More pics of the Ferrari "limo" here: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1150/1402823038_69d88cc76e.jpg?v=0 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1010/1401938729_57e4c7f5cf.jpg?v=0 http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1110/1402849366_35cd75a5ba.jpg?v=0 http://egoist.pl/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/ferrari-limo2_48.jpg http://www.ferrarilimo.co.uk/ First off, it's ugly as sin. Secondly, pretty lame on Ferrari's part. People pay an arm and a leg for their cars, and then get told they can't modify them? The guy should modify the Ferrari horse logo taking a crap, 'cause that's what this is. Still, this will be an interesting case. Ferrari's lawyers are arguing a form of "passing-off", with the argument here being that the vehicle, by not being a true Ferrari, cheapens and degrades the Ferrari brand-name and product it produces. But at the same time, where's the line in the sand? Does this mean that if someone bought a Ferrari and added a huge spoiler to it, that it would also cheapen the brand name? What if they replaced the car's muffler with a generic one, or put on non-Ferrari approved hubcaps? Does that make the car no longer a Ferrari? I'd be very curious to see what the final ruling is on this. Odds are it'll probably settle though, or the guy will comply. Unless Ferrari sold it to him with some sort of a use clause in a contract, then he should be free to do whatever he likes with his own property.
Tough call. On one hand, it is his property. On the other hand, if he's using that vehicle for business and calling it a "Ferrari limo," he's ripping off Ferrari by using their brand name to market something they haven't really created or endorsed.
Don't advertise the car as a Ferrari then. The badges came with the car, and he paid for them. Tell Enzo & Co. to go pound sand.
Limos make for a comfy ride to the airport. Or a mobile party with a designated driver, but you shouldn't have to sacrifice a Ferrari for the privilege. Rent limos to drive you around. Rent Ferraris to drive around yourself.
When that thing (inevitably) crashes and burns the news will be full of Ferrari badges and prancing horses... I'm not suprised they want to distance themselves from it.
So every time somebody modifies an old LTD for a demolition derby, they should cut the Ford logo off of it, I guess.
No, Fords are all shit anyway.... Some hick modding it then crashing it into other hicks probably increases Fords kudos and buyability
Ever been to a demo derby? The things people manage to make those cars do are pretty damn impressive. So in a way, you may be right. I saw a Ford Festiva actually win one once. The thing just kept bouncing off all the other cars like a ping-pong ball.
Do you really think the news won't be full of the fact the thing is a modified Ferrari regardless of whether the logos are on it or not?
There are two things that could be going on here. Ferrari might be worried about the vehicle being unsuccessful and reflecting badly on the Ferrari brand because, well, people are stupid and tend to assign that kind of blame. More likely, IMO, they're thinking that the Ferrari brand name is special, that advertising this vehicle as a Ferrari is key to the profitability of this venture, and Ferrari is quite appropriately looking to get its cut from someone who's going to make money off the Ferrari trademark.
I don't really see how legally Ferrari has a case, unless there is a contract you sign when buying one that says you won't modify it. Given that they have piles of money though they would probably win so if I was this guy I would get new badges made up just different enough from the originals and use the lawsuit for publicity in his advertising.
It's the combination of modification and using the Ferrari name in advertising that's an issue. Neither, on it's own, would provide grounds to sue, but if you modify the car enough that it's no longer fairly described as a Ferrari, yet you continue to advertise it as a Ferrari and try to make money off the Ferrari name, that's a pretty clear-cut trademark issue.
If they win then this will open up a shitload of stuff like this. How many modified cars are there out there with the make still on them? About all of them. Why should they be special? Once you sell a car people can do what they want. Its still powered by there engine, screw them.
If he advertised it as though it was a limo made by Ferrari, then yes. If however it is advertised as a limo that has been made using a genuine Ferrari as the base then he is doing nothing wrong.
People modify their stuff all the time. A lot of radio hobbyists may buy a Grundig or a Yaseu and then modify them to Kingdom Come. And they will still keep the nameplates on their rigs and show them off as modified units. And Grundig nor Yaseu can't do a thing about it, regardless of any "trademark" issues. People modify their computers all the time. If I add another DVD drive or more memory to my HP, do I have to pry off the HP logo from the case? In others words, no sale. Ferrari has no case IMO. Once you buy it, you are free do to what you want with the car, and that includes keeping the nameplate, if you want. It's your property.
Enzo and Co has always been stingy with his cars and rightfully so. I remember a while back he built his dream machine. You had to own two previous Ferrari's, you had to pass his driver's course, and you had a sign a contract stating that if you sold it, it reverted back to Ferrari, and that if their were no heirs to pass it to, it reverted back to Ferrari. You can do that when you are one of the best drivers the world's ever seen, and you build some of the best cars the world's ever seen. [action=Ancalagon]has a thing for Italians if you can't tell.[/action]
This does bring up a bunch of issues about fair use, or intended use. If Ferrari came in red, yellow, black, or grey, and you wanted to paint it purple with pink polka-dots, could Ferrari tell you to take off their logo because the color looks awful? Or what if it got sold to a janitor that drove it to work every day? Could they then say that this driver does not fit into the lifestyle that a Ferrari owner should portray, and therefore should no longer carry the Ferrari logos or trademarks?
I'll bet the dude could advertise it as a "Ferrari-based" limo and be perfectly in the clear, legally. Because it is.
