Dave Smith claims this:
"FFR's focal point of the Consent Judgment related to Shelby's claims of trade dress (the shape of the car) which obviously meant a great deal to us. When Shelby filed the litigation in 2000, he ran several statements which claimed he would obtain a $10 million damages claim and shut down FFR's production of our Roadster. We were quite prepared to litigate this to the end, and based on our expert report (and a later Judgment in the Superformance litigation that declared that Shelby's claims for trade dress were not protectable) we undoubtedly would have prevailed. That being the case, Shelby agreed under the Consent Judgment to Dismiss With Prejudice all claims related to the trade dress of all FFR kits including, but not limited to the Roadster AND the Type 65 Coupe. For those of you who, like me, aren't necessarily schooled in the legal jargon, "With Prejudice" means that the claims are forever dismissed and can never be raised again."
I wonder what is controlling is this case - the judge's order or the patent issued apparently after the fact? I hope a lawyer will speak up before I hurt myself.
