Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: MARC Cars Mustang for Bathurst 12 Hour

  1. #21
    James. defective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Doesn't something only have to be some percentage different to the genuine article to avoid any copyright style claims?

    I'd bet all of those mustang panels are significantly different to stock items.
    Quote Originally Posted by Falc'man View Post
    In the words of a wise man: if you don't read the papers you're uninformed, if you do read the papers you're misinformed.

  2. #22
    Mr Aftermarket :) FTe217's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Driving my cars as much as I can
    What a mad looking machine.
    I was just asked at today Oz day bbq we were at if I was going to check out the 12hr, I had this on my mind, the green beast that is, I told my friend I'm up for it for the day out.
    Hopefully were not caught up love to see and hear this as well as the other juicy machines.
    YNWA ! off to CL 2018.
    Sydney is Sky Blue HAL Premiers/Champions 2017 - the Double.

  3. #23
    7753 - 5030 HSE2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Quote Originally Posted by WASP View Post
    I see your point Ian. Supercars has been born out of the concept of a road going version of the car being purchased by someone and used for racing. They can’t stop you doing that, but they can claim brand or reputation damages as you say. For example should the use of their imagine bring their brand into disrepute etc.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    There is a difference with Ford claiming damage to the Ford brand because it’s so encompassing and the very specific mustang brand which has just one small association to Ford on the front screen.

    While the conversation was about Ford, you know what, I could see there might be a point to their concern. Some people genuinelybelieve the world is flat, so I don’t doubt there are people saying Motorsport is a bad image likely to prevent purchase.

    Good luck arguing that with Mustang and if it were to go legal, I fully suspect the owner of the Mustang brand would need to front that arguement getting global coverage. That won’t work very well.

    There is no mustang badge as yet on the Marc car.

    If the teams were to purchase second hand mustangs at 50 k. Tickford would need 6 and for every race car there after built, a road car would need to be purchased.

    That’s 300k to do the following.

    Record each car being driven in, completely disassembled, and race cars built. Those cars can not exist now. They can’t be reassembled. They must be dead with vin plate binned.

    Ford have received funding that enables the owner to do whatever they like with what used to be Fords IP product.

    The line between road car and race car has been crossed. The race car has to comply with the category rules, not road rules.

    Lawyers would need to argue this wasn’t a good faith approach, that after being denied permission, the following was an attempt to use the brand to profit in a way that wasn’t sanctioned.

    Ford would win against the promotion of the brand for profit. No team merchandise could wear the ford or mustang emblem.
    No worlding on the car, most likely the mustang grill badge couldn’t be used. Ford could most definitely block all that use leaving the shell resemblance.

    That’s not great for the teams and this is why they are asking for licence approval.

    Tickford have the road business. What Ford need to be careful of is avoiding another sitting in front of the ACCC.

    Restriction of trade and it’s promotion isn’t too far away from the warning handed out already. Consumers are allowed to have cars serviced, owners control what happens to their own property once owned.

    Tickford the race team and Tickford the road team are there for tax reasons. Sponsorship reasons. Legitimately promoting the enhancement of road products via the appearance on the track has been acceptable in justification for the last 20 years.

    If Ford can’t stop Tickford from enhancement of their IP for profit, they are heading towards titanic proportions to argue further damages with track imagery.

    Penske doesn’t have this issue to argue but instead a far greater Ford alignment stateside.

    Unlike Volvo who clearly stated the withdrawal was due to potential damages, when any car company starts talking like that, it’s big numbers if you are wrong.

    My opinion that there are no damages needs to be legally backable. Select restrictive trade will set a new benchmark.

    I don’t believe Ford would take this to court. If Marc havent at least purchased a mustang for each build, it’s an identical situation. Use of ip without paying for it is the issue. Pay for it, arguement is deminished, race requirements not road requirements dictates original content requirement. If the category rule is 0 %, the blocking of approval will be based on Ford claiming nothing of a purchased product was retained and therefor a stunt. A pretty expensive stunt but a stunt never the less.
    History is a statement, the future is a question.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts