Shelby and SAAC at Odds

That's a good point. SAAC (under some name that does no use "Shelby" in it) could do an independent registry if they lost the decision on this subject. Of course, that not using the name could be problematic and the existing records assembled under the agreement may likely remain Shelby's legal property.

As far as registering Sheby Chili, would there be separate listings for pre- and post-cooking?

There's a lot of IP precedent for a mark to be protectd from another party even using the term for identification purposes. E.g. "mustang parts center" would not fly well with Ford and I'd bet "Unofficial Shelby Registry" would not fly well with Shelby. In fact, in the past few years, Ford has be forced to crack down on may small companies who are using the nake Ford or Mustang or similar in their business names in any form since that is a clear IP (tm) infringement. This is why it may, imo, it may be necessary for the courts to draw a clear and fine line so that everyone can move forward regardless of the outcome.

Sometimes whats necesary isn't pleasant, as any parent knows. Hopefully this all works out for the benefit of the all the 'faithful.'

 

68fastback says,

Therein lies the fundamental problem. Carroll wants to do it 'his way', the Shelby way, there will be no vote, no democracy, no recognition for those who have done it so well for the past 30 years. I wish him success in compiling his version of the registry. I could live with two registeries, it will be good for the community at large to have a cross reference.

 

Because this site is suppose to be "unbiased"...right

RussT

 

I enjoy viewing all the websites that have opinions on this matter. Let people say what they want (except obvious verbal abuse and "below the belt" cursing). That's what blogs are for. If you're looking for absolute truth, you're going to have to see what evolves through this whole process. I'm sure there will be documentation on the final results.

Don't forget, many comments are made from an emotional feeling.

 

Maybe he wants it his way beause he OWNS the rights to his Intellectual Property. Maybe the agreement stipulates the obligations of SAAC in sustaining use of such IP.

Also, you assume that the existing registry data is eclusively SAAC's property. I would not assume that.

No one under our jurisprudence system, as I understand it, can be foreced to incur any obligation to deploy assets legitimately at their disposal in any way that's hurt themselves (unless at the direction of the courts, etc.) That even applies to partners. It's why a person can't be forced to testify against themselves and, in many instances, their legal spouse.

I don't know whose website this is but if it's under the legitimate purvue of a Shelby organization it has no obligation to do anything than might damage the best interests of Shelby. That said, it seems this site has done much to be fair and open -- at least what I've seen of it. To my eye it does not appear the SAAC site could not sustain the same level of scrutiny -- not that that matters.

---

I guess I don't understand how SAAC feels they are being wronged. They were given a unique opportunity under an agreement that they've clearly and repeatedly violated. Certainly they are not genuinely disputing that -- if so they can just present all the compliance records to the court and that will be the end of that ...not going to happen, imo. If they were in compliance, they could have just provided all compliance records over to Shelby as the agreement stipulates -- no I'm not buying the SAAC spin, guys).

My guess, and purely MY guess, is that SAAC build a nice big (and usefull to all owners) sandbox ...felt they now have clout ...felt they could stiffarm/ignore compliance. This is just my opinion (I've been a strategist for a long time -- judge from actions, not words). When called to task they ignored. When pressed further they dug-in and stiffarmed. Shelby called in the the cards and now they're pissed. When people get pissed they attempt to revise history with spin.

By my reading this is where it's at, plain and simple. What would you do if you were Shelby? Let them continue in defiant non-compliance? There's a zero chance of that. SAAC needs to eake up and smell the coffee. Id they genuinely believe they have a higher calling for the benefit of the Shelby owners and faithfull they needed to step-up, "mea culpa" and put those interests first.

Maybe that can still be done -- dunno, but seems not.

