Westfield sued Champion for his locost book (Build a Sportscar...), claiming whatever infringement on their design. Champion showed that he was making them like that before Westfield ever made one so they stole his design.
I hope FFR does OK. From what I see, they are one of the very few kit car companies that are a real business and not just barely there or someone's good wishes and intentions, poorly executed.
Dr. Hess wrote: Westfield sued Champion for his locost book (_Build a Sportscar..._), claiming whatever infringement on their design. Champion showed that he was making them like that before Westfield ever made one so they stole his design.
Heh, that's some balls for the maker of one blatant clone vehicle to sue another maker of a similar clone. Especially one that had been sued in the past themselves :).
ignorant wrote: I think they don't go after the those people becuase they know it is good for their business for people to be out there emulating their vehicle. For example. I see a couple speeder replicas once in a while. Those guys are wearing porsche hats and porsche shirts but are driving a vw beetle in disguise. The VW beetle in disguise has been gussied up with real porsche replica bits, that were most likely liscensed to Porsche.
Now that Porsche owns Volkswagen, wouldn't that be a Porsche Beetle gussied up with Porsche replica parts, which would simply make it a Porsche? 
Snowdoggie wrote:ignorant wrote: I think they don't go after the those people becuase they know it is good for their business for people to be out there emulating their vehicle. For example. I see a couple speeder replicas once in a while. Those guys are wearing porsche hats and porsche shirts but are driving a vw beetle in disguise. The VW beetle in disguise has been gussied up with real porsche replica bits, that were most likely liscensed to Porsche.Now that Porsche owns Volkswagen, wouldn't that be a Porsche Beetle gussied up with Porsche replica parts, which would simply make it a Porsche?
makes it a por-wagen.. which is nearly the right name for a porsche.. cause they generally make you poor.
Man I hope I don't turn into an evil greedy geezer when I get old 
Josh wrote:Dr. Hess wrote: Westfield sued Champion for his locost book (_Build a Sportscar..._), claiming whatever infringement on their design. Champion showed that he was making them like that before Westfield ever made one so they stole his design.Heh, that's some balls for the maker of one blatant clone vehicle to sue another maker of a similar clone. Especially one that had been sued in the past themselves :).
If you ever compare the chassis of a Caterham/Lotus, a Westfield and a Locost, the latter two are very similar. Very. Too close to be accidental. The Caterham is visibly different. I've never seen details of that particular lawsuit though, only heard about it through rumor and never from a reliable source. I'd love to know how much of it is true, especially since Westfield has been making their Sevens since the early 80s.
An early Porsche replica that is a VW underneath seems quite apt, really.
As for Shelby, I present the following exhibit.
wearymicrobe wrote:carzan wrote: I seem to recall Shelby getting caught try to pass off freshly fabricated frames as "lost original" Cobra frames. They had even left them out in the weather long enough to give them a patina. Anyone else remember this? Seems like it was in the late '80s or early '90s.Not exactly he did try to pass off a few of the First CSX replica car's as originals and got into a hissy fit with the cobra owners club who refused to recognize them as original Cobras with all the value and heritage that comes with it. I had a Shelby built/designed cobra that was made in the late 70's to go drag racing and it was a bastard of a car built with parts from all over the spectrum. Honestly the last time I saw the guy he did not look good mentally or physically, I think the lawyers that went after the club are in charge now. Now FFR has already been sued at least once and all they had to do is change the names of the cars, no one that I know of has ever been successfully sued for kit car building outside of a few Ferrari guys who never lost in court but had Ferrari themselves descend from on high with teams of lawyers that got interesting settlements out of people.
Yeah, I knew there was something he did that p***ed me off back then. Everything else since has just reinforced my low opinion of him.
