CSX6000 say's,
Quote:
|
...like my car. Replica? I think not.
|
Judge Walsh, trademark court, disagree's, would you like to appeal?
In his written opinion, he found no distinctive difference between an FFR or a Shelby, both being "replica's". Inferring that all other replica manufacturers have the same status as well, that of "replica".
He did not address the value or workmanship of either marque, FFR, Shelby or any other replica on the market. He only addressed the legal status.
Is a Shelby more desireable than other replica's offered on the market because of it's brand name alone? That would be a valid assumption. It carries a terrific brand name and has a closer connection to history than other replica's. It often carries the highest respect within the market place. Market prices support the idea that a Shelby retains a higher re-sale value than other replica's on the market. The details of any given build could be argued and compared, but when the smoke has cleared they ALL have one thing in common, they are ALL replica's.
"Kit" cars essentially, all though the preferred term is "roller" in the case of a Shelby and other similiar builds. But somebody OTHER THAN the manufacturer (in any case), by Federal law, must complete the car. As it is "incomplete" when it leaves the factory, it begs the question, what is it? Roller? Kit? Replica? Shelby prefer's the word "Continuation", generally accepted by the masses, so perhaps it is becoming or has become valid? It's tricky though, as it can lead to confusion and increases the possibility of fraud, now and into the future. To suggest that it is a "real" Cobra because Shelby built it, crosses the line, in my opinion, from carefully hyped advertising term's to out right fraud.
The key being Shelby does not, cannot by Federal law, specify the end product details. Could be a Roush motor, small or big block, and a myriad of other details.
"Continuation" should be considered synonymous with the term replica, in Judge Walsh's opinion.
Threaded Mode