 

Here is the way that it is, SAAC would not exist if it were not for Shelby, that`s a no brainer, and the new Shelby company and cars and employees would not exist if it were not for SAAC. I guess the way it sounded SAAC was not doing exactly what it was supposed to do by the licensing, but then again they must not have pressured them very much to comply, and why should they, they have been doing Shelby`s work for free since he basically quit. If he was really interested in his old belongings he should have gave them to some of his kids to look after. Chances are if Kopec would not have gathered them all up they would have been in a dumpster. If Shelby himself did not like the way SAAC was handling this deal he should have had the respect to call the guys personally and sorted out the problem. You don`t just hire a lawyer and try to take away what all the registrars and members did for free and was so proud of. Thats the way corporate America does things that is not how a real business man would do things. We all admit that SAAC was behind times in some areas, but it was miles ahead in doing the registry and info compiled over the years compared to other cars. All SAAC really lacked was a web site as good as this one and if this is Carroll`s grandson's, why did he not offer to do it for SAAC and his grand dad and bring them up to date. All this sounds to me like it was a lack of communication, I`m sure Shelby could have come to these guys and worked out a deal where there could have been 2 clubs and they both work together. I don`t think anyone cares if there is 2 clubs they just need to be worked out together where they both compliment each other and are profitable. If they work together on this they will both be better off. You can not blame the guys for being mad and saying some things out of the way because of the way it was handled. Lawyers never had to get involved in something that could have been worked out over a nice dinner together. Everyone knows it all boils down to money, and the way to start making money is to quit spending it on legal fees, all it takes is talking and negotiating. Shelby is our hero and SAAC is our hero, how about you guys not forgetting where you came from and work this out man to man and fire the lawyers.

 

A little history for those new to Shelby Automobiles and Carroll Shelby.
http://saacforum.com/index.php?topic=301.0

 

There are a multitude of examples of 'unauthorized' books about a person, in this case a car(s). Sometimes the matter ends up in court to be decided what if any wrongs have been done. A book about Shelby cars, the registry, does not automatically become Shelbys intellectual property anymore than a book about Elvis automatically belongs to his heirs. Documents given to an individual that works at and for Ford (not Shelby) that bear information concerning Shelby 'stuff' does not automatically make it Shelby property, intellectual or physical. When you give someone a 'gift' and then later demand payment the courts may well rule you cannot have the item back, nor would the receiver have to pay for it. It becomes 'their' property. A large part of this dispute is in fact based on what was 'given' and what was 'loaned' and how various items came into possession of various people(s). Where did it originate? Ford archives? Shelby attic? Trash can? Individuals? What Carroll can claim as his own, or not, will be decided after a fair hearing on these matters concerning the rights to intellectual as well as physical properties. I assume nothing, I am not clear WHO owns what or is entitled to what.

It is not even a given that the name SAAC is in violation of anything. It is certainly not owned, at this time, by anyone. That 'trademark' is in dispute, the matter will be decided by a hearing. There are many clubs and organizations using a celebritys name, with or without the celebritys blessing. That does not mean the celebrity owns their work, nor does it mean they have to 'absolutely' follow the party line and do only that which is specifically 'authorized'. It is a slippery slope when you demand an author(s) to edit their work to fit your personal agenda and wipeout freedom of thought. Carroll certainly has the means to produce a fine registry on his own, his way, the Shelby way. So do the staff that make up the group known as SAAC. I say may both groups prosper!

 

Oh, please!

Shelby was a legend before the BS of the mid-70s sucked the life out of performance cars.

All the record-keeping in the world doesn't make the cars something they were or were not.

SAAC has provided a valuable service, but equating Shelby's success to SAAC's work sheer lunacy, imo. (you know the forest for trees and all that <lol>).

And I suppose Ford had to get SAAC permission to revitalize the relationship with Shelby which, lacking SAAC's existence, would have had no value to Ford.

You guys are drinking the coolaid.

I suppose there are no legendary cars and drivers except those that have had a registry? Right

Look, SAAC has provided a valuable service. It has enabled many of Shelby's (and Ford's) creations to be properly tracked, authenticity vetted and has enabled many to avoid cloans of the charlatans. And to that I say Bravo, SAAC. Well done! And I genuinely mean that.

But Shelby and the cars would be legendary if SAAC never existed -- it would just have been a much tougher time on the Shelby enthusiast community and, just as sure as God made little apples, someone else would have stepped-up and gotten licensed by Shelby to fill that void -- becuse it fills a real need.

