a fake is a fake and the like do not have scuderia shields on the front fenders of your road-going Ferrari, right?

 

Nothing fake about it. Ferrari made the choice to put shields on their road cars. It is their history and their right to do what they want with their brand because... they are Ferrari. How can someone be misled when they see shields on a Ferrari anyway? It is a real Ferrari.


I do think it looks a little tacky on a car without the factory recesses for the shields. A little too unfinished and stick-on looking for such a nice automobile. IMO

 

Fair point. However if someone yearns for a Monet, etc and the one they love most is locked in a museum - what's wrong with having a "master" painter make a high level copy for personal use? My point was that talent shouldn't be chastised or diminished if it's used to duplicate something rare -- as long as it's not for criminal intent.

The guys who can bend aluminum into a GTO or a 550 Spyder are NOT hacks. They are artists. They just choose to build what they can sell.

My point is NOT that the Ferrari badge makes that GTO recreation great. I could couldn't care less if it said Leggo on the hood. If it's OK to wear an Invicta that looks exactly the same as a Rolex; It's OK to build/own/drive a reproduction GTO . I'd be happy to have the badge of the actual builder of the car on it - If I bought an ERA Cobra or a Beck Spyder I'd want their brand on the hood. They built it.

 

I'm not sure there is nothing fake about it. The meaning of the shields is well known (here, anyway!), and on a road-going car, they are a misrepresentation. if one argues that a misrepresentation is a misrepresentation no matter what, then this is still a type of fake, even if done by the factory.

Not trying to be argumentative here, but the logic put forth by a few on the previous pages of this thread would indicate they would probably not have shields on their Ferraris.

 

If I were going to buy a bracelet with a clock on it for that much I would have it inspected beforehand. But I see your point.

 

Scary.

Counterfeiting is not right and that's why we have laws to (try) to stem the tide. My argument is to reproduce what can not longer be found otherwise. A 63 GTO, a 55 Spyder, etc. Vintage.

I don't see any point to knocking off a modern car. I want to drive that GTO because how else would I ever feel what driving one feels like?! I liken it to having a rare set of say Ming Vases and you break one. If you want to duplicate the broken one - go ahead. Just don't sell it as real and don't tell people it's real. Duplicate it because it's irreplaceable and you love(d) it.

 

Ferrari can't misrepresent themselves. Ferrari sees no need to protect or covet the history of shields only on race cars and to argue that it's not acceptable is very silly. Ferrari has set a president that shields are for all their cars, race or road going. If you don't like it you can certainly complain to Ferrari SpA.

 

I think it's a bit tacky. But if it's your car - do what you want. I just think guys are trying a little too hard when they add shields. I don't see the point. Would you add another Nike Swoosh to your shoes? It's over branding.

 

Just because you can't get a hold of something you want doesn't automatically mean you can forge your own copy. That is why we have the laws we do. Just because there is a huge market for fake Ferrari T-shirts doesn't mean you can start making your own whether they are an exact copy or not.

 

Ok, fair enough; but lets say a guy finds parts from a known destroyed race car and uses genuine factory parts and reassembles it to it's original race configuration? How can a car the recreates a no longer existing one damage or harm the brand? Especially a single one off car that uses a portion of "REAL PARTS"... Is the rare Ferrari that was found under the Devin body by Tom Shaughnessy going to fall under the counterfeit or brand damaging category?

 

Come on now. When was the last time Ferrari ever tried to over brand itself?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

What does the tag say on the chassis and I'll give you the answer.

 

So then any genuine Ferrari or other brand that utilizes a Genuine chassis to recreate a car of a different configuration is ok then? What about cars that are created from being cut in half; parted out and contain 50% of each and are reconstituted as in the "ship of Thesius" paradox?

 

In the first situation the car remains a Ferrari but is now a recreation of another model that did not exist before. Your parted out Ferrari example is considered a Bitsa made from different cars. I am assuming of course that these 50% cars are both from the same manufacturer being Ferrari.

 

Ferrari can sell an automobile represented as "Scuderia" knowing that it is not. I suppose Nike could print "Air" on the side of a shoe that does not have the air feature as it is traditionally known, if they chose to do so. They could just choose to redefine the term "Air" as it applies to their shoes. Doesn't make it "right".

I am not saying it is not acceptable, but rather saying that the arguments put forth on this thread about trying to deceive by adding an inappropriate badge could logically be extended to apply to shields.

My liking it or not is irrelevant. I do see badging a car (or anything, really) designating it as something it is not as a misrepresentation. I would not do this myself, but others obviously have, including Ferrari SpA, IMHO. I just don't care one way or the other.

 

It is Ferraris trademark to use as it wishes and It's not likely they will sue themselves. Besides I thought it was widely known around here that what Ferrari learns on the road is applied to the race cars.

Ferrari also built a car named Scuderia. I'm sure they got a legal opinion on the use of the name Scuderia first from their lawyers and whether or not launching a lawsuit against themselves could be successful. They were probably rubbing their hands together thinking of the settlement they might have to pay themselves. Then they probably gave there head a shake and all was well.

 

So is either of these situations acceptable under your definition? And if so; are the owners guilty of any sort of fraud even if they disclose the origin of the parts?

 

If the car has a Ferrari VIN it will always be a Ferrari. And a Bitsa and its documentation is very important for people to determine what a car actually is. Full disclosure is the only way with this type of build. I could direct you to a certain Cheetah thread which shows how a lack of information can be quite a problem with such vehicles.

Today there is probably 10 times the amount of Hemicudas on the road then Chrysler ever built. There is nothing wrong with that as long as no one is deceived as to the cars true origin. If someone has a fender off a famous race car and installs it on a different car, there is no problem as long as it is documented that it is only the fender that was part of the original famed race car.

 

I hear installing Mercedes Benz livery on a Dodge Sprinter increases the chance of it being stolen by 70%. For basically the exact same spec vehicle manufacture.

Imagine all the stupid thieves that steal fake Ferraris. THAT has to be funny when the realization occurs.

As for this whole controversy, the vanity is strong in this thread. What do I care what other people think?

 

Brand power is amazing isn't it.

 

You posted this reply with my post quoted, but it appears to be in reply to something else? Doesn't seem at all relevant to my previous post.