1965 Daytona For Sale

[moore_rb]

Originally Posted by strictlypersonl

It drives me crazy that people are still injecting "Shelby" into their descriptions. It is a violation of Copyright and just aching for a lawsuit.

I respect that it drives you crazy. However, I don't understand why. Because what you wrote above is not a legally accurate statement.

The word/name "Shelby" by itself, is not owned by anybody. Only when it is applied to a product or service. And that has nothing to do with Copyright.

"Copyrights do not protect ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries: they only protect physical representations. 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). Anything unrecorded is not copyrightable"

-Source of the above quote: Copyright Basics

It is 100% true that if a person were selling their car as a "Shelby Cobra" that they would be opening the door to Trademark (not copyright) infringement (Once by SAI for using the "Shelby" name, and once by Ford for using the "Cobra" name in description of their car)...

But using the terms "Cobra" and "Shelby" as generic terms within classified advertisements does not violate Copyright law.

Now, using an official Shelby (or Ford) advertising publication in your ad (For example: If you embedded an image of the cover or pages from a Shelby American Brochure), then this would be a legal infringement, and a violation of Copyright law.

Ditto if you posted picture(s) within your ad of a Shelby Continuation car (or of an original 65 Shelby Mustang), instead of posting pictures of the actual replica car that you are selling, then this would be considered as legal Trademark infringement.

To prove Trademark infringement to a judge, the litigating Plaintiff/owner of the Trademark in question has to prove to the court that the Defendant willingly, knowingly, and deliberately used the Trademarked term to describe their product as something that it is not...

"The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods."

Source of the above quote: https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metasc...omain/tm.htm#7

And so- When the term "replica" is used in immediate prefix (or suffix) to any commercially trademarked term, no legal infringement is implied. There have been hundreds of court cases which have solidified this legal precedent.

The term "replica" is a legally valid, verified, and trusted term for preemptively clearing the seller of any intent to create purposeful "consumer confusion"; and as long as the seller doesn't say "This kit car was personally signed, endorsed, or otherwise approved" by Carrol Shelby, then they don't have to worry about Trademark Sponsorship violations, either.

(You hear that, all you Superformance sellers, and all you guys with signed glovebox doors...? It might be best just to include an image of the signed glovebox in your ad, but don't mention a word about it in the written body of your ad.- Just my humble opinion )

Carrol Shelby's signature anywhere on your car, is not a legal endorsement of your car by Shelby American, inc.

And so - When a person publicly offers a replica of a Shelby Cobra for sale, it is no different (and no less legal) than offering Chinese replicas of Rolex and Breitling watches for sale, from suitcases on street corners, all over downtown Manhattan. Trying to sell your Chinese watches as actual Rolexes, however? Yeah- You're busted.

Even the Cobra emblems that guys stick to the noses, trunks, and steering wheels of their cars, are products which are manufactured, sold, and used under license, by the owner of the trademarked "Cobra" term (Ford Motor Company)

So, if you list a car for sale as a "Shelby Cobra" then absolutely- You might get in trouble with Ford and/or Shelby.

But, if you list a car for sale as a "Shelby Cobra Daytona Coupe Replica" then they would have a very hard time convincing a judge that you were deliberately trying to pass your 50k fiberglass copy off as an 8 Million dollar automobile...