Ferrari sued by Ford

[feynman]

Everyday things, electromagnetic frequencies, you name it:

[dice782]

OK in that case I will claim the trademark on the numbers R32, R33, R34, R for my name and 32 for my age! So if Lotus Renault decides to use them in the coming years I shall seek damages. See how easy it is?? Ferrari just doesn’t want the trouble and bad publicity.
You can trade mark 386, 486 or 150 by style, font and the image it portrays it’s not a trade mark on its own. You can not own the right to be the sole user of the numbers. There is a clear difference between Ford'S F-150 and Ferrari's F150 F is for Ferrari and 150 for Italy’s 150 years. I got no idea what Fords F-150 is for?
Intel owned the intellectual rights to the 486 architecture yes because it was the product of the time and money they invested in creating it, but 486 is not the part of the intellectual property. You could go to a computer store and ask for a 486 computer and you would not know what you got an Intel or an AMD?? Therefore that's why Intel chose to distinguish their 586 architecture by calling it a Pentium and as a trade mark it still works brilliantly until now. Try buying an AMD Pentium! F150 does not distinguish the identity of a Ford 150 or Ferrari 150 years? That is the pure and simple reason why Ford cannot win if they want to distinguish their F-150 truck from F150 racing car or an F150 lawnmower engine they need another name. That’s why you are wrong and that’s why Ford need to do more consultation with their IP lawyers!

[feynman]

OK in that case I will claim the trademark on the numbers R32, R33, R34, R for my name and 32 for my age!

You claiming them in an internet post isn't quite how the process works.

A little bit more to it than that, go check the website of your local trademark and IP registrar for details.

Let's all agree to try and keep the conversation this side of sensible.

[Giblet]

I attempted to patent the "upper-case silent 5", but since I wasn't able to write one they rejected it outright.

[feynman]

I attempted to patent the "upper-case silent 5", but since I wasn't able to write one they rejected it outright.

More famously, Harley-Davidson attempted to register as a trademark the distinctive "chug" of a Harley Davidson motorcycle engine. On 1 February 1994, the company filed its application with the following description: "The mark consists of the exhaust sound of applicant's motorcycles, produced by V-twin, common crankpin motorcycle engines when the goods are in use". Nine of Harley Davidson's competitors filed oppositions against the application, arguing that cruiser-style motorcycles of various brands use the same crankpin V-twin engine which produces the same sound. After six years of litigation, with no end in sight, in early 2000, Harley Davidson withdrew their application.

[Agenda_Is_Incorrect]

They had active, and massively valuable, trademarks in two specific sectors, and another company wanted to market an identically named product in those sectors, Ford management would have been reckless and negligent to allow such a transgression to go unchallenged.
Considering the importance of F-150 to Ford, there is no way anyone can seriously or legitimately criticise Ford for protecting legally aquired and properly maintained trademarks and IP.

It's never clever to start salami slicing trademarks, oh an F1 car doesn't look like a truck, that's not relevant, what if GM or Toyota built a track-only racing truck called the F150, what if they built a road-going version of that separate racing truck. It doesn't matter, Ferrari infringed someone else's trademark, and they knew it; they folded without any resistance because they knew full well they were bang out of order and were banged to rights.

Anyone more sensible than the ridiculous US law on that subject can seriously criticise it and also Ford. Had Ford let it go I doubt the trademark would be lost and they would avoid sounding and being unreasonable. Volvo is playing that game.

If a commercial version was available later, as you exemplify, then they could step in.

It's hard to keep a sensible conversation when the law regarding it is a huge nonsense.

[feynman]

If a commercial version was available later, as you exemplify, then they could step in.

And lose.

Explain precisely on what basis would they be able to make any claim in court ... if they had previously failed to protect the mark in any of numerous previous hypothetical infractions. If the court saw they weren't bothered about a bunch of other F150s actively occupying the same trademark classification, and the defence would leave the court in no doubt about the history of trademark negelect, why would it, how could it, find in their favour in any later arbitrarily brought action. How could a court possibly justify restraining a rival business and upholding a mark that Ford themselves had seen fit to neglect.

For all the pages, round and round, it really isn't very complicated, the trademark offers specific marketplace protection in exchange for a commtitment to actively maintain and defend that mark. It is a very straightforward arranagement

The priniciples of Trademark protection apply internationally, although administered regionally, it's not a "ridiculous US Law" so let me wind you back in before you continue with any more of that tediously banal anti-americanism.

... for all the huffing and puffing from those opposed, the fact remains that Ferrari knew straight away they were in the wrong, their overnight backtrack is all the evidence you need that they knew full well they were breaking the law, and they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on. And rightly so.

Ford were standing up for law and order, Ferrari were trying to pull a stunt as part of a crass election campaign.
How Ford ended-up the bad guys for doing the right thing in the correct manner, will require more explanation than anyone in this thread has thus far mustered.

