Are you madabout kit cars      
 "We've Got Kit Cars Covered" Information about Madabout-Kitcars.com Contact Madabout-Kitcars.com         Home of UK kit cars - madabout-kitcars.com Various kit car write ups All the latest kit car news Kit car related and general discussion

Search
Manufacturers
Kit Cars
Kit Car Data sheets
Picture Gallery
SVA Knowledgebase
Clubs & Communities
Build cost estimator
Kit cars for sale
Knowledge Base 
KitcarUSA.com
Classic-Kitcars.com
 

Go Back   Madabout Kitcars Forum > Mad Build Area > Dino 246 Builds and Discussion

Dino 246 Builds and Discussion Da da da da daaa daa da da, ohoho Dino

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 19th October 2021, 05:59
rossnzwpi rossnzwpi is offline
Senior Member
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 224
rossnzwpi is on a distinguished road
Default is Ferrari shutting down replicas now?

What has happened to JH Classics, DeHavilland and CASCU?
Reply With Quote
Available from eBay
  #2  
Old 19th October 2021, 07:50
Mister Towed's Avatar
Mister Towed Mister Towed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,251
Mister Towed is on a distinguished road
Default

The only recent article about Ferrari litigation against a replica owner/manufacturer I could find is this from Holland, and Ferrari lost the case -

https://netherlandsnewslive.com/ferr...ri-car/186833/

De Havilland do seem to have disappeared off the face of the planet, no idea why though.

CASCU still appear to be open for business -

http://www.cascu.co.uk/Start.htm

Still showing pics of the Dino shell on their website but you get 'page not found' if you click the Ferrari panels tab.

in 2015 Total Kitcar reported that JH Classics were concentrating on turnkey cars and had transferred kit sales to Tribute Automotive -

https://www.totalkitcar.com/2015/05/...classics-kits/

Not sure how that worked out for Tribute (?) but JH Classics might either have gone under or be selling to such wealthy clients that they no longer need to promote the product. That might sound fanciful, but it's pretty much the case with Martin & Walker's 904GTS replica which they don't promote but sells like hot cakes at a fat kid convention at close to 100k once you add a rebuilt drivetrain -

http://www.technic-motorsport.com/M&...%20prices.html

I visited M&W in 2018 to pick up some Porsche parts they kindly agreed to sell me and their order books were full of 904 orders to the point where they had effectively stopped producing anything else.

I do hope you find an answer.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 19th October 2021, 09:56
NeilF355 NeilF355 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Teesdale
Posts: 228
NeilF355 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rossnzwpi View Post
What has happened to JH Classics, DeHavilland and CASCU?
JH Classics are now converting Land Rover Defenders into military inspired Specials. See http://www.jhcsov.com/
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 19th October 2021, 15:25
Lucky@LeMans Lucky@LeMans is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,941
Lucky@LeMans is on a distinguished road
Default

My understanding is that it's for the most part down to badges. No F****** scripts or prancing horses allowed ! The proportions of the car, unless a like for like reproduction, wouldn't be a problem for most of the kits out there as most are "inspired by" and only similar. Partly down to manufacturers not using terms like F***** replica would have helped in the past too, most don't do it these days ! Likewise you won't find any companies using the word "Cobra" for their Cobra replica's, its just not the done thing !! Don't quote me, just my understanding .
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 23rd October 2021, 23:36
rossnzwpi rossnzwpi is offline
Senior Member
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 224
rossnzwpi is on a distinguished road
Default

Unfortunately this was pasted on Facebook by one of Dehavilland's customers: "I spoke to Terry Groves yesterday. Very sad news. Forced to close because Ferrari sent a legal team after him for breach of copyright and damage to their brand. The GRP mould has now been cut up. He's looking into restoration of real Dinos instead."

