Continuation Cars

[KevinW]

a bit late to the scene, but the funniest thread ive ever read.

the pavlov thing - superb - still laughing.
evan- you're great. keep it up. btw i cant see your car pics.

[khansmith]

So.....my car is like cold war rip off coffee mug that has a picture of "mick the mice"?

[Bernica]

I believe SPF only received the license from Shelby after Mr Shelby sicked his lawyers on them for using the Shelby Cobra name. He got his pound of flesh and granted them the license in the settlement. I recall the actual court docs were floating around on the net a few years ago.

[Excaliber]

Well there was a serious lawsuit going on between Shelby and a couple of other manufacturers. Notably FFR and SPF. As I understand it SPF came to the conclusion that it was just good business to settle with Shelby and stop spending money on costly litigation. OK, makes sense. Beyond that I believe SPF's position is that Shelby really DOES have a case and thus they (SPF) support his efforts sue OTHER manufacturers. That's that part that really burns my azz.

I don't agree with their position, me and a few thousand other people. Shelby lost the right to the Cobra body shape fair and square after much deliberation and much money was spent in court(s). It passed to the public domain, where anyone is free to copy and use that shape. No replica manufacturer owe's him anymore than a "tip of the hat" and a "hearty thank you", which he deserves, but financially, nothing more that. Shelby continues yet another suit against FFR, while SPF basks in the glory of a Shelby license deal. Disgusting...

[Bernica]

Yep. Disgusting. And the lawyers get richer.....

[m5extc]

To clarify a few things, most of the comments are sort of right. CSX cars are produced by HST & Hi Tech. Although they are "the same" they have very distinctave differences. CSX cars are considered component vehicles. Superformance MkIII's are produced under a licensing agreement. The confusion is that the GT40 SPF IS a continuation car. The MkI Daytona coupe is as well. The MkII is now going to be sold only under the Shelby label under another recent deal. The SPF Grand Sport Corvette is another continuation car...the chassis numbers pick up and number 6, as the Duntov's only officially produced 5 Grand Sports. I hope this clears the air at least a little.

Andrei

[PANAVIA]

what if you like your mug just the way YOU made it. -- BTW: here is my mug.

[RodKnock]

Your mug is green too, just the other mug in your garage.

[REAL 1]

Whats wrong with lawyers getting richer? Works for me. We all work to succeed. I'm sure you would have no problem with yourselves getting richer at what you do.

[lineslinger]

Originally Posted by REAL 1

Whats wrong with lawyers getting richer? Works for me

Nothing wrong with getting rich, I retain quite a few who do quite well, but they manage to display a little class to go along with it.

[REAL 1]

In general Client's generate the litigation. Without client's seeking to redress some claim there are no cases or need for courts. Lawyers advocate their client's position. Client's retain lawyers not the other way around.

I'm not clear on what the current Shelby suit is claiming However, SAI apparently thinks they have some claim or right to be vindicated and it is their right to pursue it should they want and have the funds to finance the litigation and feel its worth the expense.

What exactly is the claim(s) by SAI this time?

[Excaliber]

I'm not positive but I think the fundamental issue(s) have to do with FFR and related web site(s) improper use of the "name" Cobra. That could also include other "names" as well, like "427" or "Coupe" or any number of variations of "Shelby Lingo" (FIA, etc. etc.). In effect using the name(s) to promote their product, as it were, with a wink and a nod toward the web site(s) in question. Something about claiming the same people that own/run FFR are in fact "owners/operators" of these web sites. At least that is the argument being presented as I understand it.

It may also involve the "shape" of the Coupe, same song and dance we saw with the "shape" of the Cobra in that regard.

Shelby thinks he has a claim and a right to just about ANYTHING that even remotely related to SAI in some way, that's a given. Nothing's changed there. He certainly has the money to pursue it. IF he is successful he could potentially "corner the market", perhaps there is enough money at stake to take a shot at it? After all, he eventually wore down SPF who caved in to his demands, so while he "lost", he might have still "won" in that sense!

I don't buy into SPF's clever marketing ploy for a second with their talk about "Shelby deserves a piece of the action." BS, they puckered up and planted one right where Shelby wanted them to.

EDIT: Found a link to the actual court filed suit.
http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/c...ctory-five.pdf

[SP01715]

SPF made a business decision. I am sure they weighed their options and made the decision they felt was best. When I was a business owner I had to make similar decisions. There were issues that came up that I would have loved to have fought, but sometimes I had to listen to the advice of my attorney and come to a compromise.

