Is Ferrari confiscating and crushing replicas?

New import laws came in in the last couple of months,that will end the Pur Sang imports as well,likewise the Kirkham Cobras.

 

Bradley, it was a joke mate, based on the way your sentence quoted was structured "LOL"

i agree, some statments are too much...i respect some have zero tolerance, in thier opinion of anything not factory produced...as for me, love Ferraris, always will, but honestly they are all just cars at the end of the day & to each his own...legally.

 

Pass, it might help you to contact someone like Hagerty (Hagerty insurance) about different types of specialty car insurance, he seems quite open and knowledgable, and might be able to give you some other information or methods of registering your car

I've been working on plans to build a Sawyer low-drag coupe, using the drivetrain & suspension from my XJS parts car as donor, but by not using the xjs chassis and VIN (will have a fabricated frame) there is question about how to have registered here

 

So does this mean that if Ferrari has the right to and does confiscate and crush a replica, are they willingly crushing a 250gt frame or a 330gt engine etc.? Doesn't that make them the slime of the earth?

 

Not clear what you're asking (?)

Yes, Ferrari does have the legal right to seek remedy against someone who has infringed on their brand. Not sure if you're questioning that.

Confiscation is one form that remedy could take. Other remedies would be monetary damages, etc.

If confiscation occurs, then ownership would transfer to Ferrari who could probably do whatever they want.

If you're asking my opinion as to whether I think it would be a bad thing for Ferrari to crush a 250 GT frame, then I'd say yes. Ideally, the 250 GT frame would still be a component of the low production original Ferrari that was cannibalized by someone who put his ego above the preservation of the original car.

 

^^^ i've still not seen or read any evidence that Ferrari has confiscated, much less destroyed, any replica based on an actual Ferrari chassis...though i'd like to find out for sure

 

Ferrari S.p.A are dicks. Nothing new there. Double standards abound. It's all about who you know and your net worth. IMO the only concern should be whether or not someone is trying to portray a fake as the real deal. Defending the Ferrari trademark in cases of vintage replicas is a moot point. Ferrari is happy to sell you a $250 badge at their gift store but put it on your car and they compel customs to seize it. Ridiculous.

 

So soon you forget the college kids sharing their MP3 collections that the RIAA went after for millions in damages. Don't think for a minute that lawyers working for Ferrari or for themselves won't take the time to go after you.

 

Ferrari is happy to sell you a $250 badge to replace the damaged or missing one from your Ferrari automobile.

That doesn't imply that, for the staggering sum of $250, Ferrari is licensing you to produce cars bearing their logo.

It's not a subtle distinction. If you owned Ferrari, you might not think they were being "dicks".

 

Sorry to come late to this thread, but I do recall several discussions I had several years ago regarding SpA's legal case to seize and destroy several 60's "re-manufactured" F1 cars. IIRC, the cars were built using SpA's own blueprints (which they released for the express purpose) by a British firm. I'm thinking I recall hearing that a small number of cars (maybe just a couple) were built. Yet, SpA later decided they didn't like the idea and did in fact file a seizure case with the intent of destroying them. IIRC, the "re-manufactured" cars were done because none of the originals still exist.

Specifically, I also recall that there was a US owner who was embroiled in the matter as his car was seized when it entered Italy for an event. I do not know the disposition of the matter, though.

Perhaps this has already even been raised in the previous 7 pages. If so, my bad. I'll read through it all at a later time. But, there have been a couple of posts indicating they've never heard of such a thing. Sorry, but I have.

CW

 

An article about some replicas in Italy.
http://www.historic-racer.com/phpBazar/main.php?mc_id=9
branko

 

wow! well, it's back to the days of nazi invasion, and hiding cars in barns and caves...or at the very least lesson is: don't take your recreation into italy!

so apparently the owner was not properly notified by the court, so was not present at the time of the order?

 

An interesting read.

 

To simplify the law I think it comes down to the concept of "fair use" vs. "commercial infringement" when Ferrari's rights to confiscate private property in the hands of individuals not intended for sale to the public.

The law in Italy must be different than elsewhere because it takes some kind of damage to the manufacture to allow for damages/seizure of counterfit goods.

I don't think Ferrari suffers any monetary damages when a bespoke replica trades hands. In fact they don't make any money on the cars they no longer manufacture, do they? Does Ferrari SpA get a royalty on the sale of a 50's or 60's car sold at auction? No they don't!

