Has any one else seen this? http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060510/MONEY/605100302 I guess I will need to change my Company Name if this is TRUE.
.............I just Cut & Pasted this from the actual article that I read. Mustang mayhem Stockton firm faces suit by Ford for trademark violation MICHELLE MACHADO Record Staff Writer Published Wednesday, May 10, 2006 Mustangs Plus owner Ron Bramlett sits with one of the Mustangs that he provides parts for Tuesday. The Stockton parts store was ordered by Ford Motor Co. lawyers to stop using the sports car name. ________________________________________Credit: DOUGLAS RIDER/The Record STOCKTON - Mustangs Plus Inc., which has spent 25 years building up its specialty parts business under the Mustang moniker, now must tear that trademark from its business and Internet domain names or face a suit by Ford Motor Co. Compliance with Ford's demands will negatively impact company value in the present and company sales in the future, said Ron Bramlett, a partner in family-owned Mustangs Plus at 2353 N. Wilson Way in Stockton. "I was a young man when I started this. You work half your life and then have it snatched," said Bramlett, 52. Ford also is trying to protect the value of the business it has built since 1903, said Gregory Phillips, a partner in the firm that drafted the cease and desist letter. "The courts have recognized that a trademark name such as Mustang is an important asset of Ford Motor Co.," Phillips said. The Feb. 16 letter from Howard, Phillips and Andersen, a Utah law firm representing Ford on intellectual property enforcement matters, asked Mustangs Plus to: » Transfer to the automaker the registration for mustangsplus.com. » Submit to government offices all forms necessary to discontinue registration of the Mustangs Plus name. » Cancel Internet and telephone directory listings and advertising under the Mustangs Plus name. » Turn over for destruction all signs, banners, business cards and collateral materials. » Issue a check to Ford for $10,000 in damages. Since 2000, the firm has sent "hundreds" of similar letters to businesses perceived to have trampled on Ford trademarks, Phillips said. Ford has been successful in collecting damages in most of those cases. While most businesses settle out-of-court, about 50 lawsuits have been filed, and all of those were resolved in Ford's favor, according to Phillips. The scope of trademark infringement actions could be widened to include publications and organizations that use Mustang and other Ford trademarks, he said. In the 1990's, Ford sent guidelines to selected restoration parts manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, including Mustangs Plus, authorizing the use of trademarked names as long the business name was accompanied by a qualifying word or phrase such as "vintage" or "classic." Bramlett and his partners believed Mustangs Plus met that criteria, and a decade of silence from Ford quarters deemed confirmation. Bramlett believes that the use of the Mustang name by those unaffiliated with Ford amounts to free advertising. Mustangs Plus owner Ron Bramlett sits in his golf cart Tuesday at his business that provides parts for the sports car. Ford Motor Co. is cracking down on independent companies, including the Wilson Way store, using its Mustang trademark. ________________________________________Credit: DOUGLAS RIDER/The Record "I have to believe in those years Mustang was glad to have people use the name," Bramlett said. That argument has been rejected by the courts, Phillips said. Harry Pulliam, owner of Mustang and Muscle Parts in Oakdale, in the mid-1980's received a letter similar to the one recently delivered to Mustangs Plus. "I told them a long time ago I would be willing to sell Chevy parts," he said. Now, two decades later, a legal battle would hardly be worth his while. "I would just quit," he said. Intellectual property is a gray area of the law, said Gregg Meath, a Stockton attorney who teaches Internet and computer law at University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law. Meath said that Mustang Plus' use of the trademark is likely fair since it is descriptive and does not imply affiliation with Ford. "How else are they to tell people what it is they do?" he said. But, he said, a court battle would be a "big guy vs. little guy" fight that would cost Mustangs Plus tens of thousands of dollars. "We try to wear the white hats and be reasonable," Phillips said. "It's already bad when you have a big company come after a little company." For now, Mustangs Plus and Ford are at a stalemate. "We've spent some time with our attorney, who has spent some time with them. It's very costly and it's going nowhere," Bramlett said. Phillips also voiced frustration with the lack of resolution. "Ford is not trying to put this guy out of business. We've offered Mustangs Plus a reasonable transition period of three to six months. Mustangs Plus partners, who include Bramlett's brother, David, will likely not sign the Ford agreement, viewing such an action as an admission of guilt, But they have decided to rename the business using the word "restomod," a term referring to car restoration and modification that Mustangs Plus copyrighted. The wording of the final name has yet to be ironed out, though: That decision must wait for another business to relinquish its hold on the "restomod" moniker. Contact reporter Michelle Machado at (209) 943-8547 or mmachado@recordnet.com Wednesday, May 17, 2006 If this is TRUE, then I guess I better work on changing the name of my Business of 8 Years (MUSTANG F/X, Inc.)
