Ferrari refuses to stretch a point...

I hope this plays out.........

I'm of the opinion that Ferrari doesn't have a horse to sit on.

 

I think you're missing the point here. According to the article quoted by the OP, the owner is being asked by Ferrari's lawyers to remove the name "Ferrari" as well as badging from the actual car (not promotional materials), because the Ferrari lawyers say it is "no longer a Ferrari". There are plenty of places where Ferraris are available for hire and I would be surprised if Ferrari has any control over it (e.g., see the black 360 for rent featured on the website here: http://www.xoticdreamcars.com/html/index.htm ).

The issue is not whether or not Ferrari can control the use of their name and logos for commercial enterprises, the debate here is whether or not Ferrari is accurate when it claims the vehicle in question is "no longer a Ferrari". IMO that is not an open and shut case, and IMO they will lose in their battle to force him to remove "Ferrari" from his Ferrari.

 

What about places that rent Ferrari, that commercial gain/promo...

What about a shop that has a pic in it's add and amoung all the cars is a Ferrari?

What about the guy who had a 365GTB on diaply in his resturant? It was his car in his business...

What about a guy who starts a taxi service driving his own Ferrari?

There are tons of examples.

I understand Ferrari's desire/need to protect their brand and people not using trademarked names, symbols or other items for personal gain....that is copyright/pattent/etc infringement. However, on some level this is just a modified Ferrari, albeit an extreme one. And while I'm not a laywer, I would think that the owner has some case in that it is his property, and he may do what he wishes with.

Overall, I don't like the idea that Ferrari can mandate what you do with your own property.

It will be interesting t see how this turns out....

 

You've challenged your own argument...

In this case, the car itself is the "promotional material" ---- and, Ferrari asserts that it is no longer faithful to the identity of the original product, which is theirs. This is not analogous to "renting a Ferrari out for financial profit" --- it is more similar to say, slapping a Ferrari badge on a Ferris wheel and charging people for rides. There is a legal distinction between using a Ferrari car (which you own, outright) for commercial purposes and using the "Ferrari identity" (which they own) for commercial purposes.

It is a subtle difference, but valid, if Ferrari can prove it.

I'm not taking a side here... I'm just clarifying Ferrari's position.

And, while I don't necessarily agree or disagree with them, I wouldn't underestimate the competency, nor the voracity, of the legal department of a company as prominent as Ferrari, SPA...

Right or wrong...They will win...this is civil law, not criminal law --- and, the party with the greater resources usually prevails in a civil case...

 

I respectfully disagree. It's an extremely weak argument IMO to compare this to "slapping a Ferrari badge on a Ferris wheel". Judging by the common sense responses thus far, I think most folks see through that argument. The obvious difference here is that the Ferrari in question still has (I assume) a Ferrari VIN that was stuck on the car in a Ferrari factory. Is it modified? Of course. Is it "no longer a Ferrari" as Ferrari's lawyers claim? Of course it still is, just like the Ferrari 308's on this forum that have added 12's or chopped off the top.

 

He might be selling it now to get out of the mess with Ferrari. If he was to hire out the limo as a Ferrari Limo, he would be hiring out an item with the Ferrari name and badgeing that was not in an approved form by Ferrari. It is an intellectual property issue, each country has their own point of view on IP, so it would be interesting to see where Ferrari would be able to get this in court. France or Italy they would win, not even factoring in the home field bias of Italy, on their IP laws. In the UK or USA it could go either way, but they won against all the guys making Vetts into Daytonas.

 

No offense, but that's irrelevant to this issue. There's an obvious difference between modifying a Corvette to look like a Ferrari and modifying a Ferrari so it can accomodate more passengers. In the former you end up with a modified Corvette, in the latter you end up with a modified Ferrari.

 

I would argue then that Cadillac, Lincoln, and other brands should require debadging of all limos built cutting their cars with their TM. I just don't see it..........

I think Ferrari must have a dept. that just works on IP issues and they are posturing.

 

Ahhhh...This is the beauty of civil litigation --- it's often very "gray" as opposed to "black and white". Arguments can be made for both sides.

LETSJET --- You're right, politics often play a role in such cases...

GATORGREG --- I see by your profile that you are, shall we say, "not a lay person"? I'm sure then that your legal reasoning is sound...

Indeed, it will be interesting to see how this turns out. Although, I would be surprised if it goes to court --- who (as an individual) has the coin to match Ferrari pocket-to-pocket???

 

Not in the eyes of Ferrari or the eyes of the French or Italian laws, or those of many other nations. In the UK/USA you would still be trying to pass of a product as Ferrari approved, even thought the modification removes that approval. Like I stated earlier, Ferrari most likely has no real problem with the limo (although they might be upset that they did not get a cut of the modification work), but if they let it go this time it can set a precedent for when something really hidious is unvailed that really warrants such cease orders.

 

I Think Ferrari is partially right on this one. Does the limo represent what the 'original' 360 was? Hardly, IMHO (which disqualifies its eligibility for bearing the badges) - I wouldn't recognize it as being a 360 Modena (way too many mods), thus pretending this is a 360, even a Ferrari, could be equal to pretending a fake Gucci watch is real.

