[Shelby American Inc]

It has been interesting reading the “Cobra Creator: Carroll Shelby Speaks Out” thread and I appreciate the way opinions are being stated clearly while the contributors have remained civil with respect to the other guy’s opposing views. Perhaps the circumstance regarding the current litigation has finally been recognized as one we will all have to wait out and let the courts decide. Good for us if we can all go about our business, each keeping our fingers crossed for our individual hoped for outcomes, and continue to talk things over together. Several comments in the tread prompt me to give some additional information that may help in understanding the factual basis in the suit, though I don’t hold out any expectation it will change opinions.

Flyin-Freddie states he doesn’t see how Carroll, having admitted to selling the Cobra name to Ford, can now pursue his claim in interest to the name and trade dress. The current status of the “sale” you are referring to Freddie, was fixed as a result of a Ford- Shelby lawsuit settlement that enables Shelby to continue to have interest in the name and trade dress for all the 1960s era Cobras and replications, not the opposite result you suggest.

This is the string of events leading to that position.

1) The Ford and Shelby litigation established that the Cobra trademark had not been abandoned. This is important when considering the replica makers position that the trademarks are public domain. It is also important to recognize the litigation is recent - 1997. The judge’s Declaratory Judgement Order states: “The court concludes that Ford’s Cobra trademark has not been abandoned through nonuse, and has not become generic with respect to automobiles and automobile parts. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice, and judgment is entered in favor of Ford.”

2) Ford and Shelby then entered an agreement where by Ford conveyed rights to Shelby for the 1960s Cobra related uses of the rights owned by Ford. The “Settlement Agreement” sets forth the following:

a. The Cobra and Snake design trademarks are valued trademarks of Ford and represent valuable goodwill.
b. Shelby owns the name and trademark Shelby for use in connection with replicas of 1960's automobiles and clothing and related accessory items.
c. Shelby is the worldwide owner of the overall trade dress of certain cars manufactured by him from approximately 1960-1967 known as the 427 Cobra Roadster, 427 Cobra Roadster SC (1965) and Cobra Daytona Coupe, and Cobra 289 .... through the license discussed [below] Shelby has the sole and exclusive right to use the aforesaid name in connection with replications of such automobile as well as the right to replicate and/or to license the replication of the overall trade dress of the aforesaid automobiles through the manufacture of turn key models, kits, and/or miniature models.
d. Concurrent with the execution date of this Agreement .... Ford shall exclusively license Shelby through the License Agreement attached ... to use Ford’s Federally registered marks, Cobra and Snake Design, as part of the trademarks Shelby Cobra, and/or Shelby Cobra and Snake Design for use in connection with the replication (turn key or kit) and/or model miniaturization of the aforesaid 1960s automobiles [above] namely, 427 Shelby Cobra Roadster, 427 Shelby Cobra Roadster SC (1965), Cobra Daytona Coupe and Cobra 289.”

The effect of all of the above is that Carroll does in fact still have control over the trade issues related to replication of the original 1960's Cobras.

Freddie also suggests that Carroll admits to AC’s development of the original shape. This has never been an issue. The actual AC ace shape also has a predcessor. The point that is being missed here is that Carroll’s claim is to the 427 shape, which clearly came out the Shelby American development process and was produced by AC to Shelby specifications. Obviously, the same as to the very significantly different chassis. You need to get the order of the 31 AC cobras correct, which is, they were produced by AC after the Shelby American production was set, not before. The Shelby production is the precedent, the AC production the follow-on.

Finally, Freddie’s suggestion that $500 per car would change the direction of things would probably be correct had it happened at the time Shelby sought some recognition from the replica makers. It wouldn’t hold water today, given the very substantial investment that has gone into Shelby’s re-entry into the production arena. A case of too little too late. He is too heavily invested in the current production arrangements.

Hope this clears up some points, if not, at least it should help clarify our opposing view.

As to Dan Semko’s prediction of who will appear when the smoke clears from the loaded gun - I believe he will be surprised. Carroll’s grin will be quite clearly there. Dan you have been quite adroit in some of you observations, and spot on as to some of them. Don’t be discouraged if you don’t get them all correct. Incidently, I wish you wouldn’t use derogatory descriptions like “minions” when describing others employees. I assume your office staff would be quite offended to have that appellation applied to them. While you might quite understandably be dissatisfied with Shelby American having a new controlling interest, that doesn’t mean those that work for Venture are mindless followers, as the “Minions” label suggest. While, as one working for the company that is being controlled by Venture, I sometimes disagree with the direction things take, I still respect the fact that Venture produces composite parts for virtually every automobile manufacturer in the world, or has the opportunity to do so. That doesn’t suggest mindless workers.

Lastly, I am equally as frustrated as some of you are with respect to trying to find a consistent position as to where Carroll is on different subjects at different times. However, when we look at a magazine article that appeared when Carroll was in a guarded health situation, prior to heart transplant and kidney transplant and prior to the opportunity to re-establish production, it is quite understandable that his views might be somewhat contrary to what they now are. We must read historical articles in the context of the time in which they were written. Which one of us has not had difference views on the same subject as time moves on and different factors come into play?

Thanks for listening - and thanks for the civil dialog.