One good way to avoid copyright infringement regarding Cavallino/Ferrari badges on a replica car might be to source OEM badges. The argument can then be made that if the copyright applies to the badge rather than the badged product (car) you have not breached any legislation as the badge is original.
I am however sure suppliers of OEM badges are very hard to buy from, and being a bit short of the readies for a genuine F I'll never find out.

I think (as Mr Towed stated) the difference is this: if a manufacturer makes a product and badges it as an existing (copyrighted) product he is both abusing copyright and profiting through sales being boosted.
If I buy or build a replica kit car and choose to badge it as the original I have nothing to gain financially. I suspect any issue that F have with DNA comes from this issue. Profits are being made by a replica getting leverage from the F brand.

I've just had a brief look through the legislation again as it was a couple of years ago that I had to investigate my one case of theft of intellectual property, and yes, I believe that Ferrari can employ an individual or company to design them a car and not own the design rights even after paying for the design.

As I said before, the legal side of all this is very complex, but, in a nutshell, when a car company pays for a design what they're actually buying is the right to produce a car to that design, not the design itself. That remains with the original designer, and I concede that in the case of the California Spyder, that is most likely to be Pininfarina, but only if the guy wielding the pen was an employee of theirs. If he was a freelance designer that Pininfarina subcontracted the work to, an unpaid intern or a partner/director of the business, then the design remains his own intellectual property.

The one case I investigated was decided on that very point. Rather than being an employee, the person accused of stealing the intellectual property had been a director of the company it 'belonged' to when he created the designs, and although he had sold his half of the business to the other director, in law the designs remained his property. That was decided by a room full of specialist lawyers as with an IQ of just 148 it was all way beyond my limited comprehension.

Anyway, I'm not trying to stir up an argument or score points here, I just wanted to contribute what little I know about the minefield which is copyright and trademark law to add to the discussion.

As for DNA, it's a shame if they really have had to close up shop as I rather liked the 2-fifty cal, even if the back end did look very much like the arse-end of an MGB.

Hmm, I wonder who owns the rights to the MGB back bumper design...

INTERESTING STUFF ....And like what has already been said , complex enough to stop most people fighting their corner against a multi million pound organisation ....
I really hope its just a hiccup for DNA rather than a halt to their business ...it's an incredibly difficult industry to survive in and they were doing rather well with some clever and quality builds ....

I think we all hope that DNA come through this, and any knock on effect to other companies is minimal.

I think that the ownership of the original designs is a distraction. The designer owns them, but the important point is, who has the right to turn those drawings into a car? Only Ferrari can make a Ferrari.

The DNA "record auction" ad has now been removed (others from the same auction haven't) but the synopsis still mentions Ferrari more than once.

http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C870160

On the same site, we have this -
http://www.carandclassic.co.uk/car/C725995 complete with badges.

I struggle to understand why anyone might wonder why Ferrari would take steps to stop the use of its name.

The Tribute and DNA products are stunning. They don't need the F word or "250" of "2fifty" to sell them. I also think that there is a difference between what Tribute and DNA set out to achieve. The clue is in the names........

I don't know what has happened over there but I hope all is still good with the guys over at DNA. There are so many kit car companies out there with 'the best intentions' that often fail to deliver. We need companies like the team at DNA for our hobby to continue. There have been some terrible happenings over here in the US where companies disappear with people's money and only deliver part kits.

I know the US law is different, but when I bought an 'unlicensed' product of something that was actually made by the original manufacturer, I was required by the reseller to sign an agreement, stating that I wouldn't add badges to it or in other ways make inference that it was a product of the original manufacturer.

I guess that way, if I decide to add badges, I'm liable and the supplier has done their best to prevent me (everything in their power) from badging up their product.

People often bring up the Merc Gullwing that was crushed when talking about this. From what I understand, that was a car that Mercedes bought, to make a point! Today in the US, if that car had been based on a Mercedes frame, there is very little they could have done about it, due to the aftermarket laws for parts.

There have been a ton of companies in the US that have been sent cease and desist orders. Mostly Lamborghini replicas and more recently Bentley. Ferrari also stepped in on the Mera product which was a new car based on the Fiero.

I wonder if Porsche hasn't been able to go after 356 kit makers due to the lineage of the design?

