FFR prevails in suit against Shelby

[Excaliber]

Pretty much a re-hash of the same issue Shelby lost to SPF on.

"Trade dress", "shape" of the Cobra, the 427 S/C in particular. FFR alleges "fraud" against Shelby for filing a claim on the "trade mark/dress" in that the matter was previously decided by another court. SPF vs Shelby, where SPF prevailed.

In this case Shelby applied for a trade mark based on the shape of the 427 S/C Cobra (again?). FFR opposed him and filed suit to stop said trade mark from being issued.

The Administrative Trade Mark Judges ruled in favor of FFR. This is in fact a victory for ALL Cobra manufacturers.

Interesting quote for the Judge Walsh, who wrote the opinion on the matter, in favor of FFR.

...we find no meaningful distinction between what applicant often refers to as a continuation, on the one hand, and a replica, on the other

hand. Both applicant’s "continuations" and the third-party "replicas" are being sold principally in kit form.

Continuation, replica, plastic copy, whatevah', same same, well, at least Judge Walsh see's it that way. Just sayin',,,
Read the opinion on the matter by Judge Walsh here:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/tta...46-OPP-119.pdf

[RodKnock]

The full quote:

"As discussed more fully below in our analysis of whether Cobra 427 S/C design has acquired distinctiveness, the ongoing resale, at auction or otherwise, of the original Cobras from the 1960s is not relevant for purposes of this determination. Furthermore, we find no meaningful distinction between what applicant* often refers to as a continuation, on the one hand, and a replica, on the other hand. Both applicant’s “continuations” and the third-party replicas are being sold principally in kit form. It is evident that both are intended to replicate the original 1960s Cobras, including the Cobra 427 S/C." (*Shelby)

There's also another thread on the SAAC Forum too.

[392cobra]

So,in a sense the Judge ruled that Real 1's Cobra is in deed a Replica ?

[Bernica]

Originally Posted by 392cobra

So,in a sense the Judge ruled that Real 1's Cobra is in deed a Replica ?

HA! I knew someone would be calling Evan out to play!!!

[Excaliber]

The Judge did not sustain FFR's fraud charge. This whole issue is one of a trade mark acquiring "distinctiveness" to Shelby at some point in time. IS the Cobra 427 S/C distinct, associated mostly or exclusively, with Shelby?

That distinctiveness could be lost over time or be acquired over time. So, Shelby's trademark application sought to show that the mark (Cobra 427 S/C) HAD aquired a distinction SINCE the SPF vs Shelby lawsuit. Therefore, it was a good faith application for trade mark and not fraud.

In the future, Shelby may once again file for a trade mark by showing that at some point in time the Cobra 427 S/C has become distinct to Shelby. The basic problem is this: A couple of hundred manufacturers have been making "replica Cobras" for decades. Shelby has failed to take significant action to stop them for decades. What action was taken is to little to late. There is nothing "distinct" about the shape that is exclusive to Shelby at this time.

Establishing "distinctiveness" is a very high standard to prove or meet. Simply using a brand name for 50-60 years is not enough, for example. It takes a lot to prove your case. With so many manufactures making Cobra 427 S/C's, they are hardly "distinct" to any one manufacturer.

[Rick Parker]

So,in a sense the Judge ruled that Real 1's Cobra is in deed a Replica ?

I think I saw Evan standing on the Bridge, high above the water, with a copy of the Press Release in his hand and shaking his head.

[Great Asp]

The above post made me

E

[olddog]

My assumptions, from what I have read, is that the original SB Cobra was the design of AC Bristal, and Shelby just stuck a Ford drive train in it.

I would assume the 427 was Shelby's idea, but how much was he involved in the body shape changes required to make the FE engine and a more substantial frame fit in the car?

I would assume there was some collaboration, but I would expect most of the body design was the expertise of the Brits.

So just how much of the Cobra body shape was Shelby's work?

Or did he purchase all rights from the Brits?

[Excaliber]

According to at least one standard of trade mark law, it doen't matter how an item came about. Doesn't matter who first started, invented, shaped or re-shaped it. Doesn't even matter how long a company or an individual may have been using said item. The issue here is "distinctiveness". Is the item CURRENTLY associated by the market (the public) as being distinct to a particular business and/or person.