 

Look closely at Cadillac limos, if they don't have an approval seal, they don't have the seal/crest within the wreath.

 

The 360 limo is for sale on eBay

http://cgi.ebay.nl/Ferrari-360-Limo-stretch-limousine_W0QQitemZ230230865840QQihZ013QQcategoryZ18180QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

If that's TRULY the issue, maybe he should just go ahead and remove all those badges, and change the marketing to "Sh1zBox Limo - We wouldn't rent you something unacceptable from Marenello, so we HAD to improve it."
Certainly meets the demands of Luca's Fiat, er, ferrari lawyers. Never even uses the ferrari name. Problem solved, and I'm SURE Luca's gang would approve (according to their demands). I'd just love to hear how they would handle that.
I despise bully tactics.

Well, that's certainly not the K-Y aroma I was expecting these days......
I agree with Tillman's sarcasm: Florida grapefruit (in exactly what part of Italy IS the town/region/????? of Florida)..........Lavender and juniper berries warmed with........what?...........suuuuure, why not? Give us a cut.

Could be thyme for ferrari to stop its own degradation of the Ferrari Image.

 

There is no angrier raped woman than a whore.

 

Here's one for 'ya ----

"We all know what kind of woman I am, we're just haggling about my price."

 

Well, IP is not my area of specialty so I wouldn't be so sure that my legal reasoning is sound Plus we're dealing with a European issue so I have no idea what actual law will be applied here. Ultimately, if the parties can't agree to settle, it will come down to whatever Judge Judy decides.

I notice that in the guy's ebay ad it claims you also get ownership of a domain name with "Ferrari" as part of the domain name. That's the type of thing that I believe Ferrari could stop if they wanted to. Forcing someone to remove Ferrari badging from a modified Ferrari will be easier said then done however. Perhaps it would be easy under some Draconian pro-Ferrari law that exists in Italy that I keep seeing referenced here, but not in America (and I'm guessing UK as well).

 

i feel i can answer this question, as i had hard time with ferrari as well. now i see that is not a seldom case. because of my true passion and non-beneficial publications i ran into very big risk of being sued by ferrari as well. i don't even want to image how great difficulty this could cause me, which resulted only in sharing of my passion.

the answer is, ferrari is getting great incomes from the ferrari brand. not the cars, but the brand itself. practically, that's the greatest worth for them now. so it's natural they're controlling it so enviously

 

Ferrari is embarrassed over the notion of their branding being represented on a stretched limousine. Most customers riding in it will never know if Ferrari actually did it or if it was a one-off privateer shop doing it. This infuriates Ferrari as it stands an affront to their vanity and self-image.

So they're playing the trademark infringement card by making him take the badges off.

 

EXACTLY!!!

I wish the "Old Man," was still with us. He would have worn his steel toed boots, that he wore when he was in the factory and on shop floor, giving direction and expediting matters, taking a quick walk, through the "Legal Dept," adjusting this craziness.

Unless, these stretch Limos, are for sale, which it is on ebay, if correct, and it's intent was was that purpose, Ferrari, may have a legal stand. Otherwise, the owner can paint it PINK, and adorn it with erzatz pubic hairs, for his business. That's up to him! I think he was trying to create a Ferrari Limo, in good taste. He should be left alone to pursue his interests.

That's how I see it from an American point of view.

Ciao...Paolo

 

Who is the new guy in the Ferrari's legal deparment? Did Enzo's cousins wifes' brother just graduate from the University of Turin Law School? First they will not stand by their warranties if the car has an aftermarket exhaust, then they tell dealers that they are no allowed to advertise cars in inventory, then this??! Enough already! I know they have a very valuable brand to protect but maybe they should focus on building high performance cars and ease up on the litigation.


Isn't Ferrari supposed to represent the pinacle of freedom, driving fast with reckless abandon?? They recently sound like an overbearing mother! Don't do this! Don't do that!! Really puts a bad taste in your mouth about the company.

Hey Ferrari!! Shut up, stop trying to tell everyone what to do or what not to do and build fast cars!!!

Hummm... I wonder if they will sue me for this post???

 

First of all, lets not drag the poor v12 308s guys into this mess. I really don't want to have to remove my ferrari badging if I ever finish my....I mean when I finish my car

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=170171

In PA almost anything you do (putting a v12 in your 308 included) technically earns you a "reconstructed" vehicle title and a new vin. The list is long, wheel more than 1" (I think) over stock diameter, suspension changes, brake changes, engine change, ect and turning it into a limo would certainly be on the list...so in PA it could no longer legally still have it's ferrari vin #. Many people don't follow the letter of the law of course though.

I hadn't thought of that....but then I guess the argument is whether or not it is still 90% ferrari (I think that's the copy right standard).

 

This seems fairly simple...... What does the Title say, and what is the car registered as? It's all about the VIN - no?

 

In PA you'd get a title that says ferrari but with a new PA issued VIN......now what is it?

 

I know of a stretched Cadillac in the Netherlands that is titled with the name of the "stretcher".
He would be ok if he called his limo "stretched Ferrari" in advertising because that's what it is.