But to try to attribute Shebly's success and durability to something SAAC uniquely did -- let alone something uniquely beyond what opportunity was afforded them by Shelby under the agreement -- is sheer delusion, imo.

...ask the Cord Owners Registry <actually, there could be one! ...but the Cord cars would be what they are with or without one, imo>

...and what about the SVT Ford GT Registry -- did they make the Ford GT what it is?

Ok, I'll try to shut up but, please... keep a grip about SAAC's true contribution.

Shelby made himself a legend, SAAC didn't do that -- tho they did enhance the ride they got.

Btw, how's the Chevy Vega registry doing? Not well? Why not? Right, the cars suck. If there was a CVAAC the cars would still suck, the their legend of rust-to-perferation would be much better documented. Sorry.

Btw, Shelby has been a hero of mine since the early 60s - -when I collected newspapers and hauled them miles for 35-cents/100-lbs so as a kid I could buy Hod Rod mag every month to keep up with what Ford and Shelby and the others were doing. I've never owned a Shelby product myself, though I've drive quite a few. At least for my nickel, I can say SAAC has not augmented my enthusiasm for Shelby and his amazing cars one bit. While I've known of SAAC's work and it's truly comforting to know that great reservoir of information has been preserved, the intersect between Shelby's legend and SAAC, at least for me, is zero.

Even given that, I genuinely want SAAC's function -- performed by them or Shelby or a third party -- to continue, but not as a defiant organization in non-compliance with an agreement entered into in good faith with a man who generously shared a unique opportunity (SAAC registry) and who now apparently feels his best interestes are not being served and is calling his cards in under the terms of that same agreement.

Shelby giveth and Shelby taketh away.

 

Vernon...Here is the comment from Kopec I had posted on Team Shelby that got deleted. I am posting it here as text, not a link. I hope it stays.

"Everyone is naturally very curious about the Shelby Vs. SAAC situation. However, SAAC's lawyers have advised us not to engage in the displaying of selected pieces of correspondence on the internet. Nor should we respond publicly to any of Shelby’s printed statements. We are not paying these guys a hefty hourly rate just to disregard their advice. Answering allegations and presenting "evidence" in the court of public opinion may be of interest to club members and forum readers who view this as some kind of ongoing soap opera, but these kinds of things are best saved for presentation to the actual jury by trained lawyers if that becomes necessary. There are serious issues to be settled here, none of which will be decided on the internet. Forum members making comments or statements are free to say anything they wish, usually anonymously. They are not under oath to tell the truth, nor are they bound by perjury laws. Conversely, those with standing in the actual case could be called on to testify in court and anything written by them in a forum such as this could be presented as evidence. It does make you think before you write.

Several people have made statements regarding the licensing agreement that Shelby and SAAC's directors signed. Some have said they would like to see this document. That will not be possible because contained in the document was a confidentiality agreement. We could not post it even if we wanted to.

All this said, there seems to be some misinformation about the details surrounding what I discovered in the attic of Shelby's Gardena building. and what became of it. I have no problem laying out these details as I expect that if this matter finds its way into court I will be asked about them in detail. And I will say the same thing under oath than I am saying now. I offer them only to clear up any misconceptions and to hopefully set the record straight.

In the early 1980s, when I was visiting Los Angeles, I would stop by Shelby's Gardena facility to see Lew Spencer and Al Dowd, who were working as Mr. Shelby's administrative assistants. On one such visit, in 1984, Lew Spencer was showing me something the storage area in the attic above the offices when I noticed a long row of cardboard boxes stacked up, two or three high, against the eves. There were probably 100 or more. I asked Spencer what was in them and he said he didn't know. They were temporary cardboard file boxes with a handle which was used to pull out a drawer. Each drawer was filled with paperwork, documents, files of correspondence, work orders, invoices for parts, ledgers and financial records. All of the paperwork left behind by a medium-sized company which was no longer in operation. In the few drawers I opened I could not see any sort of organization. Things seemed to be thrown in haphazardly. Some boxes had obviously been spilled out and the contents scooped up and thrown back in the drawers. There were too many boxes to go through, each containing hundreds and maybe thousands of separate pieces of paper so I asked Spencer if I could come back the next time I was in town to take a closer look. He said I could spend all the time I liked.

