Calm down. The problem is not the silly wrap, it's the parodic use of the distinctive Ferrari logo. Whoever says that Ferrari does not need to respond to such things to protect its intellectual property does not know what he is on about. Whether it reflects well on Ferrari is obviously debatable. But if you do not defend your trademarks, you risk losing them. Simple as that.
Do you see Chevy and Ford suing every red neck F ' r from Jacksonville, over their sticker of some kid pissin' on their logo? Noooooo! What a bunch of up tight doo shis! Funny as heck to see peeps here supporting this kind of legal BS-ery.
Good point. Ford wouldn't sue over petty trademark stuff. Ford sues Ferrari for using F-150 name on race car | Reuters And probably wouldn't want to rile their fan base.... http://www.ridelust.com/ford-sues-fanboy-site-for-copyright-infringement/
Facebook is for children, not those who are in a position to purchase a new Ferrari. I think "catastrophic PR move" is not something which will be discussed at the next Ferrari board meeting because some teenagers are angry on Facebook. Companies who expect to have control over their trademarks (and nearly all of them do) MUST defend them. Otherwise, the whole idea of having a trademark in the first place is diminished.
I agree with companies protecting their interests from other companies and commercial interests such as websites, etc. That's different than going after some dude that plays with his own car and monkeys around with the logos on the car he paid for. It really is akin to Ford or Chevy going after anyone sportin a logo pisser decal. This Deadmou5 thing is so petty it's ridiculous. Anyone who thinks it actually makes sense ought to get off the Snobton express at the next station and arrange to have their nugget examined by a trained professional "provider". We should always err towards protecting freedom of expression, even if it means letting the 'Mou5 defile his car. Of course this is just my stupid opinion... Ciao, all!
So, why wasn't Kevin Federline(Britney Spears) served when he mucked up his brake calipers? Are we picking and choosing targets, or is this just for the outrageous beacons of those who desecrate the name? Image Unavailable, Please Login
+1 Some are too blinded by their professional attitude and no longer see the difference between a one man prank and a serious trademark threat. Something about living by the spirit of the law, not by the letter comes to mind. It's even less of a threat compared to the pisser decals (or attaching the competition's logo to their car and dragging it over the ground, like Opel and Volkswagen fans tend to do in Germany).
Hahaha. How pathetic and retarded. Anyone who says they have to defend their marks is clueless. It's not a company's responsibility to make sure every last person in the world isn't violating their trademarks. Ignorance is in fact a defence if such a case is ever brought up. Defendant: Well, I've been using their trademarks for the last 10 years on Purrari badges that I've had for sale in my tiny auto parts store in Nowhereville Indiana. They never said anything, so you should invalidate their marks. Ferrari: We didn't know about it until today. Now we want him to stop Judge: Case dismissed. Damages awarded to Ferrari, trademark valid, stop using their marks.
I wonder how the 'Suits' would have dealt with Ferrari Alaska Racing Team or, for that matter, NART! Of course no one could object to Ferrari defending their trademarks against commercial exploitation, but they seem to have made an art form out of profiting from IP and it often leaves a nasty taste. Many F Chat contributors collect scale models, and are all doubtless familiar with the 'approved' hologram, denoting that the manufacturer pays an exorbitant licence fee to Ferrari. Many will also mourn the passing of other manufacturers who could not or would not stump up fees for their very small production. Members of the various official clubs around the world will also be familiar with the draconian measures taken over logos, regalia and even stationery. Just the way to deal with committed customers of the marque! Sometimes a lighter touch, rather than threats of legal action, might just achieve the desired result.
Here is a thought. I agree that it is a little silly to really go after this deadmou5. However, a good point was made about the importance of enforcing trademarks. Here is something to ponder: perhaps Ferrari thinks it is silly too. However they want to send the message that they will enforce trademarks with as little spend as possible. By taking action against deadmou5 they spend the same amount as going after anyone but got much more publicity and therefore bang for the buck. We all know about it right? So for each dollar they spend more people will get the message that Ferrari is serious. Going after a small guy in some doing something more offensive with there trade mark will likely not get nearly as much press and therefor have no little deterrent value. The downside is a backlash of course. However I think most who think it is silly, including me, would not use it as the primary cause not to buy a Ferrari...
nothing funny about infringement of protected trademarks. They are protected for a reason and Ferrari has got a lot riding on her trademark.
the comments people are making (not necessarily here) about "when you buy a ferrari you sign a contracting agreeing to this" is a completely null point, what about people who buy their cars second hand? I appreciate that Ferrari only got involved when he listed his car for sale but common sense should of kicked in that has no intention of starting a 'Purrari' brand and this was at the most a little bit of kooky fun.
Could be worse... Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I really doubt they sued Bill Harrah over that one. I remember reading a couple of articles about it that made it sound very well done.
Sorry for the multiple posts here -- trouble with tapatalk. Anyways, seems like Ferrari has (presumably) given permission before to Jamiroquai to use a "stylized" logo (I say that as he's presumably still in good standing with the company as one of their better customers with his green LaF also). Wondering if this sets any precedent or since it was (again, presumably) done with permission, it doesn't count?
You'd be wrong. The older buyers are dying off. The younger generation who have the means of exotic car ownership (hint: tech guys) will be the future buyers of these exotic cars. I have couple of millionaire friends <30. When I asked them what car they will buy first, all of them said Lamborghini. The way Ferrari conducts its affair leaves bad taste in a lot of people's mouth. Many people buy Ferrari because its gives them "status". The Ferrari halo is achieved when common men appreciate and respect the brand. When Ferrari loses its halo status among the general population, do you think the elite will continue to buy Ferrari when they can no longer show off their cars?
With this 100%. The generation of Facebook users will still be using it when they are older. It is very easy for people to remember what's 'cool' and whats 'not cool'. I have 4 friends under 30 who have spent new Ferrari money on a car other than Ferrari. It's already a bit of a brand people roll their eyes at.