[Excaliber]

A business decision I can understand, eliminate the competition, increase the bottom line. In pursuit of this business decision they openly acknowledge and support the idea that Shelby is entitled to compensation for the shape, design of the Cobra body. In SPITE of the courts ruling otherwise.

Essentially they are giving the finger to the American courts, to anybody that doesn't pay up to the man, to themselves. It is grossly unethical.

[REAL 1]

If the issue is improper or unauthorized use of the names "Cobra", "Daytona" or any other protected mark or name Shelby and SAI is 100% correct and justified in my opinion and I wish them luck. Period.

As to the shape of the coupe, a perhaps more tenuous claim.

[Excaliber]

I agree Evan, but this is not the case. I can't see where Shelby has a leg to stand on here. It is at best a frivilous suit and I would expect FFR to counter sue on those grounds.

As to the shape of the Coupe, in a previous settlement on this issue Shelby agreed to dismiss any future claims as it concerns FFR and the "shape" of their replica "Coupe". I would expect this portion of the suit to be dismissed easily as a result.

EDIT: Look I don't like or want to be a Shelby or SPF "basher". But I don't want to bury the truth, as I see it either. I have, through out my adult career made choices as to who I would like to do business with. Working for them, with them, investing with them, whatever. Along the way I've had to make some tough decisions, "Are these the people/person I want to support, to do business with?" We will all draw that line somewhere with somebody. Just don't lie to YOURSELF to justify entering a partnership that you know in your heart doesn't feel right.

[RedBarchetta]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Just don't lie to YOURSELF to justify entering a partnership that you know in your heart doesn't feel right.

So, Ernie, let me ask you this. If Shelby found a way to argue (for his gain) the intellectual property rights on the Cobra design, its naming conventions, etc. and reigned in every copycat manufacturer out there, does that mean that you wouldn't own a Cobra because he wasn't playing nice? Don't beat up the guy (in this case, SPF) that decided to back away from a gun fight because they didn't want to unload their war chest on lawyers and decided to rather unload the same war chest on growing their business. Smart? Arguably. Cunning? Absolutely. Strategic? The jury is still out.

-Dean

[Bernica]

So, where's Peter Brock in all of this litigation about the Coupe? After all, it was his brainchild and design. I suppose he does reside under the SAI "thumb" as an employee of SAI at that time.....

[Excaliber]

I have no problem supporting Shelby and his right to his products as well as his right to defend his products. His right to license his products as well! He wanted to stop ALL other manufactuers from producing the shape/design of the Cobra. OK, fair enough, let's take it to court. He did, he lost, it's public domain. ERA, FFR or who ever can legally build a replica car now, so can SPF. They didn't NEED a Shelby license to do so. They CHOSE to get one for increased profit. It wasn't the "lawyers" who said, "Do it". It was the bean counters!

In pursuit of "profit" (greed is good?) they really stuck it to the rest of the replica industry by their word's and deed. I wonder would I be OK with a continuation Shelby in my garage? Maybe, I really don't know. Would it "eat at me" to the point where I would eventually sell it because it just didn't feel comfortable? I don't know...

Would I feel comfortable with an SPF in my garage? No way! UNLESS it was a friend who needed my help or a place to park his car for a bit. I'll still admire and enjoy his car with him. For me? Don't want one, wouldn't have one if you gave it to me, it would be a curse.

[REAL 1]

First, is there a lawsuit currently pending by SAI against any replica manufacturer?

Second, lets be sure we understand the claim clearly?

Third, lets make sure we are clear on the previous settlement terms.

Then we can talk intelligently about this. Likely we are missing something here.

Further, I see nothing wrong with SPF paying for the license from SAI to receive the status so to speak of being a licensed Shelby replica. Just because SPF doesn't need the "license" from SAI to build replicas doesn't mean they don't value the cache' of being an officially licensed Shelby replica. I doubt there is anything in the previous settlement that would stop such a voluntary deal between two business interests. If others don't want the "license" they don't have to pay for it if you are right on the terms of the previous settlement. Apparently SPF saw value in the "license" and the relationship enough to pay for it. They are smart in my book.

Are you sure the previous settlement incorporated the shape of the Daytona in the terms that were deemed in the public domain?

As far as not owning a SPF or Shelby because you don't like the fact SAI may be suing another replica manufacture and trying to stop them from making a competing product, first if its not a meritorious claim it will lose or be thrown out. If it is he may win and therefore was entitled to relief. Third, this would not be the first time business interests sought injunctions against competitors. It happens all the time.

Let me ask you this. Do you own any equipment or cars manufactured by companies who supported the German war effort in WWII or Japanese companies that manufactured equipment for the Japanese war effort. Why not boycott them?