Over the next ten years I was able to visit the attic perhaps a dozen or more times. Sometimes I brought one or two other club members with me. At first we were happy to make copies of what we considered the more important pieces of paperwork—usually anything with serial numbers on it. Some shipping orders listed 6 or more cars, all shipped on the same day. We often came in the summer when the temperature in the uninsulated attic was over 100 degrees. We had to bend down under the low rafters and there was only a single bare light bulb. Everything was dusty. The things we found were all pieces of a large puzzle but we quickly realized that not all the pieces were there. At some point, we knew we would never have enough time to go through each document or work order individually. And we didn't want to wear out our welcome (and Shelby's photocopy machine) so I asked Spencer if we could sort through everything and take entire boxes of stuff which I would pay to have shipped back to CT where we could review them more thoroughly and at a more leisurely pace. He said he would ask Mr. Shelby. He did, and Mr. Shelby said we could take anything we wanted because it had been there for 25 years and nobody had even looked in those boxes in all that time.

We separated out the boxes which had material that appeared promising. Since this was slow and tedious work it required several visits, over the period of a couple of years. As a box was filled we marked it to be saved and Spencer labeled them "Save for Rick Kopec" with my address on them. His worry was that somebody would give the order for the place to be cleaned out when he wasn't around and the stuff would be hauled out to the dumpster.

After we had looked through all of the boxes, we had separated 14 of them which would be shipped back to CT. Spencer said he would have some of his employees move them down to the first floor at some point and stack them on a pallet. I made arrangements for a couple of SAAC members to drop by a few days later, pick up the boxes and take them to a freight forwarding company for shipment back to CT. Included in the documents were two boxes of cancelled Shelby American company checks from 1962 to 1966. To my knowledge, Mr. Shelby never saw what was inside any of the boxes and neither did Lew Spencer.

Back in CT we sorted through the boxes and separated out everything which pertained to types of cars: 289 and 427 Cobras, 1965 and 1966 GT350s and even a few things relating to King Cobras and 1966 Trans-Am but every piece helped. It provided nowhere near a full accounting of the cars but it was better than anything we had discovered to date. This information was used in the 1997 registry. In most cases it confirmed what we had already discovered about these cars through owners and former owners. In a lot of cases the paperwork created more questions than it answered.

One of the chapters in the 1997 Registry was titled "The Evolution of the Registry." It outlined how the registry began and who was involved. It recounted the publication of each registry chronologically, ending at the present with the 1997 edition. In it I gave credit to Shelby for allowing us access to this factory paperwork and as we were interested in only the information on it, once we took that information the actual papers themselves had no value to us. It hardly mattered whether we had originals or photocopies. So I said that if Mr. Shelby ever wanted this stuff back he had only to ask because all we were interested in was the information. References to this was in Mr. Shelby's response statement. But, as Paul Harvey says, there's the rest of the story.

This Registry was printed and shipped to about 1000 people who had ordered a copy in advance of printing in December of 1997. About 200 more copies were ordered by members outside of the U.S. and shipping those required detailed customs forms which each had to be filled out by hand, one at a time, and attached to the boxes by a special plastic envelope. This took a lot of time and instead of attending the 1998 Las Vegas event in January, I chose to stay home to ship the overseas orders.

Mr. Shelby did not attend SAAC-23 in Charlotte in July, so the next time I saw him in person was at the Las Vegas event in February of 1998. There he told me what a great job we did on the book. I responded that the paperwork we found in his attic was a big help in filling in some gaps and answering some questions. He said that he was happy it was put to good use and there was no need for me to return it. When he said this, in the parking lot of his facility at the Las Vegas Motor Speedway on the Sunday of the event, there were four other SAAC members standing with us who all heard him tell me I could keep everything. Mr. Shelby seems to have forgotten that.