From Wikipedia: In the 1960s, the FIA required entrants (Shelby, Ford, Ferrari, etc.) to produce at least 100 cars for homologated classes of racing. Shelby simply built an insufficient number of cars and skipped a large block of VIN numbers, to create the illusion the company had produced large numbers of cars. Decades later in the 1990s, Carroll alleged that he had found the 'left over' frames, and began selling cars which were supposedly finally 'completed.' After it was discovered the cars were built from scratch in collaboration with McCluskey, Ltd., they were re-termed 'continuation' Cobras. The cars are still built to this day, known as the current CSX4000 series of Cobras.
f'ck him, his Chili freakin blows, he's a greedy grumpy old bastard, and I'm sure Ford has everything to do with this. He's cheated the FIA, he's cheated his loyalist and purists, cheated his fans and dreamers, and has ruined his legacy. If he really wanted nothing to do with this I'm sure Ford would listen to his word. Why are these manufacturers going after enthusiasts? I find it mind-boggling.
You don't see GM going after LS1tech.com, ls1lt1.com, ls2.com, or any of the Corvette named forums. I've only heard of GM going after people who are selling products that are very similar or exact replicas without their permission. Most recent a guy on LS1tech.com got a slap on the wrist from GM for selling Z06 styled WS6 and Z28 badges, and things with LSx on it. All they did was ask him to stop or they would pursue legal action. Now he is working with GM to give them x% of each sale. That would be a laughing matter for Ford, Shelby, BMW, Porsche, etc.
And haven't Porsche/Audi/VW been in cahoots for an incredibly long time? I have always been under the assumption that Porsche has been the parent company for the past couple decades.
not to beat a dead horse... but
in that 101 ways to destroy your tribe book..
One of the ways to destroy your tribe is to not allow or stop your customers/enthusiats from talking to each other...
I think shelby will hurt himself.
P71 wrote: Sad, just sad. I wonder if he puts as much effort into "defending" his rights on his other E36 M3. Like the Shelby Dakota. He's definitely gone from idol/hero to grumpy old bastard in my book.
Want to buy my Shelby Dakota #233?
He is getting grumpy. Want to know who really developed the Cobra? It was Alan Turner at AC Cars Ltd. Thames Ditton Surrey, England.
John Brown wrote: I call "truck" as my unregistered trademark. As well as the term trucks, trucker, mother trucker, keep on trucking, truck off, and any use of the letter "E".
Sorry I'm late to the party ... but a website I wrote for back in 1991 (in them thar early years of the web) got a cease and desist letter from "E" the cable channel complaining about our website "The E Spot" which did movie and reviews. Claiming just what John Brown is joking about. The Letter E was a trademark of The E Network. The law dog we talked to said we win with the "if this were true there would only be 26 trademarks" defense. Oh yea and our website is older then your website...
But it takes money to defend yourself ... and we had none! (no one really knew how to make money on the web yet)
Jeff
Here's what Shelby's interested in:
http://www.hallmarkrm.com/hallmarkrm/GolfCartsShelby/go
$20,000 golf carts
But seriously, didn't the company building Shelby authorized supercars declare bankrupcy? Specialty cars is such a tenuous business in the first place without having to pay ransom to "Crazy Carroll".
littleturquoiseb wrote:John Brown wrote: I call "truck" as my unregistered trademark. As well as the term trucks, trucker, mother trucker, keep on trucking, truck off, and any use of the letter "E".Sorry I'm late to the party ... but a website I wrote for back in 1991 (in them thar early years of the web) got a cease and desist letter from "E" the cable channel complaining about our website "The E Spot" which did movie and reviews. Claiming just what John Brown is joking about. The Letter E was a trademark of The E Network. The law dog we talked to said we win with the "if this were true there would only be 26 trademarks" defense. Oh yea and our website is older then your website... But it takes money to defend yourself ... and we had none! (no one really knew how to make money on the web yet) Jeff
My homage to the letter E was from hearing about The E Network trademarking the SYMBOL E. IIRC someone sued E Network over verification regarding their use of symbol versus letter and the court allowed E to have the symbol but not the letter.
ignorant wrote:Snowdoggie wrote:makes it a por-wagen.. which is nearly the right name for a porsche.. cause they generally make you poor.ignorant wrote: I think they don't go after the those people becuase they know it is good for their business for people to be out there emulating their vehicle. For example. I see a couple speeder replicas once in a while. Those guys are wearing porsche hats and porsche shirts but are driving a vw beetle in disguise. The VW beetle in disguise has been gussied up with real porsche replica bits, that were most likely liscensed to Porsche.Now that Porsche owns Volkswagen, wouldn't that be a Porsche Beetle gussied up with Porsche replica parts, which would simply make it a Porsche?