It looks like this is true for the time being. There is a one page article about this in the June 2006 Mustang Monthly on page 10. Ford's actions here could have a very adverse impact on a lot of people associated with Mustangs and the Mustang hobby. IN ADDITION to that there is some verbage on page 21 of the same issue that states "Right as we went to press we learned that SHELBY is also getting into the trademark enforcement act. At least one Shelby parts dealer has been contacted with instructions to discontinue selling products with the Shelby trademarks GT350, GT500, and Shelby. This includes stripe kits and emblems in an attempt to discourage the building of Shelby clones. In the future those items will only be available through Shelby and only after proving ownership of a genuine Shelby vehicle." If the above are in fact true, we all should be disturbed by the lawyers, accountants, and greed that are driving these initiatives. These things are very "disturbing" to say it nicely and my answer to both companies (if the above actually occur) will be - fine go ahead, I hope you both go out of business for your actions. I will not support either company with future purchases. I hope others follow the same thought process.
Not only is what (above) has been reported, 100% true, but on July 1st it will be "black Monday" for the Shelby hobby as Carroll Shelby, on that date, has taken away all the licensing rights for all parts sold thru outside companies. Period. Enjoy the $ 39.95 65/66 GT 350 stripe kits that you have bought in the past? Well, now you will have to prove ownership of a REAL Shelby car and you will only have to pay $ 300.00 (if not more) for the same kit (and you can only get it from Carroll)!! Both Ford and Shelby have made a mess of this and it is ALL in the name of money and control. Control of you (as a cash-paying hobbiest), control of the market, control of your money, control of what you drive (or maybe what you DON'T drive, anymore). Carroll has gone Hollywood and unless you are willing to "taste the Cool-Aide" as his folks so nicely put it and play his way (or Ford's way, for that matter) you will become a statistic. There is an old rock-and-roll song that says "you ain't seen nothing yet" and you know what, you better believe it! SGB
I think it's a little too late for this kind of action and I have no knowledge of exactly what set of circumstances has motivated these actions but I can say that the clones have caused a significant distraction for Shelby Autos and Carroll personally. Many people have bought these cars under false pretences, believing them to be real and they continually call Shelby Autos as well as Carroll's personal cell phone looking for authentication. This doesn't seem like a manageable solution to the problem but they do own the trademarks and can enforce their use as they see fit. Stephen, I understand your sentiments but with all due respect related to the comment above, I think it's a bit inordinate. Nobody's controlling your money or what you drive or don't drive. Control is just not the right word. They may be influencing or altering what you drive or don't drive, as well as how/where you choose to spend your money, but not controlling. Randall
Thanks for the information. I am now in the process in changing my company name now. All I am changing though is the First Letter from "M" to "N" and calling it NUSTANG F/X. I figured that since I am now doing mostly Newer Mustangs, the "NU" can stand for "NEW" and the "STANG" is short for "MUSTANG". That should keep the big dawgs off me (I hope). Also since MUSTANG F/X had a Six Month Sell off period for the Licensed Tribute Edition Shelby kits for the 1994 to 2005 Mustangs, I personally purchased the remaining kits. I plan to keep a few for myself and sell the rest so I guess I should go up on the Price.......LOL. Again, thanks for the information.