When I got home following the Las Vegas event I went through the paperwork and separated what appeared to have some historical value (most of it minor and esoteric) from that which did not (financial ledger pages, sales receipts for individual parts which were ordered through the mail, meaningless correspondence and the like). As I did not have unlimited space and was tired of moving these boxes around, I took the unimportant paperwork to the dump.

There were two boxes of cancelled company checks. Initially I thought they could be arranged to tell some sort of a story but there were too many (a guess would be more than 10,000) and no matter how you sorted or arranged them no discernible picture was created. Some were signed by Shelby and some were payments to employees or drivers. I began giving these away, a few at a time, mostly to regions putting on events (where they were used as door prizes) or at the conventions (at Watkins Glen we put a large number into a notebook for the silent bid auction, with the proceeds going to the Shelby Heart Fund). When the Shelby American Collection museum solicited items for its silent bid auction each winter I sent them a number of checks each year which they mounted with pictures of team cars or drivers. I gave a number of checks to Shelby, himself, for various Heart Fund functions. At Las Vegas one winter I met a guy who matted and framed pictures for Shelby and he began creating displays which were sold by the charity. I gave him a large number (a few hundred at least—about 3"). Shortly thereafter I heard he and Shelby had a falling out. Later I heard that some checks were being sold on ebay and I assumed they either came from the various ones I had been giving away or the ones the picture-framer took with him. It didn't concern me very much until Mr. Shelby began whining that someone was selling "his" checks on ebay. I asked him if he wanted the ones I still had returned and he said yes. So the next time I went to the Las Vegas event I brought two large boxes with me. Vincent Liska and I carried them into his office and put them on his desk. Frankly, I was glad to be rid of them.

I guess the kindest thing to say about Mr. Shelby's recollections, as recounted in his statement, is that his memory probably isn't what it once was. There were no "truckloads" of documents shipped to me. In fact, if he checks his attic he will probably find the boxes and boxes that were left behind. As for selling his stuff on ebay, I've never bought or sold anything on ebay. That should be pretty easy for them to check. And as for wanting his personal property returned, I have one question: what part of "give" doesn't he understand?"

 

I guess I keep missing the point, WHAT agreement or license gives Shelby the right (moral, legal, ethical) to tell SAAC to stop making a registry? How on earth can the Elvis family claim to own or recover a BOOK written about Elvis? Or anyone else on the planet who has had a book written about them?

What if I want to make a registry? Is that OK? Or do I have to get permission from someone first? What if I want to write a book about Lincoln, Gerald Ford, Kennedy or even Shelby himself? Is there some law that says I can't? Is there some law that says I can't use the celebritys name in said book? The whole concept is ludicrous.

So SAAC can't sell Shelby licensed stuff, total agreement there, that clearly is his intellectual property. So they stop selling Shelby 'trinkets', OK I get THAT part!

SAAC name? To be determined. Personal opinion is they have used the name uncontested for decades. I don't see a problem with it concerning the context in which it is used. Pretty hard to have an "Elvis Fan Club" without using the name. It will be interesting to see how the courts rule on this subject. And if SAAC looses, America and freedom of speech also looses, in my opinion, as such a ruling would impact a number of famous people and potential authors wanting to write, blog or creat a web site about them.

Carroll has been and continues to be a hero to me. As I've found with many hero's over the years, there not all perfect. But most are colorful, full of life, fascinating and make for great conversation. Shelby certainly is all of that, my hats off to him, it's been a great ride!

 

68Fastback did you say in your last post you had never owned a Shelby product? If so why are you so involved in this discussion?

 

Ownership of a certain brand of car (or bike, book, etc.) does not disqualify one from being involved in a discussion and bringing some relevant points to the topic at hand. But it does help. B)

 

I think when all is said and done, everyone will be in for a rude awakening. I have yet to meet any of the SAAC owners BUT, I have had dealings with Rick Kopec. From my dealings with Mr. Kopec, I would have to say that he is a very Nice and Kind Man who would most likely give you the Shirt off his Back if needed. I have high respect for Mr. Kopeck, as I do for Mr. Shelby. Contracts were signed. Those contracts have stipulations and conditions that HAS to be followed to the letter. It seems that they have not been and Mr. Shelby has had enough and decided NOT to renew the contract with SAAC. The “Rude Awakening” will happen, it is just a matter of time and of in which direction it will happen.