Its a shame that there aren't more original designs in the kit car world that can hold there heads up with the best of main stream manufacturers. There have been a few designs but more often than not they are quirky and only appeal to a very small audience. The engineering talent is there in abundance and so are the skills to create the best GRP work. It just need some talent in the field of body design and bring it all together.

Original designs in the kit car world........ To be sold in large quantity do they have to appeal to the greater masses or the kit car enthusiasts? If it's to the greater masses, then won't they just end up like another eurobox?, and if it's a kit car hen it can't compete on price. Surely the designs have to be quirky to appeal to a niche market, so at least they get some sales! One that springs to mind is the Nova - what a great idea!

I'm talking the kit car world. Most of the best selling kit cars over the last 30 years have been Cobra lookalikes and Lotus 7 inspired cars. They have been the mainstream kits for sure. More recently the re body craze has focused heavily on a certain Italian manufacturer ( with some stunning results I might add ). They have become popular and sell well because they are so good in the looks department.
I maintain that originality in the kit car scene has for the most part only generated quirky designs.

@MrTowed - totally bow to your knowledge - it is fascinating stuff and obviously a minefield!

L@lm - only a few come to mind: Phantom GTR, GTM Libra and Spyder and I guess Ultima as originals. Big fan of Blackwell SPR although some obvious TVR DNA - pics do not do it it justice. And actually the GR120 plenty of 50s DNA

Thank you for that , I am very pleased with it , but obviously biased ....

Of the successful originals that come to mind include Ginetta and Marcos. Both of which went onto bigger and better mainstream manufacturing having moved on from their kit car origins.

Whilst representing a modicum of maistream sucess, these are from decades ago. Most kit manufacturers are here for a season or two only, even if the players remain in the game for longer. The current re-panelling trend bodes well though.

My point exactly, original designs that have achieved high levels of success are few and far between in this industry. Most companies that have stood the test of time are making replica's or "inspired by" kits at the very least with few exceptions.
I agree, the re-body trend is likely to continue and do well.

Identifying the niche can be hard though. Bertini had a nice looking offering that appeared to be well put together. It was also well supported by the kit media. Looks like they struggled to get past a dozen or so units sold though, even at a price that (based on Tribute changes) was £1,000 too low. I think the Tribute and later DNA approach to models differentiates enough why you would spend over £10k on top of the donor for what is still a Z3.

But do replicas (c/f new designs) sell more because they are 'better looking' or because they are a 'safe bet' for resale, or merely because they are replicas of something which is famous/expensive? Difficult to say. Some new designs (I've called them that because the work 'original' could confuse in this context) certainly AREN'T offensive styling-wise and some are very attractive and well executed (I'd include the Bertini in that camp)

Disagree on the Bertini - rear end treatment was really good but any angle from the front is - and I'm being brutally honest here I know - like a melted jelly. It has no style at all - no proper headlight treatment or design.

Keeping the original door skins was also a mistake - I've not seen a front and rear clip kit that has successfully integrated the original doors. The tribute Kobra, the Retroforza and Bertini - they never flow properly.

Like any audience, there are different motivations and opinions, not to mention taste. Most of us (I think) buy what really appeals to us. The classic replicas mostly do that in abundance. Traditionally, kit builders recognised that they would not recover the cost and effort when they came to sell, but went ahead nevertheless. It looks like F***** are expediting a closure of high added value offerings. In any event, there will be limited customers after such high priced options, so the rush to get something built and supply it into the market will likely quickly oversupply.

Some will still be able to turn a profit by buying very cheap donors, knowing that they will not be holding on to the end product. This would suit the builder who gets most satisfaction from building rather than owning, as it minimises the overall cost of their hobby. Nothing wrong with this, but I want mine to be a robust, longer term keeper.

At best, getting your investment back is the most likely medium term outcome I guess. Take the Aristocats for example. For most, long term prices are not as "collector" cars.

I think the Bertini project proved the Z3 as being a suitable donor car for a panel swop kit. The kit car media picked up on this and were happy to promote it as such. As Smash mentioned, the styling wasn't quite there ( it looked like a "Kit Car"), that alone would put people off a purchase. So many kit manufacturers have fallen by the wayside because of quirky styling, its no good making a car so niche that only a few people buy a kit, but it happens all the time in this industry.
The Tribute products have gone on to promote the Z3 base car, that it is a sound platform for attractive body swop conversions and is selling in reasonable numbers.

Here's what my old partner and I have done these past few years.

https://www.cavaliereroadsters.com/