"They may be influencing or altering what you drive or don't drive, as well as how/where you choose to spend your money, but not controlling." Randall, you are partially correct - controlling was not (really) the best word but it is the only thing I could think of, at the time. However, it is a pretty good word for what is happening, as are your words! I really have no problem with the aspect of the clones and such being driven into extinction. I, too, feel that the clones and "bad" cars have hurt the hobby (I am sure I will get a lot of hate mail about this quote) but it is how I (and others) feel. I understand that your grandfather's attorneys and Ford's attorney's will be at the nationals (both SAAC and MCA), in force, this summer, looking for folks (and companies) that are doing business using these "no-no" names and serving them notice, on the spot, of their violations and the fines involved with it. I also support their right to fine people (on the spot) who have clone cars that are carrying Shelby and Shelby related items (stripe kits, qtr plexiglass windows, etc. etc.) - I understand that they will allow these people the chance, once they have seen the car and items on the cars, to buy a "license" from Shelby (or Ford) so that they could keep the items on their clone car. I, too, agree that these actions are a little too late as the horse is already out of the barn! Folks, get out your checkbooks because it is going to be a long, hot (costly) summer......... SGB
If it were not for the Tony Branda's , Mustang's Unlimited and so forth, the hobby would have dried up long ago, and NOS parts would not even be in reach of the common person. If your going to tell me Ford and Shelby will start production of all the parts that are OBS and place a fair market value to them, think again. It amazes me to see Ford protecting something they let go years ago. When was the last time Ford made money, thats the real story. Tout
The one problem that I have with what you say is that the CLONES should be fined too. The problem there is that the owners of those cars bought the parts legally and now you say that they should get fined for buying something legally and legally puting it on there Mustang. I can understand setting a date and saying ANYONE caught producing the items with out a License from Ford or Shelby should be fined. If you fine the owners of the Clones for having the parts that were sold to them legally from the the venders who, at the time, sold them legally, then shouldn't the Shelby owners who bought the same parts from those same Venders be fined as well. If both the Shelby Owner and the Clone Owner buy the Same Part, at the same time, from the same Vender, Legally, then you can not fine one with out fining the other. You CAN how ever, limit who you sell to. If you dont want any Clones built, then control who can sell the items and control who they sell them to.
This discussion is the funniest bit of hysteria I have read in a long time. Police are going to visit your house and see if your 40 year old car has illegal reproduction parts on it. Clone detectives will skulk around the edges of swap meets and parking lots .... their keen eyes darting back and forth... "is that a Branda tach on that 65" ...... "your under arrest fella.. you can't put that battery in your trunk" You can do anything you want to something you own.. You can't sell something that is falsely represented ....that is fraud. Shelby can demand a royalty if something is sold using one of his names. That is fair. My clone has no purchased repro parts on it. All the parts are used original or I made them myself. This is a Sun Super Tach 2 ($39. bucks) and about 100 hours of artwork that I loved doing. I made it because the repro's were 200 bucks and they looked cheezy and fake. BTW the disc that spins with the needle is the exact same size as a nickle (5 cents)
That is a great looking tach - how long will it take you to take it apart and remove the trademarked CS racetrack?? No hysteria here, pal, just real world the- s***- is- comming- down- the- pike happenings. SGB
I'll ask Carroll about this to see what direction they are really taking but I can tell you that right now they don't have the resources to even keep up with the unlicenced items listed on eBay so I can't imagine they will be enforcing anything at your local car show or anything like that. Let's just not get too worked up about this until we know for a fact what changes will be made and what actions will be taken. Randall
Steven and I agree that this happening and in the end it will effect everyone ,even Steven , who owns and sells original cars. No , I don't see CS or Ford people looking at cars that are done, but they will try to stop it in the future, the bad thing is that we the owners will be paying for this every time we purchase a part from Ford or CS,no competion means higher pricing. In the end the original cars will comand higher dollars, but who will want to buy into this mess. Tout BTW, I find it pretty hard to believe that someone could pass off a car as an original today,the cost involved with the resources available and the great work of the registry make it near impossible to sell a clone as a real car. The people involved with clones just want a car that they usally could not afford in the first place and I have no problem with that as long as they say it's a clone up front.Not that putting a clone together is cheep,not today. One other thing, the owners of clones usally have nicer cars than some of the real ones, why? easy ,real owners are still trying to pay for the basket case the just over paid for......