AC would be the next logical group to even have a chance at a trademark of the Cobra 427 S/C. But like Shelby, they have not vigoriously protected the item in question. Many other companies made use of this potential trademark design for a number of decades, with minimum action by any single party to stop them. It was the multitude of other companies using the image that made it NON-distinctive to anybody!

...don't matter anymore who started it, who gets credit for it or what became of it, to the court. All though, the origination of the 427 S/C body shape is still an interesting debate. AC? Shelby? Ford? Other employees? A collaboration? Ford computers were used to design the suspension, which in turn dictated the need for wider wheel openings. And the side pipes had to go somewhere. The design was for a race car first, if it looked cool after that, well that's OK too.

[olddog]

Well, I learned a long time ago that law has been perverted to the point there's no way for the common man (no matter how high the IQ) to make any sense of it. I don't try. I guess I was more interested in who has a logical legitimate claim more so than a legal claim.

You sure Ford had a computer capable of design work in the 60's? I thought key card systems was about as advanced as it got back then.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by olddog

Well, I learned a long time ago that law has been perverted to the point there's no way for the common man (no matter how high the IQ) to make any sense of it.

OD, I don't believe that's true at all. In fact, I believe every single legal doctrine can be explained to, and understood by, anyone with average intelligence. In that regard, law is just like information technology, or fixing Cobras, or rebuilding engines. If you know how to do it, you can make it sound very, very complicated (if you want to) or you can break it down in to easy to understand steps and explain it so that the listener understands it. I'm sure I know over a thousand lawyers; smart ones, dumb ones, and everything in between... and, being really smart doesn't have as much relation to success in the field as you might think. I sat next to a kid during 1st year law that had a graduate degree in nuclear physics. Man he was smart, I mean really smart... and he flunked out the first year.

[Mark IV]

Originally Posted by olddog

You sure Ford had a computer capable of design work in the 60's? I thought key card systems was about as advanced as it got back then.

Bob Negsted and Klaus Arning used the Ford computer (probably a punch card unit) to plot the travel of the 427 Cobra suspension in 1964. Klaus also had designed the IRS for the original Mustang that was dropped as an option before production.

[Excaliber]

You know that computer time using Ford resources would have cost a bloody fortune if someone actually had to pay for it! While Ford was done with the Cobra scene, at the very least, they looked the other way while their new fangled high tech computer was used to develop the 427.

What did computers use BEFORE punch cards, I wonder... ?

My first computer used a tape recorder to store/load data.

[olddog]

Originally Posted by patrickt

OD, I don't believe that's true at all. In fact, I believe every single legal doctrine can be explained to, and understood by, anyone with average intelligence. In that regard, law is just like information technology, or fixing Cobras, or rebuilding engines. If you know how to do it, you can make it sound very, very complicated (if you want to) or you can break it down in to easy to understand steps and explain it so that the listener understands it. I'm sure I know over a thousand lawyers; smart ones, dumb ones, and everything in between... and, being really smart doesn't have as much relation to success in the field as you might think. I sat next to a kid during 1st year law that had a graduate degree in nuclear physics. Man he was smart, I mean really smart... and he flunked out the first year.

I'm not saying you have to be smart to practice law. I'm saying you have to be well educated. The common man is not educated in law. He should never attempt to represent himself in a legal matter. Nor should he ever kid himself that he understands anything about it.

Having been through enough to have seen it up close, it is my opinion that fairness, truth, nor justice has any meaning. It is an adversarial system of winner takes all, and winning is all that matters, at any cost. Money talks, and the poor have little chance at fairness. A biased opinion but an honest opinion. In case your wondering, no I have never been charged with anything except a few traffic tickets.

What ever the outcome of FFR and Shelby's legal pissing match, I'm sure if I read it, my understanding would not be legally correct.

[LRRCobradreamer]

Hay, hay. I learned Fortran in 1968 using punch cards and there was computer time you could rent. We had two Burroughs 5500 (I think that was the number) computers at MSOE and they were huge. In 64? possible.

Ah the memories.

Lee

[Great Asp]

I ran background on a IBM 5150 machine with punch card programs when I got out of High School.

We had the cake box store units that could not hold the amount of information I can store on a flash card now.

E

[mdross1]

Cannot for the life of me see how these legal people can make these suits so damn long winded.No wonder why bills in Congress have so many pages to say so little.