DIRECTION 1: Shelby Wins, the Law works and SAAC has to regroup to keep going which will be a set back, but not that big of one. SAAC will continue to keep chugin along for many years to come. After all, they are needed.

DIRECTION 2: Shelby looses, The Law does NOT work and that old saying “Your Signature is not worth the Paper it’s written on” becomes TRUTH and the Courts will then become jammed with people seeking to get out of Contracts that they SIGNED.

I don’t know about you, BUT, I want MY Signature to be WORTH more then the Paper, it should be binding in the Court of Law. How many of you, besides me, have had a Contract with CSLI? If this makes it to Court, Carroll Shelby has to WIN, because if he Looses, we are all in trouble. If you take out the Personal Feelings, the Pride, and the People, it all comes down to this, Contracts were signed, it is that simple. I will continue to be a member of SAAC no matter what their Name will be in the future because I like the organization, even if they don’t do enough Car Shows in the Southeast, but it is always a blast when they do.
David.

 

That's correct. I've never owned a Shelby product (tho I have driven them). It's a matter of right and wrong as I see it.

If we were talking about Ferrari's I'd feel the same way (I've never owned one tho I have driven one).

To me this is about rights under an agreement first and foremost. Shelby has every right to withdraw the licensing. So much of the discussion weems focussed on whether he should do that or not and what the consequences would be to the owners, etc. Those are all valid and important topics but have nothing to do with Shelby's rights under the agreement, imo.

I'm choosing to focus on that because, until that is settled in some fashion, the true meaning of the other discussions is indeterminate/questionable. SAAC has done some great things ...for along time. How does that absolve their intransigence one iota? It doesn't. It's just a diversion to discuss that, imo. The real issue is the agreement, their compliance, Shelby's decision and how that gets settled. Then benefits of the registry and how to best perform/provide those functions has a real basis to move forward. Shelby's decision to withdraw licensing is unchallengeable, imo, since there's no obligation whatsoever to provide that -- to anyone -- if they so choose. Clearly it makes sense to do that for a litny of reasons. But it is Shelby/ Licensing's perogative to enter into such agreements at their pleasure. This is the crux of the matter to me.

Btw, I've also never owned an E85 vehicle or a hydrogen vehicle yet I have strong feelings on why both are hoaxes of sorts, trading tailpipe emissions for dirty-coal emissions since both consume more energy than they produce. I have strong opinions on things that are just plain wrong. Bio-diesel? Now you're talking!

The point is right is right and wrong and wrong. A criminal who also heads a boyscout troup must still be brought to justice even if it disrupts the Jamboree. (That's just en example, SAAC, no one's saying you guys are criminals or even bad people or anything but the most wonderfull folks on planet earth -- none of which matter one bit relative to the Shelby licensing agreement.)

Dan

 

For the umteenth time, I have no blind faith in Carroll Shelby. He's a person like you and I. This is not about him, you, or I. It's about an agreement, violation of same and my opinion of how that ought to play out. Stop taking it personally by trying to cast motive and 'stink' back on me. It's not about US, it's about a contract, rights and consequences.

Thanks for the offer, but I really have no need or desire to "sneak" into an SAAC meeting. Nothing discussed in an SAAC meeting has anything to do with clearing up this matter. Again, I'm very much aware of the great work SAAC does. What does that or an SAAC meeting have to do with resolving the agreement and Shelby's IP rights? Nothing!

I'm sure my postes are confusing you for some good reason but I'll be darned if I can figure out what. Maybe you'd feel more comfortable if this was a generic discussion -- problem is, it's not.

Btw, Dave, what is your affiliation with SAAC? Do you speak for them (not a rehtorical Q)? Or are you speaking only for yourself in these posts?

