Maybe now, but back in the early series of Chasing Classic Cars it was clearly a knock of of the Ferrari version.
The font Ferrari uses is a generic font - they did not create it. Many people use it such as FerrParts and others. I forget the name but we have it for some stuff we have been playing around with.
Here's a recent case that might have some applicability. https://www.wealthmanagement.com/estate-planning/landmark-marilyn-monroe-copyright-dispute-decided?NL=WM-27&Issue=WM-27_20180806_WM-27_424&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPG09000007851982&utm_campaign=15485&utm_medium=email&elq2=6d35b8b5e89b46d9b127cd3fdea79839 Landmark Marilyn Monroe Copyright Dispute Decided
Is it a trademark issue? I didn't see that specific language in the story. It might simply be a right of publicity issue which includes the name, pic OR any likeness being used. Basically, no company or person can use a famous persons' name to market their product. I am perfectly happy with that law. I do not wish to have every aspiring woman sleuth mystery writer using my name in their marketing products implying my endorsement of their product. There's a reason for these protections.
This is 100% true. You have to defend your mark every single instance you find or the entire thing could be considered no longer valid.
Off topic, but hopefully entertaining: I recall a place (in the US) that worked on German cars and had special metal signs made up that proudly posted names/logos of major German car companies with "nicht autorisiert" inscribed immediately beneath...
Is there a McQueen company somewhere that is pretty well established in the realm of car paints? I can see why the company Walt Disney would enforce its name even though Walt is long dead...they are very well established and clearly profit off the name in almost every type of consumer good and service imaginable. How can the McQueen family prove they lost money? They can sue for wrong use of name...sure...but what did they actually lose monetarily? Are they not allowed to state in printed material that a public figure owned one of their cars? If Ferrari were making McQueen-named sunglasses then it would be a better argument since the McQueen Persol glasses are established and a money maker. I hope the family lose this case and millions of dollars in legal expense. Hopefully enough to make them unable to ever fight another case since they don't get it.
if the Cali T "Actor" colour scheme sells for the same price as the other Cali T 70th Anniversary liveries, then Ferrari didn't profit from the use of McQueen's name in reference to that livery. I hate nonsense suits like this, from either side. Ferrari should say the brown car called Actor references James Garner, who always drove brown/gold cars in the Rockford Files. Besides, McQueen's more famous Ferrari was his customized 275 GTB/4 NART Spider, dark blue with slight flares, larger rear lip spoiler, and no bumpers. The "ordinary" brown Lusso was no big deal...
Used his name to try to sell a product. They have crossed the line. They would do the exact same thing if McQueen's relatives were using their IP.
Excuse me but, I create copyright (and trademarked and patented) material too and yeah there are issues but I can assure you, from where I sit, copyright laws are NOT ridiculous. Maybe a little clunky. Maybe a bit outdated. Definitely not ridiculous. As far as this situation, I say to Ferrari, "FU pay me, I want my money". -F
Yes well, I strive for a higher moral plain, so probably 75% of all laws are ridiculous from my enlightened standpoint. Laws are made by lawyers, which is why most of them stink. If I was Chad I would have said something like, "Dad would have loved that." And that would have been the end of it. Trying to monetize every aspect of existence is not the primary goal of life. Achieving a deep level of satisfaction with oneself is. I would rather be me than any other man who has ever lived. That is self-actualization. Enjoy your money.
Exactly, and he possibly would have, had it not been hyper-litigious Ferrari who decided that it absolutely applied to everyone else but them. This is precisely why it is the only appropriate response to Ferrari and their rabid, often overreaching assault against anyone who is not them - even people who are honoring the brand. Ferrari set the precedent to apply against Ferrari.
Yes, I don't get that. There is something unsavory about it, "protecting the legacy" talk notwithstanding.
Isn't it Piero Lardi's [Now Piero Ferrari, as result of revisionist history] existence the same? He is living of Enzo Ferrari's name.
It is a just a paint scheme and on their ****iest car. Not even a good paint scheme. Haven't seen a brown car in ages. The junkie son wanted a lot of money and Ferrari rightfully blew him off. Highly doubt they are going to make millions and millions of dollars off of it. They are not even charging extra. Priced the same as the other paint colors. The junkie son blew through his trust fund or should I say snorted it and now is trying to shake down anyone and everyone. Does anyone even remember McQueen? The new crop of Ferrari buyers are probably are saying McQueen who? It was 50 years ago.
You pick the name of a hooker who killed a guy by injecting him with heroin as your screen name and you're accusing Chad McQueen of being a junkie? Smells like classic trolling.
Well he is a junkie. Ordinary people do not do such stupid things. Most people would be happy if Ferrari used their thing. Ferrari has quite the cachet and you are getting millions of dollars of free publicity. Ferrari are not some guy with a garage business trying to steal its way to the top. The McQueen brand is getting stale because of time and this would have reinvigorated it. But of course it will go to court and some Masonic judge will give him millions and millions of dollars. The Masonics are behind electrics and they are just murdering the ICE cars. I mean even if you took your car in for service and the dealer didn't give you a loaner, you should take them to court. The Masonic judges will take care of you real nice.