Shelby's latest lawsuit, who's next?

[vanoochka]

Originally Posted by bdeutsch

In my company/industry vertical, we protect our IP as the most valuable commodity we have (which it really is). Everything an employee creates or patents becomes the property of the larger corportion; it is a condition of employment.

Wouldn't your company's most valuable asset (BTW, IP is not a commodity) be the employees that are doing the creating?

[mr bruce]

Relax Maricopa, the KoolAid drinkers reference was a joke son. As for all the "Cobra" stuff I make, you're rite I ain't named in the lawsuit, so let's all just sitback and let the big boys settle in court.

[jshel1]

Personally, I would rather see the GR1 concept car be produced by Shelby.

[elmariachi]

Originally Posted by vanoochka

Wouldn't your company's most valuable asset (BTW, IP is not a commodity) be the employees that are doing the creating?

In my opinion that depends on who owns/runs the company. To some, the assets of a company DO go home at night. To others, we are all just Pokie and Gumbie. But to bdeutsch's point, in the last 20 years companies have finally figured out that everything they ever do is potentially of future value, so everything that can be is trademarked, copyrighted etc. But if in fact Shelby allowed his rights to lapse, as is being suggested, then he may find it hard to assert claims that he owns the Daytona Coupe and any commercially available likeness. Surely the FFR boys would be smart enough to not jump in the murky shark-infested waters twice and have sought legal advice before launching the "Type 65." I guess we'll all see.

[Dave Schwaab]

As I read this latest suit, it seems to be aimed more towards the Daytona Coupe as his intellectual property. I remember his put down of Pete Brock for the original design of the coupe; now he wants to add his name to the SPF Coupe, as updated by the same Pete Brock, as the new CSX9000 series continuation car. Of course, he'll also add a bunch of bucks to the price tag as his profit.

Years ago, he lost interest in Cobras and let his trademarks and patents lapse while he pursued other interests. Now he wants it all back, with interest! To me, he is just a bitter old man. I feel sorry for him. The real damage to his reputation, and his legend, is being done by himself! While I respect what he and the team accomplished 40 years ago, I have lost all respect for him now.

[VE4MM]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwaab

As I read this latest suit, it seems to be aimed more towards the Daytona Coupe as his intellectual property. I remember his put down of Pete Brock for the original design of the coupe; now he wants to add his name to the SPF Coupe, as updated by the same Pete Brock, as the new CSX9000 series continuation car. Of course, he'll also add a bunch of bucks to the price tag as his profit.

Years ago, he lost interest in Cobras and let his trademarks and patents lapse while he pursued other interests. Now he wants it all back, with interest! To me, he is just a bitter old man. I feel sorry for him. The real damage to his reputation, and his legend, is being done by himself! While I respect what he and the team accomplished 40 years ago, I have lost all respect for him now.

Well spoken sir!

[vanoochka]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwaab

Years ago, he lost interest in Cobras and let his trademarks and patents lapse while he pursued other interests. Now he wants it all back, with interest!

I once searched for tm registration on a product name and found that although it was registered, the mark had lapsed. Even so, outside counsel insisted that we get a letter of release from the company that held the original (now lapsed) tm. It was no big deal, so we paid them a small fee and received the release.

Another time, we wanted to use a product name that was never registered, but was in use by another company, and had been for some time. Again, outside counsel advised us to get a release from that company. This time, it was a big deal. When that company refused to give us a release to use the mark, counsel advised us to come up with a different name.

So, at least one IP attorney's advice says that even if a tm has lapsed, or has been in use yet never registered, you are at risk in using it. This attorney (initials GR, for those who know) is generally considered the leading expert on IP law in silicon valley.

I know next to nothing about IP law, but the above situations show that it at least possible that CS is getting legal advise stating that, even though the mark(s) has lapsed, he still has a legitimate claim to it (them).

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL OF YOU AND YOURS, AND BEST WISHES FOR A SAFE AND PROSPEROUS 2009!