[Pandamasque]

F-150 airplane anyone?
http://www.planecheck.com/index.asp?ent ... 0629&cor=y

Floodlights maybe?
http://www.amazon.com/Hubbell-Lighting- ... B001T285O6

NOTE: Those two have a dash after 'F'. Ferrari didn't.

Screws?
http://www.amazon.com/Kreg-Tool-SML-F15 ... 294&sr=1-2

For all the pages, round and round, it really isn't very complicated, the trademark offers specific marketplace protection in exchange for a commtitment to actively maintain and defend that mark. It is a very straightforward arranagement

More on this please. Is F150 single seater race car in the same 'specific marketplace' a pickup truck? Those 3 items I posted above have much more in common with Ferd F-teenthousanth than a Formula 1th car.

Call it anti-americanism, bit until Volvo tries to sue Sauber Motorsport I call it BS!

[Agenda_Is_Incorrect]

I don't think this case would qualify as a neglecting, at least in other parts of the world and as Volvo is proving. But since this is the straightforward ridiculous US Trademark law interpretation they might have a point in covering all possible basis, with the expense of justified and understandable bad publicity about them. Loads of people are calling Ford greedy bastards over the internet because of it. I don't think this makes them greedy bastards, but sure I dislike the attitude as well and think they could let it go unnoticed without harm for anyone.

Also, I'm certainly against blind and rhetorical anti-americanism and that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that the way the Trademark law is seemingly implemented there, and conveniently used by many companies, is nonsense and leads to arbitrariness. If you are an American company who wants to use the "obligation" to defend your trademark to provoke old rivals, win money easily, fend off legitimate competition or make market reservations then go ahead and sue people for the most unrelated things. If you don't want to bother with defending trademark against unrelated products, it's ok as well. Like Volvo did, like Apple didn't sue Microsoft for the use of the number 7, like VW didn't sued the Beatles and so on.

The way this law has been implemented in the US is bad and goes along the lines of many others related to commerce, consumer, trade and stocks that have dangerous loopholes for anyone inside or out that chain and that constitute the many times true image of an overly litigious country that allows people to be sued by commemorating an important national anniversary.

This is what me and I think others are criticising and not the whole America, and if what I just said wasn't true the current crisis would be smaller or non existent and there wouldn't be so many histories about absurd juridical measures like this going on.

The crass election campaign is a right Montezemolo has just like using the number 150 is for anyone and for Italy to commemorate its unification. Denying that right has nothing to do with law and order and that's what's making them looking like the bad guys. Do you realize how bad it sounds to do that in the light of this particular situation?

BTW, I bet the next Renault F1 will be called R32 without VW bugging it about their R32 models.

[myurr]

I know someone in the UK who's a bit of a serial inventor of 'novelty' items. He was taken to court by Apple because he produced a paper notepad styled like a computer tablet that he called the iNotePad. He was forced to back down over it, despite it being one of his best selling products. They also forced him to change his logo from being a pear with a bite taken out of it because it was too close to theirs, despite being a completely different fruit.

There is no way you could confuse a computer tablet with a few sheets of paper and yet Apple would have won the case. He also had a trademark rejected for 'clitoris allsorts' for being derogatory to women, but his revenge was to successfully apply for the trademark 'The UK trademark office has no sense of humour'.

It's also funny that you bring up both Apple and the Beatles, as the two have been locked in legal wrangling over the trademark Apple (The Beatles own Apple Corps, a record label) for over 30 years. Can a computer with an Apple on it be confused with a record label? Apparently the trademarks clash and there have been numerous court cases as the two try and sort it out - all under UK law.

The point is that it's not just the US, it's IP law in general that sucks. Brands do need a certain amount of protection, otherwise it's too easy to steal a competitors image, but the current protections go to far. Same with patents, the current protections go too far.

Ford don't own the number 150, they own it within the context of motor vehicles and with an F in front of it. You're free to use that number to celebrate whatever the hell you want. But you couldn't launch a car called an F150 without Ford suing you. That Volvo haven't bothered defending the C30 trademark has no relation in this case - there are a myriad of reasons why Volvo didn't bother that aren't relevant to Ford. The F150 is the best selling vehicle in the world, has a huge amount of merchandising to go with it, and is the most important vehicle in Ford's lineup. The Volvo isn't any of those things, and nor would a Sauber C30 encroach on it's market in the same way as a Ferrari would. Likewise the R32 is a model number rather than a car series so the trademark may not be that generalised, and / or VM may not feel the need to defend it. If Ferrari called their next car a Golf or a 320d then you could bet they'd be taken to court over it. And I dare you to make an unrelated product, say a box of washing powder, and slap a Ferrari logo on it.