I did a quick search on Google for trademarks relating to Dino and Ferrari does have the name and logo script trademarked but I couldn't see anything about the shape of the car. They famously tried to shut down an Italian coach builder who wanted to make a 250 GTO - modern 'inspired by' car, which only had a few styling cues. While Ferrari quickly won the case, the other company counter-sued and Ferrari was reminded of the use it or lose it European trademark law. Since they hadn't used it in 5 years Ferrari lost all rights to the 250 GTO shape - except for licensing toys. Interestingly Ferrari had registered a 3D model of the 250 GTO with their trademark. I guess you'd need to be building actual cars and not letting your trademark lapse.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 24th October 2021, 10:25
Lucky@LeMans Lucky@LeMans is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,941
Lucky@LeMans is on a distinguished road
Default

I recall that they lost the name "TestaRossa" for the same reason, hadn't used it for so long. I think a toy manufacturer owns it now. Not sure about the name Dino, that might go the same way too. Whilst there was talk of a new Dino it hasn't happened yet !
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 26th October 2021, 13:09
NeilF355 NeilF355 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Teesdale
Posts: 228
NeilF355 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rossnzwpi View Post
Forced to close because Ferrari sent a legal team after him for breach of copyright and damage to their brand.

I believe that this “breach of copyright” claim re the shape of the car is not tenable.

As you say Ferrari already tried this approach against Ares and it failed, even after they had the 250 GTO declared a “work of art” by a court in Bologna in an attempt to get the “work of art” copyright protection which, being the life of the artist plus 70 years after their death, is considerably longer than the normal protection enjoyed by an industrial design.

Jaguar Land Rover have used the same submission in their case in the Swedish court against a couple's C Type replica see https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publ...e-racer/215136

The heart of this approach is that the cars are “works of art” (which does suggest that both companies are well aware that their normal copyright protection on these vehicles expired decades ago).

I refer to a case brought in the UK which makes a ruling on the nature of “works of art” which is contrary to Ferrari and JLR’s claims.

This concerned litigation brought by Lucasfilms against a manufacturer in the UK of replica Starwars Stormtrooper Helmets claiming that the helmet was a “sculpture” and therefore protected by the copyright laws covering artistic works. The trial judge ruled against Lucasfilms on the basis that the helmet was a movie prop and was not “created by the hand of an artist, for artistic purposes” (seehttp://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/1878.html).

To support his decision the trial judge gave the following example (para118 part viii)
“A pile of bricks, temporarily on display at the Tate Modern for 2 weeks, is plainly capable of being a sculpture. The identical pile of bricks dumped at the end of my driveway for 2 weeks preparatory to a building project is equally plainly not. One asks why there is that difference, and the answer lies, in my view, in having regard to its purpose. One is created by the hand of an artist, for artistic purposes, and the other is created by a builder, for building purposes”

This decision was upheld in the appeal court (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1328.html)
and by the supreme court in the UK (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format...ery=(lucasfilm)

It is my view that this judgement applies to the vehicles manufactured by Ferrari and by JLR as they "lack artistic purpose" and are created as Cars and not “Works of art”.

As for “damage to their brand” which is more damaging?
this replica
https://www.dropbox.com/s/onm6bbeyac...front.jpg?dl=0
or this original Ferrari Dino with just 14000 miles on the clock
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gjccfvb08x...fa478.jpg?dl=0

Last edited by NeilF355; 26th October 2021 at 13:30..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 26th October 2021, 17:01
Lucky@LeMans Lucky@LeMans is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,941
Lucky@LeMans is on a distinguished road
Default

Very well explained Neil !

Brings us back to badges and logos , as long as they are not fitted to your replica then they have no case at all.

