There, now that didn't take long did it?

Al: You have to read what I say through their "eyes" or "perspective". What I say in black and white doesn't matter.

;)

Your even quoting yourself now????**) :LOL:

So far not one of you has made enough inroads to shake a bowl of jelly more less the foundation of my position but as long as you all think so I guess that's all that matters. :D

Facts, law and Registry my friend. Facts, law and Registry.

Guys this is a settled matter.

Evan already agreed with Ned Scudder, the SAAC Cobra Registrar, and myself and said his Shelby Cobra replica is a true replica of the original series. Post #235, page 12 of the "How do you handle the questions?" thread posted on 9/02/15:

"I agree. It's a technically a true replica of the original Series Cobra. No argument."


http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/all-...ml#post1361452

Ask him if the other replicas are "technically a true replica of the original Series Cobra" - which they are :LOL:

And we're back!

That statement is so true. I buy/sell cars for a living now, and have found a few things to keep my mouth shut about.

I can buy a few cars very cheap that had problems from the factory with bad pre cats. So I fix the precat issue, then rebuild the engine will all new parts, then sell the car.

I used to tell people the car I was selling had a newly re manufactured engine. All new parts, and the receipts to back it up.

The next question was "who built it". When I told them I did, the next words out of their mouths would be "what kind of warranty do I get", or just funny looks. This is on a $4k vehicle that is over ten years old.

People disregard the fact that the new engine is running perfectly, no funny sounds, or blue smoke, leaks, etc. So now I just keep my mouth shut when they ask why the engine is so clean.

The entire "replica" issue is a red herring to me. That term has taken a number of definitions and each person applies the definition he wants. Others are caught up in that term using the definition they believe is correct or supports their position.

The "kit" issue to me is immaterial also.

Couldn't care less really about those terms as the arguments are circular based on the definitions used at the time.

Some here, however, can't see past these terms and can't or won't see or refuse to see the simple answer.

One thing that is not debatable is that the Continuation Cobras are Shelby Cobras factually and legally and the only car that can leave its MSO seller legally being referred to and identified as a Cobra or a Shelby Cobra by the MSO seller. You also have the SAAC World Registry. Simple answer.

Factually and legally anything that is not a Shelby Cobra (save for a few exceptions) are not factually and legally "Cobras" at all but merely copies of Cobras. Nothing wrong with that but that's what it is. What's comical to me is that everyone here that doesn't own a Shelby Cobra and participating on this thread takes umbrage at being told they don't own a Cobra but a copy when they themselves know they own a fake but at the same time have no problem telling me I don't own a real Shelby Cobra and in fact delight in trying to explain why I don't own a real Shelby Cobra when I obviously do. Again, facts, law and Registry.

You guys do know you own fake Cobras right?

Game over.

Well, I and the other Kirkham owners, do own Cobras. Right there in the SAAC World Registry.

But anything not made in the 1960's is still a Cobra replica. No argument, right?

Evan,
I am assuming that you are doing all of this thread while on billable hours to someone.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist!

Yes, according to the Registry which I agree with for a number of reasons Kirkhams are modern current day "Cobras". In the 60s you had AC Cobras. Today you have Kirkham Cobras. No argument. As to the "replica" issue depends which definition of "replica" you are using.

1. Websters definition 2. SAACs definition or 3. the commonly understood meaning of replica as meant by Joe Public "not being an original"? Which one?

1. Shelbys are a "replica" based on the Websters definition. None of the others under this definition even rise to the level of being a "replica".
2. Shelby's are not replicas based on SAAC's definition.
3. They would be "replicas" based on the 3rd Joe Public meaning.

Again, the term "replica" and "kit" are unimportant to me and side shows. But to answer your question here you go.

This may be giving Evan a little heart burn, you're asking him to agree with Judge Walsh :LOL:

"In 1992, Shelby began to produce “continuations” or
replicas of the original Cobras, including the Cobra 427
S/C, primarily in kit form. A kit typically includes a chassis and body,
but the purchaser is then required to assemble and complete
the car with a transmission and engine and possibly other
parts. Mr. Shelby identified the replicas of the Cobra 427
S/C with the designation CSX 4000.
Shelby has sold the Cobra replica kits for $50,000 to
$150,000."

No. That would be unethical. Don't tell me you don't trust me? :p

I don't disagree with Judge Walsh. Nope.

I don't disagree with the fact that the Federal Rulings protected the trademarks and allow only one MSO seller to label, tag and identify there cars as Cobras and Shelby Cobras. That would be SAI.

Do you disagree with the Federal Courts on this point? :MECOOL:

That's a yes or no question sir.

Stay with the Walsh Ruling, you're almost there.
It's as simple as your A, B and C's ...

A. Shelby Continuation
B. ERA, SPF, BDR, FFR, EM, Kirkham, Contemporay, Unique etc.
C. Kit Car Replica of the 1960's Shelby Cobra

Per Judge Walsh A=C
Also per Judge Walsh B=C
Therefore A=B, are we good?

It continues to amaze me how NOTREAL1 can continue to repeat the same answers over and over again, even though no one has asked the question.

We all agree with you, UNREAL1, that continuation Shelby replicas, such as yours, are legally able to use both the Shelby and Cobra moniker. And no one else can, legally. Except, of course, the 90's Ford SVT mustang cobra, a worthwhile addition to the Cobra nameplate.

Still doesn't raise your replica to the status you seem to think it possesses. The much heralded 1986 Shelby Omni GLHS wears the same Shelby moniker. But keep on trying, I'm sure you'll eventually convince somebody how important your replica is. If it didn't bother you so much, no one would give a crap.

Now watch him pontificate and attack, once again validating my assessment.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwHETnBT1Tw"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwHETnBT1Tw[/ame]

:LOL:

See post #151 and you should clearly have my answer on this "replica" issue you are hung up on. You keep using the term "ruling". Walsh's ruling had nothing do with the issue of whether one vehicle was a "replica" or not a "replica" but if it makes you happy feel free to read it that way. I'll let someone else explain the difference between a ruling and dicta.

You didn't answer my question. Since you seem to accept "rulings" of Federal decisions as dispositive answer the question.

Almost there. :LOL:

As to the last sentence in your post are you talking about that video about "can't keep a clown down" ? :LOL:

As far as the "status" my car "rises" to "in my mind"...tell me just what status does it rise to in my mind? Tell me. :rolleyes: I'm sure it doesn't rise to a status higher then just another "replica" in your mind. That's cool. That's fair. No problem with that. That's your mind not mine and obviously that may be why and you don't own one. Who knows, who cares. Certainly not me. ;)

Anyway, I'm stick'n with the law, facts and the Registry. That's my story and I'm stick'n to it! ;)

P.S. Thanks for the long over due concession in your second paragraph. Didn't hurt too much I hope. :D

Oh, come on, you insult like a girl. You can do better than that. Around here I'm viewed more like this clown.



"https://www.youtube.com/embed/piyCcRWn3-w"