This on is scary; http://news.windingroad.com/aftermarket/ferrari-threatens-limo-builder-with-legal-action/ Cut n Paste
Scary car...yes. That guy is a complete loon for building that but I don't see how you can sue him for having bad taste.....waste of time for Ferrari.
What about the P 4/5 built by that Jim guy ? That car is damn ugly, and its basically a home built kit car. (but it is still considered a work of art?) and doesn't even look like a modern Ferrari. Why doesn't Ferrari sue him too ? What about all these rappers who modify their RR and Bentleys..they look nothing like the original English design, especially with 28" wheels and spoilers !
Ok, not liking is P4/5 fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But have you read about the building of P4/5 from the beginning? It's a project that was built at Pinnin with Ferrari's blessing. Read the thread. It's not just a home built project I assure you. Again I respect the fact that you may not like it but I think you don't understand the concept of P4/5. It's goal was not only to look like a "Modern Ferrari".
Can you imagine the free publicity for his limo business that has already been generated. Furthermore Ferrari has a slim to no chance (and slim is out of town) of winning over his private property which he paid for. The purchase implies a license for the Ferrari badges and there was no additional term agreed to in advance that he could not modify. Best Ferrari could hope for is to offer to buy the limo back (probably for a lot less than they would pay for legal fees) and avoid a PR and legal loss.
This is an interesting trademark case, but Ferrari would not win in US courts. Despite the modification, it is a Ferrari with a Ferrari VIN and registration, and further he may not be holding it out in a way that even could be considered infringing. The article and posters here are misstating the legal issues at play though - it is not whether he can or cannot modify "his property" it is whether his modification of the Ferrari with VIN can maintain the use of the trademarked logos and names of Ferrari in commercially representing that car as a Ferrari. There is a lot of grey area though since he's not selling the car but may be renting it. Ultimately, the guy may (or may not) have gotten a cease-and-desist letter and now he's milking it for the PR.
Hi Ryan. Unless there is an express term or represenation by the owner at the time of purchase that he could not continue to use the TM'ed logos and names in conjunction with anything but an unmodified car then Ferrari is pushing on rope. If they were to win that one I'd like the same court/judge to hear a case on implied warranty for fitness on a few electrical systems they have put in a few $100,000 plus cars.
I tend to agree with Ferrari on this one. The car is no longer a Ferrari so it should not carry Ferrari badges. Modifications are one thing but the limo is a totally different car. The frame, bodywork, and interior are all custom. The owner of physical property has a right to do anything they want with their property. However, a person cannot buy a car, part it out, use some parts in a new car and represent it as a bona fide Ferrari.
Are we sure this car still has the original VIN and registration? In many US states, a custom built vehicle like this gets a new VIN and registration from the state.
Ferrari should mind their own damn business. Who cares what the guy did. So every Lincoln, Cadillac, Hummer etc etc that has been stretched has to change the name? What a joke.
He can do whatever he wants to his car...BUT...he is using the FERRARI name when he advertises the car for rental! I think Ferrari does have a case in this instance. If you substantially change the car I can see why Ferrari would want to protect it's image considering the advertising and wording of the ads. I think that is the angle they are going with.