What I, and others, are defending is not the law. I personally don't like Ford particularly as a company, but feel that the vitriol being spouted at them across the internet because of their defence of an important trademark is utterly misplaced and I feel compelled to speak out to defend them. Ferrari could have stopped all the bad press, but chose to ignore Ford's initial request forcing their hand. Ford tried to settle this amicably, but were forced to take legal action if they wanted to retain one of their most important trademarks.

So in summary, attack the law not the company - that is where the fault lies. And don't for a second believe that Ferrari do not take legal action to defend their trademarks.

[Pandamasque]

...like VW didn't sued the Beatles and so on.

Well, who knows why they changed a letter the that word. At least it's not Beetleth.

[Richard]

myurr got it spot on. Don't blame the law, blame Ferrari who ignored convention and got into a needless tangle.

I suspect the ridicule probably bolstered Ford's motivation to sort it out. The merchandising is also a big issue. Whilst it is hard to mistake a F1 car for a pickup truck, how can you differentiate a t-shirt or cap with the letters F150 on it, who gets the royalties, how can you spot a counterfeit?

Lets take that further, Porsche endorse various products such as kettles made by Siemens. I think you can get Porsche sunglasses too. So what happens when Ford or Ferrari want to have a F150 range of sunglasses? Who gets a slice of that market?

Finally, here's the story of Volvo and how it should be done, along with a cameo appearance from Ferrari:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_Cars#Current_models

Originally, Volvo was planning a different naming scheme. S and C were to be the same, but "F", standing for flexibility, was to be used on station wagons. When Volvo introduced the first generation S40 and V40 at Frankfurt in 1994, they were announced as the S4 and F4. However, Audi complained that it had inherent rights to the S4 name, since it names its sporty vehicles "S", and the yet-introduced sport version of the Audi A4 would have the S4 name. Volvo agreed to add a second digit, so the vehicles became the S40 and F40. However, that led to a complaint from Ferrari, who used the Ferrari F40 name on their legendary sports car. This led to Volvo switching the "F" to "V", for versatile.

[mx_tifoso]

A humorous approach to this ordeal:
http://www.grandprix.com/columns/mauric ... risis.html

[Pandamasque]

A humorous approach to this ordeal:
http://www.grandprix.com/columns/mauric ... risis.html

Thanks. That's a great one.

[gibells]

I know someone in the UK who's a bit of a serial inventor of 'novelty' items. He was taken to court by Apple because he produced a paper notepad styled like a computer tablet that he called the iNotePad. He was forced to back down over it, despite it being one of his best selling products. They also forced him to change his logo from being a pear with a bite taken out of it because it was too close to theirs, despite being a completely different fruit.

There is no way you could confuse a computer tablet with a few sheets of paper and yet Apple would have won the case. He also had a trademark rejected for 'clitoris allsorts' for being derogatory to women, but his revenge was to successfully apply for the trademark 'The UK trademark office has no sense of humour'.

It's also funny that you bring up both Apple and the Beatles, as the two have been locked in legal wrangling over the trademark Apple (The Beatles own Apple Corps, a record label) for over 30 years. Can a computer with an Apple on it be confused with a record label? Apparently the trademarks clash and there have been numerous court cases as the two try and sort it out - all under UK law.

The point is that it's not just the US, it's IP law in general that sucks. Brands do need a certain amount of protection, otherwise it's too easy to steal a competitors image, but the current protections go to far. Same with patents, the current protections go too far.

Ford don't own the number 150, they own it within the context of motor vehicles and with an F in front of it. You're free to use that number to celebrate whatever the hell you want. But you couldn't launch a car called an F150 without Ford suing you. That Volvo haven't bothered defending the C30 trademark has no relation in this case - there are a myriad of reasons why Volvo didn't bother that aren't relevant to Ford. The F150 is the best selling vehicle in the world, has a huge amount of merchandising to go with it, and is the most important vehicle in Ford's lineup. The Volvo isn't any of those things, and nor would a Sauber C30 encroach on it's market in the same way as a Ferrari would. Likewise the R32 is a model number rather than a car series so the trademark may not be that generalised, and / or VM may not feel the need to defend it. If Ferrari called their next car a Golf or a 320d then you could bet they'd be taken to court over it. And I dare you to make an unrelated product, say a box of washing powder, and slap a Ferrari logo on it.

What I, and others, are defending is not the law. I personally don't like Ford particularly as a company, but feel that the vitriol being spouted at them across the internet because of their defence of an important trademark is utterly misplaced and I feel compelled to speak out to defend them. Ferrari could have stopped all the bad press, but chose to ignore Ford's initial request forcing their hand. Ford tried to settle this amicably, but were forced to take legal action if they wanted to retain one of their most important trademarks.

So in summary, attack the law not the company - that is where the fault lies. And don't for a second believe that Ferrari do not take legal action to defend their trademarks.

Very well said Myurr.