I guess all those people who don't think my 4 cylinder 914 is a real Porsche don't have an arguement now. Come to think of it, My Mark II Golf is now a Porsche too. I hope the price for parts on the Golf doesn't go up now.
Moparman wrote:P71 wrote: Sad, just sad. I wonder if he puts as much effort into "defending" his rights on his other E36 M3. Like the Shelby Dakota. He's definitely gone from idol/hero to grumpy old bastard in my book.Want to buy my Shelby Dakota #233? He is getting grumpy. Want to know who really developed the Cobra? It was Alan Turner at AC Cars Ltd. Thames Ditton Surrey, England.
Isn't that the same guy who built the Turners?
Josh wrote:Dr. Hess wrote: Westfield sued Champion for his locost book (_Build a Sportscar..._), claiming whatever infringement on their design. Champion showed that he was making them like that before Westfield ever made one so they stole his design.Heh, that's some balls for the maker of one blatant clone vehicle to sue another maker of a similar clone. Especially one that had been sued in the past themselves :).
I am still waiting for Lotus to sue each and every one of them and anybody else who dares to build anything that even looks like a Lotus 7 on his own using a home built tube frame.
^^ As snaky as Colin Chapman was if he were still alive it would probably have happened by now.
So before I give up on him altogether is it Shelby or the manufacturers who is stirring this E36 M3 up
I hereby submit my patent and trademark for a circular air encapsulation device made of any compounds related to silicon or rubber as well as plastic variations as such used to suspend a moving object for operation on terrain. Any use of any objects under this design criteria will require payments to be paid to Q.Mofo at hefetoforesaid address.
aussiesmg wrote: So before I give up on him altogether is it Shelby or the manufacturers who is stirring this E36 M3 up
more than likely ford's doing
If you read any recent interview with the Chili-dick you will see he takes it very personal. It is him.
Keith wrote: As for Shelby, I present the following exhibit.
That might also be a good exhibit to prove that Chrysler would be the one who now has the rights to bring charges over somebody calling a car a Daytona coupe.
Strizzo wrote:aussiesmg wrote: So before I give up on him altogether is it Shelby or the manufacturers who is stirring this E36 M3 upmore than likely ford's doing
I really doubt that its fords doing, they got sued by him as well a few years back for producing emblems that said Shelby on it for us Cobra guys. They were not amused, and told him to go pound sand because they had been building COBRA mustangs for something like 30 years at that point and he had lost the right to the names.
I guarantee that it is the same lawyers who went after the registry for not paying ball and adding new construction cars to the registry. They want control of what can and cannot go in the registry when the gave up control of it years and years ago.
There's three or 4 instances of folks wanting to lay it on Ford. Put up or shut up, guys. Shelby's got a long, well-documented history of litigation in these matters.
As for the Lotus 7 thing. There has been a lot of litigation, and I think that it's run it's course. Dennis Ortenburger documents it extremely well in his book "Lotus 7 and the Independents"
wearymicrobe wrote:Strizzo wrote:I really doubt that its fords doing, they got sued by him as well a few years back for producing emblems that said Shelby on it for us Cobra guys. They were not amused, and told him to go pound sand because they had been building COBRA mustangs for something like 30 years at that point and he had lost the right to the names. I guarantee that it is the same lawyers who went after the registry for not paying ball and adding new construction cars to the registry. They want control of what can and cannot go in the registry when the gave up control of it years and years ago.aussiesmg wrote: So before I give up on him altogether is it Shelby or the manufacturers who is stirring this E36 M3 upmore than likely ford's doing
so then it would have to be ford, as from what you just said, ford owns the rights to the cobra name, and making cobra cars. ford also recently produced a retro-ized version of the Cobra roadster a la ford GT and mustang. they also got carroll to drive it for the show RIDES
You'll need to log in to post.