The above cases could be quoted in any subsequent litigation I suppose as a precedent has been set in the courts.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 26th October 2021, 22:05
Mitchelkitman Mitchelkitman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: norfolk
Posts: 639
Mitchelkitman is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm convinced with the pile of bricks as a work of art and the pile of bricks as a building in the making, however, to make the analogy with cars is IMHO stretching it a bit too far. Yes, the main purpose (it could be argued) of a car is to transport from A to B, but the styling is (to most of us) an important part of the package. The argument (IMHO, and I am not a lawyer) should be based on whether the manufacturer (be it F or whoever) has lost revenue in some way - I venture to say that most (not all) replicas or homages cause no financial or other damage to the original manufacturer at all - more so when the model in question has not been made for many years.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 26th October 2021, 22:07
Mitchelkitman Mitchelkitman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: norfolk
Posts: 639
Mitchelkitman is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky@LeMans View Post
Very well explained Neil !

Brings us back to badges and logos , as long as they are not fitted to your replica then they have no case at all.

The above cases could be quoted in any subsequent litigation I suppose as a precedent has been set in the courts.
I understand precedence can only be used to decide a case when the original decision was made by a certain 'level' of court - but then IANAL
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 26th October 2021, 22:26
Lucky@LeMans Lucky@LeMans is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,941
Lucky@LeMans is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitchelkitman View Post
I'm convinced with the pile of bricks as a work of art and the pile of bricks as a building in the making, however, to make the analogy with cars is IMHO stretching it a bit too far. Yes, the main purpose (it could be argued) of a car is to transport from A to B, but the styling is (to most of us) an important part of the package. The argument (IMHO, and I am not a lawyer) should be based on whether the manufacturer (be it F or whoever) has lost revenue in some way - I venture to say that most (not all) replicas or homages cause no financial or other damage to the original manufacturer at all - more so when the model in question has not been made for many years.
Were the cars designed and built in the first instance to win races and / or a means of transport ? I think so, and more latterly considered to be "works of art". It seems a retrospective argument looking back through rose tinted spectacles ! Looking back in hindsight we say things are a "work of art" even though that was never the original intention. The designers back in the day came up with lovely curvy designs which were early attempts at aerodynamics. F****** were all about classy, top end designs but to suggest they were" art pieces " is a bit rich in my opinion.

Last edited by Lucky@LeMans; 26th October 2021 at 22:37..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 26th October 2021, 22:51
Lucky@LeMans Lucky@LeMans is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,941
Lucky@LeMans is on a distinguished road
Default

Imagine the photo of the rusted out Dino above alongside a photo of a brand new Ford Fiesta. Put the two together in front of someone who isn't a car nut and ask them which car they would rather own, they would go with the Fiesta ! Ask them if the rusted out Dino was a work of art they would laugh at you !!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 27th October 2021, 07:23
Mister Towed's Avatar
Mister Towed Mister Towed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,251
Mister Towed is on a distinguished road
Default

Rust? On an Italian car? Surely, that's just patina.

There's an article in this month's Octane Magazine about a barn-find Dino restoration, which cost the owner 80k on top of the 140k purchase price (a bargain as it's now worth 350k+).

Interestingly, there are no direct pictures of the back end, but in one shot taken from the side you can clearly see that it has the Ferrari script badge on the rear deck.

As the Dino wasn't sold as a Ferrari, but a separate, budget brand and was never badged as a Ferrari by the factory, shouldn't Maranello send their lawyers out to have it crushed lest it damage their brand?

I'm also 100% behind the Judge with the pile of bricks analogy. No matter how beautiful a car is, it was created to perform a function such as winning races, breaking speed records or appealing to the masses to achieve volume sales, not just for aesthetic appreciation like a sculpture, painting or Tracey Emin's soiled bedding (a snip at $3.77m).
https://time.com/2933839/tracey-emin-my-bed-auctioned/

