Shelby's latest lawsuit, who's next?

[elmariachi]

Just to clarify my prior royalty comment I made:

- Notice I separated Shelby's property (as is defined by the law or in this case the outcome of the lawsuit) from the Cobra, for obvious reasons. In the case of the Cobra it has been decided by the courts that the body design is not distinct, thus he is not due a royalty. Unless you market it as a "Shelby" Cobra replica, in which case I suppose he will sue.

- I also wrote either a royalty OR consent.

I am not suggesting that you and I mail a royalty for our cars to Carroll Shelby. What I am offering for discussion with respect to the lawsuit is manufacturers in this sport need to be sure they are 100% square before they start producing rather than after. Anytime you go into business and you use a design or property of another (Shelby, Ford or otherwise) you should expect that if you fail to acknowledge the creator (via a royalty or via consent) you have opened yourself up for litigation. If you create derivative works (meaning you derive your product from that belonging to another) then you have an even bigger issue on your hands that could involve theft of an existing design. Either way, you have the choice of resolving it up front or resolving it after the fact. The latter is always more expensive, just ask Microsoft. Again, I do know the full history of Shelby's actions and comments as they pertain to his claims of ownership.

I do have a dog in this fight because I have invested in a replica and may invest in a business related to this hobby. But if we all have to live in fear of lawsuits from Shelby, then replica ownership may be the extent of it for me.

[Gatorac]

Originally Posted by elmariachi

What I am offering for discussion with respect to the lawsuit is manufacturers in this sport need to be sure they are 100% square before they start producing rather than after. Anytime you go into business and you use a design or property of another (Shelby, Ford or otherwise) you should expect that if you fail to acknowledge the creator (via a royalty or via consent) you have opened yourself up for litigation.

Just put aside the emotion of this issue for a moment. The points that elmariachi makes are valid and interesting. What did the existing replica manufacturers do to make sure they where "square" with any trademark issues regarding these cars? Did they do anything or did they just decide to make a replica because it had been done before so there must not be any issue with it?

Please don't jump my Shlt. I am not taking sides with CS here. But, how many of us have taken are hard look at things from the other side here?

How much does the old guy have to do in the day to day operations of the companies with his name? Perhaps the management of those companies are doing whatever they can to gain competitive advantage. Lots of people here say "if only CS makes Cobra replicas then not many people will be able to afford to buy one" as an argument. The fact that there are a lot if people that may want and not be able to afford your product are not usually a very important aspect of a business plan. The issue you are concerned with is are there enough people that want your product that can afford it. Is it realistic to think that once CS dies that all this will go away? Somehow I don't think so. Isn't there some Italian guy named Enzo that is still producing cars long after his death?

Why is it that profit is associated with greed. Who here knows the real financial situation of the companies producing the 4000 series cars? Didn't we see a few years ago the CS enterprises was not producing a profit? Profit is not a dirty word. It's a requirement for a business to remain in business.

Perhaps I'm wrong and someone on here has had a conversation with the guy where he said that he personally wants to sue the replica companies to get more money.

I know, I know, I have a BDR blah blah blah. I've had 2 FFR's too, Blah blah blah. That doesn't mean crap. I had to assume that the manufacturers of the cars I purchased had done their due diligence on any trademark issue. Didn't we all?

I'm sure the reason FFR is the first target is they are the company with the most resources. If CS wins against them, all the other replica manufacturers will give in pretty quickly.

Discuss...

[jmimac351]

Originally Posted by Gatorac

Just put aside the emotion of this issue for a moment. The points that elmariachi makes are valid and interesting. What did the existing replica manufacturers do to make sure they where "square" with any trademark issues regarding these cars? Did they do anything or did they just decide to make a replica because it had been done before so there must not be any issue with it?

That would be a question for Dave Smith but as I understand it the courts have ruled against Shelby on the trade dress thing so it should be moot now, right? (I like saying "moot"). Did they contact Shelby before they started producing cars to ask if it was ok with him? Who knows. Would you ask permission to do something you thought you had the right to do?

Re: SPF... It's interesting that the claim of damage to a brand is occurring because of replicas when apparently the exchange of money through licensing suddenly stops that same damage from continuing??? Which is it?

If Shelby really wanted to put heat on FFR he would totally change his strategy. FFR claims to not want to be associated with the Shelby brand. What if Shelby approached other replica manufacturers and proposed some "authentication" process that resulted in some nominal fee? Include them in a registry category of some sort. Issue certificates signed by Shelby for $$$ a piece. It would create revenue for Shelby. He would be embracing his enthusiasts, etc. The courts say Shelby doesn't have a claim. He's concentrating on spite and burning money through litigation instead of making money.