So if I want to rebody my 250 GTE 2+2 as a 250 GTO so what. Yes it is a shame and IMHO cheesy, but it is my property not Ferrari's! They suffer no gain or loss at all.

Now if I start making fake 599s or 458s in a commercial enterprise and use Ferrari design and logo's to increase the value of my product sold to the public, the law protects Ferrari and any other manufacturer. The commercial aspect and repeated nature of the infringement changes things a lot.

Think fake rolexes sold on canal st in NY or fake gucci bags sold on the street corner, or those bootleg dvd's of movies that just came out. The commercial, profit making enterprise is a criminal organization and the authorities have every right and obligation to confiscate and destroy those goods.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/10/27/outraged-italian-police-set-to-crush-fake-ferrari/


Now let's make some comparisons to other "bespoke" items. Say a high priced suit. You go to your tailor and say, make me a replica of this Armani suit. And go ahead and put this label on the inside too! Would Armani take the suit off your back? I doubt it! Its a one-off fake that is made just for one person. Not a comercial enterprise seeking to exploit the brand and make a profit off the general public and mass-marketed to consumers. You are a poser in a fake Armani, but that's your problem guido!

But start a business making the suit in China and passing them off in a massproduced way, then you are in trouble and the goods should be seized.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fake-goods-worth-83642m-seized-by-gardai-in-day-of-raids-1304985.html

Another fact that makes the personal use and commercial enterprise different is that 99% of the time the seller indicates upfront that they are selling a REPLICA Ferrari, not the original.

In the commercial fraud situation the seller is trying to pass off the goods as ORIGINAL and made by the manufacturer. In fact it is really tough sometimes to tell the difference. As in the suit example...

http://www.ehow.com/how_5960140_tell-fake-armani-suit.html

So, at the end of the day, it makes no sense at all for Ferrari to be seeking out bespoke replicas especially when engines, chassis and other parts are originally made by Ferrari. If they are protecting their trademark and punishing mass producers who make recent model fakes with a de minimus amount of original Ferrari hardware, that is a completely different story and these should be confiscated.

Here are some links to interesting stories on this subject...

http://www.autoevolution.com/news-image/fake-ferrari-gets-crushed-in-italy-12541-1.html
h

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1580337/Fake-Ferraris-seized-in-mafia-run-factory.html

http://jalopnik.com/170509/fake-ferrari-from-china-the-chen+zo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iR8Z_W42sE

 

Ferrari owns the badge, the logo, logotype and the name applied to automobiles. They don't have to prove anything other than that some idiot used it without authorization.

The law is clear, in the United States and presumably Italy. If you use the Ferrari trademarks without licensing them through Ferrari, you're stealing intellectual property.

If you would like to rip off a Ferrari design, my recommendation would be to badge it with your own surname and to fake something old enough that its intellectual property protections have expired.

 

Interesting views and much appeciate the debate!

You actually prove my point, because the 250GTE is and always wil be a Ferrari, no? I can repaint it, tear down the engine, rebuild it with lots of new parts, redo the entire interior with new materials and it is still a Ferrari. So if I put a different shaped body and dashboard and seats in etc. it is still a Ferrari, no? My point about bespoke replicas vs. mass produced toyota's rebodied as 355s is just that. A 250GTE with a new body will always be a Ferrari, but a toyota with a 355 body will NEVER be! And I think that is where Ferrari has come down on this. For example, Sicillian company that was mass producing fakes on Toyota chasis/engine/interiors with very close replica (or maybe authentic) 355 body parts is the only reported case I can find where Ferrari and the government got involved in confiscation of cars. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1580337/Fake-Ferraris-seized-in-mafia-run-factory.html

**Warning to readers -- long and dare i say somewhat boring legal arguments to follow **

The black letter of the law requires an element of "commerce" for the trademark to be enforced. Without litigating the issue here, take a look at the Federal Court Jury Instructions on the elements required to proof trademark infringement:
http://207.41.19.15/web/sdocuments.nsf/18d8322df5fb351c8825728200016dd0/7f68a6ed2244da668825728a007ef89a?OpenDocument

If I have it made for myself and use the badge on my car, there isn't any intent to deceive a purchaser that the goods are made by the infringed party, e.g. Ferrari.