Hopefully, JLR, Ferrari et al will lose any case they try to bring in the UK due to that, very sensible, judgement.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 27th October 2021, 11:33
NeilF355 NeilF355 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Teesdale
Posts: 228
NeilF355 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitchelkitman View Post
The argument (IMHO, and I am not a lawyer) should be based on whether the manufacturer (be it F or whoever) has lost revenue in some way - I venture to say that most (not all) replicas or homages cause no financial or other damage to the original manufacturer at all - more so when the model in question has not been made for many years.
I can see your point about lost revenue and I would have thought that the manufacturers legal teams would have considered this approach. However they did not base their legal action on this proposition and we can only wonder if they thought that they had a better chance of winning using the "work of art" claim.
We'll probably never know!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 27th October 2021, 11:52
NeilF355 NeilF355 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Teesdale
Posts: 228
NeilF355 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitchelkitman View Post
I understand precedence can only be used to decide a case when the original decision was made by a certain 'level' of court - but then IANAL
I was not aware of this and after a quick look I can't find any guidance on it, however the case I have cited was originally heard in the High Court, it then went to the Appeal court and finally to the Supreme court so I think it should have the required level of authority.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 27th October 2021, 16:38
Lucky@LeMans Lucky@LeMans is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,941
Lucky@LeMans is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitchelkitman View Post
I'm convinced with the pile of bricks as a work of art and the pile of bricks as a building in the making, however, to make the analogy with cars is IMHO stretching it a bit too far. Yes, the main purpose (it could be argued) of a car is to transport from A to B, but the styling is (to most of us) an important part of the package. The argument (IMHO, and I am not a lawyer) should be based on whether the manufacturer (be it F or whoever) has lost revenue in some way - I venture to say that most (not all) replicas or homages cause no financial or other damage to the original manufacturer at all - more so when the model in question has not been made for many years.
When is something art and when isn't it ? The bricks analogy was used by the courts and was upheld.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 28th October 2021, 09:52
Mitchelkitman Mitchelkitman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: norfolk
Posts: 639
Mitchelkitman is on a distinguished road
Default

There is another aspect here, and that is 'bully-boy tactics'.
Unfortunately (correct me if I'm wrong) there is a long-standing tradition in English law that the one with the most money wins! A company with millions at its disposal can threaten a small producer with whatever they wish, and because the small producer doesn't have the funds to defend, the big guy wins. It's sometimes that simple.
Like the small guy with a good patent can't afford to defend it in law if the big company steals the idea.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 28th October 2021, 10:17
Lucky@LeMans Lucky@LeMans is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,941
Lucky@LeMans is on a distinguished road
Default

Very true but if the bully goes to court to shut you down there are precedents that have been set so you have a very strong defence. You need to know where you stand and as long as you are aware of what has gone before you will be in a very strong position. Before a case is bought you will have had exchanges with the bully and simply quoting examples of where they have lost in the past might put them off further intimidation ! ( I'm talking as someone who has been to the Appeal Courts, represented myself and won ! )
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 30th October 2021, 09:23
rossnzwpi rossnzwpi is offline
Senior Member
Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 224
rossnzwpi is on a distinguished road
Default

I remember going to MUMA in NYC (The Museum of Modern Art) and being awestruck by the Cisitalia hanging in the air....
The boundaries between art and utility are tenuous but copyright has always been of limited duration and if you do not manufacture something for 5 years under EU law then you can lose it (the use it or lose it clause). A Trademark can be registered if it is used to give an impression to the senses that represents your company. Logos are an obvious example but Coke trademarked their recipe (as well as the font and the ribbon and the bottle shape they used). Trademark needs to renewed regularly and companies that are not in the same business cannot be said to be "passing off" their product as yours. In other words a sports car maker that copied aspects of Ferrari's brand could be easily sued but a chocolate maker would be harder to win against. Cadburies trademarked their shade of purple but I believe they were unsuccessful trying to prevent a company that was not in the confectionary business from using it. I guess you could argue that a kit car replica maker is not producing a product that will compete with or devalue a hypercar maker. Especially if the replica shape in question has not been "used" in five or more years.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 17:11.

copyright madabout-kitcars.com 2000-2021
terms and conditions | privacy policy