You know I'm speaking for me (and only me) -- who are you speaking for?

Also, please realize, I'm not defending Shelby's rights in my opinions because he's Carroll Shelby. My position would be identical if he was Joe Doaks who licensed his name for a goat elixir (see, generic discussions don't work <lol>). But this discussion just happens to be about Shelby and SAAC. Nothing personal, I assure you.

 

It's a not a simple matter of which party wins and the courts work or don't work. The licensing 'contract' is a no brainer, SAAC and anybody else selling Shelby trinkets must stop if they don't have a license, end of story. SAAC isn't the first and won't be the last. The only place the legal issue of the licensing contract is being disputed is here (Shelby MUST win, etc.). How will the current mechandise in stock be disposed off? SAAC owns it, bought it, paid for it. I see no compelling reason for them to turn over inventory in stock except as payment if the courts rule such is required.

The legal questions are much more complex than a simple contract. The licensing agreement does NOT automatically assign ownership or control of the registry or items stored in someones garage or other potentially personal property of SAAC leaders or Shelby personally. Who owns what is to be determined. This is not a black and white issue anymore than a 'divorce' is black and white. Who should keep what? Who gets the dog, the couch, the coffee table, the cancelled checks? Do the neighbors have to give up Shelby 'stuff' that was given to them or they bought on good faith years ago?

But the most significant issue is: Who controls the SAAC name? It is NOT the company 'formerly known as SAAC' (thats just spin), it IS SAAC until the courts determine who owns the name. Nobody currently owns the name, and thats a fact. It is NOT a 'given' that Shelby will prevail in securing rights to the name. In my opinion he should not prevail on taking over another companies name that has been in existence for 30 years and is widely accepted by the public. The argument that use of the word Shelby within the name does not carry a lot of weight, in my opinion, because of the history associated with SAAC. Again, no more weight than a new book about any other celebrity would be protected by simply using their name in the title. But, what do I know, thats why the matter is going to court.

The 'trade dress' issue over who owned the rights to the shape/design of the Cobra body was settled. It was determined that through time (history) the shape/design had passed into public domain. Public opinion (letters, phone calls, blogs, etc.) did have an impact on the ruling. I think the same thing will happen with the SAAC name, 'public opinion' will have an impact on the outcome and who eventually controls the name. Filing for control does not mean you automatically win control, it's only first step in a process.

 

Excaliber, those are all excellent points and go to the core of the issues that spring from the agreement -- i.e. assets created under the agreement (and not under the agreement) and the parties rights, etc. While the agreement may be clear, the related assets are surely not. Case law is rich in this area from what I've read, but every situation is surely different.

Re inventory, investment in trinkets made after the contract was terminated would typically be the loss of the investor but, before that date, the dispostion varies from what I've seen ...it likely can't be sold, lacking some agreement, but even that is negotiable if both parties can agree on their disposition.

I agree that the registry is more sticky. In one sense it could be construed that would not have come about without Shelby licensing (or not as effectively since it's hard to run a registry with no rights to use the name of the product that is the subject of the registry). In another sense, the SAAC value-add likely goes well beyond anything in the agreement (potentially a two edged sword also). So the courts will have to pic thru that -- likely slow if the parties can't successfully nego something mutually acceptable. Rights to the specific registry content if far more nitty and I have no idea if there's any qualifying precedent. However, it would seem that some mutuality is evident since a court might find that Shelby's intent in licensing was to benefit from the registry information (if that's true), hence only a $1 fee, etc... clearly two sides to that subject.

The SAAC name is very interesting because it contains the work Shelby. A solution could be that SAAC continues to use SAAC with all references to "Shelby" removed from it -- problematic but possible since trademarks are highly contextual. Shelby could be awarded the same rigths to the name. Not unlike Ford and Shelby having rights to Cobra (one in a vintage context and one in a curent context). I'm not suggesting that's the way it should be (or not) just that it's a possible compromise.

All these considerations are very interesting to me and case law is likely rich in this area. Wish I had more time to research it! ;-)

Dan