Then again there is the defense of trademark infringement called "fair use." I don't think an individual who makes a replica is trying to pass off his business or operation or even goods as "Ferrari" are they? Is making a one off replicas from original chasis/engines/interiors for my own personal use competing with Ferrari? Don't think so.

Here's a Supreme Court case on the fair use issue. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/articles/content/2006011001.html

I'm sorry but the intellectual property law is not about "ripping off" or even steeling nor is it all encompasing.

Here are some other "fair use" concepts that make my point: Can an artist draw a "Ferrari" logo on their painting without Ferrari's permission? Can you take a photo of the car, logo, engine, badge and copyright that image without Ferrari's permission? Can you use Frank Sinatra's image as your avatar without his estate's permission to do so?

I welcome your comments Bullfighter, and everyone elses, because it is an interesting debate. As in most legal issues, there are two valid arguments. And this is the slippery slope where we should be careful because it involves cars that we love. I think more and more in the future these replicas built on original 250 or 330 will be under attack. The last thing we should want is for Ferrari engines and chassis to be destroyed!

My main points are that the process is flawed (if it is or were to happen) and that there is a lot of legal precedence on the side of someone who owns or creates a replica Ferrari, or any other classic car for that matter!

To those who think that the practice of customs taking cars and handing them over to a private company for destruction is the right thing to do, think about this. What if your car is mistakenly confiscated by some customs agent without any hearing, judge, jury etc? Then it's handed over to be crushed! You are in the right and suffer irreparable damages. Who are you going to sue?

The right remedy for Ferrari would be like everyone else, go through the courts and properly assert their claims. Have a judge or jury determine what the facts are and the legal remedy, say money damages or removal of all Trademarks etc.

So I could see a case where the hypothetical 250GTE owner who converts to a GTO is sued by Ferrari. The court could rule in favor of Ferrari, but what are the damages? Zero because the owner is not selling or representing the item as made by Ferrari or an original GTO to another buyer are they? No.

Hopefully Ferrari is not going to roll the dice and have a jury or judge especially in a country like Belgium or Germany rule on this issue! Think of the horror if they lost!

Cheers!

 

What if you take a 308 and put panels, wheels, and rear view mirrors on it to make it look like a 288 GTO? Is that not a replica along the same lines as a 250 GTE being made into a 250 GTO? Granted, not as much of a change, but the intent is the same: to make the car something it is not, and to make it "not as it left the factory". What, then, if you only changed the rear view mirrors? What if you only change the wheels? Where does the original manufacturer's authority about what you do with "your" car end? A slippery slope, indeed (as much as I hate either of the above examples).

George

 

I totally agree with you, Tony. IMHO if it's a Ferrari from birth then an individual should be able to do with it what they will. Unfortunately Ferrari does/did not always subscribe to that philosophy.

Example:
Bob Norwood currently builds P4 replicas and 308/GTO rebodies and has for a number of years. Early on Ferrari caught wind of his cars and decided to seek legal action against him. Ferrari's lawyers kept a close eye on Bob and his works and found out that he also created a wooden F40 replica body mounted on a stretched 308 frame. Ferrari felt that, if completed, this car would be a competitor to the real F40 since it was made during the F40 production run. As part of the "deal" Bob took the wooden body off the 308 frame and burned it before any molds were taken from it. After that Ferrari decided to no longer persue Bob and his projects as long as he doesn't sell them with any Ferrari badging on them.

Additionally, the 308 frame used for the F40 currently sits in James Patterson's Norwood Performance garage in Dallas as an ongoing project. It has a black carbon fiber 288 GTO body mounted on it with a twin turbo V12 (Testarossa heads) nestled tightly in the rear.

 

Nobody's going after me. I don't have, nor do I approve of EITHER fake Ferraris, i.e., a Fiero or MR2 with phony body panels, nor an original 250 or 330 - which admittedly started life as an authentic Ferrari, but was then re-bodied. As I stated earlier, I would never even put a 288GTO "re-body" on my humble 308.

I really don't approve, personally, of either one.

I really don't think that Ferrari is going after individual owners, just the companies who are mass-producing and offering for sale cars with Ferrari badging that have no relation whatsoever to genuine Ferraris.

THAT is the point that I'm trying to make: Some people here seem to think that Ferrari would confiscate any car that's not completely original from anyone, any time. I don't think that's what is happening.

Our friend "ferraridigest" says it well:

Again, there is strong legal precedent for Ferrari to have a company selling replicas shut down and their inventory of fake cars destroyed. I think that this is ALL that has happened; Ferrari still, to my knowledge, has not gone after individual owners of genuine, albeit re-bodied, Ferraris.

Morally - and, I think, legally - Ferrari has a right to enforce their trademark by attempting to prevent commerce in "replicas" such as those built on Pontiacs and Toyotas.

As for re-bodied 330's, 250GTE's, and even 308's, I don't approve, but I don't expect any legal problems for their owners.

I agree that this could begin a descent along a "slippery slope." But that's not who Ferrari is pursuing.

Clear?

 

Please read what I wrote about Ferrari's efforts to seize and destroy several 60's re-manufactured F1 cars. We're talking single digit production figures. If those cars are "threatening" to SpA, it's odd that they would have released the factory blueprints to the re-manufaturer in the first place, isn't it? But, clearly, it's the owners who are at risk of losing their assets. Not the re-manufacturer.

CW

 

i suspect you are correct on each point you make.

i was thinking that back in the great imsa racing days, how many 911 platforms were converted/rebodied to make rsr's, 934's, and 935's?

how many narrow bodied 911's have been converted to widebody 930's?

how many 84-89 911 carreras have been back dated to 911 carrera rs's?

there is no difference in the forgoing examples as there is in the gte to gto conversion discussion....none!!

pcb

 

lots of great legal specific info, thanks ferraridigest

i understand 'fair use' aspect, as it pertains to artists for example, where the subject or images in the work may be Ferrari (or Ferrari content) but is not an infringement strictly speaking

i fully understand and agree against full-fledged fakes, a replica built with a fabricated body and a non-Ferrari chassis, as was the case of the toyota/355 replicas

in the rebody (hypothetical) example, i can't seem to understand that there should be any legal reason to not use the Ferrari nose and shields on the car after it's rebody work is done, afterall, it started and remains a legally registered Ferrari, despite that the bodywork being of a different model
IMO this should be legally acceptable (in this example)


here is an extention of that hypothetical, that the business doing the rebody work decides to build several, advertises and sells said rebody Ferraris, and does not hide the fact that it is a rebody, built from a registered Ferrari donor, with original donor VINs intact
IMO outside of Italy, this seems to me a difficult thing for Ferrari to act against, like you say, without risk of having a precedent not in it's own favor

wouldn't you say?

 

ROFL! Comparing Ferraris to Porsches!

there is all the difference in the forgoing examples as there is in the gte to gto conversion discussion......all!!

For starters, there's the question of numbers: 900 gte's made. 9000000000000000 911's made (have I forgotten a few zeros?).

 

Well, if you get down to specifics, there were 1,430 911 S coupes built in model year 1973, and 1,750 in '72 -- those are the 2.4 litre years. Those are prime cars for RS "Tributes", so they tend to get cannibalized.

It's certainly more than the 250 GTE, but I wouldn't call it an endless supply. Also, Porsches tended to be driven hard and left to rust. That's why top tier, numbers matching 911S's bring six-figure prices.

So, I'd say Ferraripete has a point.

When you get to the 3.0 and 3.2 litre cars, then yes, Porsche ramped up production as Ferrari went into the 308/328 era. There is effectively an endless supply, just as there is an endless supply of Ferrari 360s in red/tan.

To get back to the thread, I would say that the Ferrari badge should only be affixed to cars made by Ferrari -- not cars made in someone's garage from parts made by Ferrari. As to whether the fakes should be crushed, that's up to whoever has custody of them. Bottom line is that if you're looking at a GTE rebodied as a GTO, and it has a Ferrari badge, it is effectively a counterfeit.

 

so... if I were to borrow a friends CD he purchased at the store... (ya remember those??? LOL) and I took it home... put it on my computer and burned a new copy for myself including printing the same image on the top... that is a counterfeit correct?

Or is the sale of it and the representation of it what makes it counterfeit?


In my opinion, if someone states that there vehicle is a replica of... or replica based on a... etc... then it is not a counterfeit. They are acknowledging it for what it is. and it is a replica. They are not stating it is the real thing.