This is all a bit surreal. Did I miss the date and this is April 1st? Of course OEM manufacturers like Ford would like to kill the aftermarket, and control all parts which are available for their cars, thus garner post-sale parts revenues. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for us as consumers, there will always be a choice of parts made by others. In my view Ford and Shelby have the right to defend themselves from trademark infringement. But as noted by others in this thread, many of these parts have only been available from third-party sources for a number of years...for both legitimate Shelby owners and cloners alike. It is unlikely that Ford is going to start making such vintage restoration parts, thus companies such as Branda will likely find an amenable solution with Ford and Shelby. As far as selling to only "certified" owners, what a bureaucratic headache that would create, and it would cost more to administer than it would help. If either Ford or Shelby decide to "license" clones, they better be prepared to add those cars to the registry...not something that either are ready to do... by licensing and legitimizing clones, more damage would be done to the marque than by leaving things as they are. In my view, if someone spends 50k or 100k on a clone thinking it is the real thing, then that is their fault for not doing their homework, contacting SAAC, etc. Plus, looking at recent prices for vintage Shelby's and the pre-release hype generated by the 2007 GT500, I doubt that anyone can insinuate that clones have damaged the marque or the value of original vehicles. On the contrary, the more Shelby's turning heads on the street, the more the public wants one. I guess it is not big brother whom we should be afraid of, but rather little-brother. Perhaps we should all remember "Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery." Steve GT350
Interesting question.. CS owns a newer version of that logo.. (the outward shape is a parallelogram.. not square) the old one is square and I believe it has become public domain
Only being involved in the hobby for the last year I can't believe how dirty it is out there. There are a lot of legit dealers, shops, etc.. However, there are more ilegitimate cars, dealers, and other crap. I come from the internet business and I thought there were fraudsters there, man. Anyone who owns a real Shelby should recognize that all Ford and Shelby are doing is protecting their brand. Any brand that is worth a crap will fight tooth and nail to protect themselves. Why do you think MSFT and others fight piracy so rigoursly? If you brand becomes a commodity it loses it's appeal and value. With Ford and Shelby working together again and the 2007's going for $20k over MSRP, you can bet there will be people enforcing this out there. If I see a guy trying to pass off a regular mustang as a Shelby at a show, I will drop a deuce on his hood, no questions asked. I have nothing against clones but don't go trying to sell the ...king things on Ebay or anywhere and as a real Shelby to a new hobbiest. Nothing like burning a new buyer in the hobby and turning him away from buying anymore cars down the line. It hurts all of us when someone burns someone else. You may as well just start discounting your car now if that is the case. It's the new buyers that will drive this market long term and if they are getting burned, it is NO BUENO for all of us. The only reason I bought the Unique Performance Supersnake is because Unique worked with Shelby American to license the name and Shelby approved the cars to go into the next registry. Without that, no way I buy that car. Robbing parts, trying to pass off clones, all that crap is so low budget it makes me puke. When these cars were built people had a lot more integrity, honesty, and less greed. I hope these guys succeed in starting to clean this hobby up a little bit. Mike
Since Ford and Shelby are doing this, and I am sure it is a matter of time before Ford comes after my Company (MUSTANG F/X, Inc.), is anyone here in the legal know how, that can tell me if these three names would be in jeperdy if I choose one of them? (01) NUSTANG F/X, Inc. (02) MUS-TANG F/X, Inc. (03) MUST-ANG F/X, Inc. Thanks for any help.
How about 'Stang F/X? stangfx.com is currently available. Also looks like the TM thread is flowing through the FoMoCo Classic Mustang site, with a list of Ford board member addresses to send snail-mail, should anyone wish to press the issue with a load of paper. Cheers, Steve GT350