Guest Sixcav Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 (edited) Many of you may or may not know that a law firm by the name of Howard Phillips and Andersen on behalf of Ford Motor Company is actively filing law suits against any company or organization with the "Mustang" in their name or products. Ford is apparently concerned with preserving the legacy of the Mustang. So much so that they are willing to destroy an entire industry and alienate millions of Mustang owners in the process. What it comes down to is if you have a business with the word Mustang in it Ford is going to sue you and demand that you cease using the name and in addition you will be forced to turn over to Ford any items you have with the word Mustang on it to be destoryed. And if that's not enough you also have to give Ford a $5,000. cashiers check. If you don't comply Ford will sue you for $100,000. Hey great thinking Ford. The Mustang is about the only car you have that's doing worth a shit and now you want to target the entire aftermarket and destory it for all the Mustang enthusiasts out there. Genius!!! What next, a new version of the Edsel? If this comes to pass or even starts coming to pass I'm getting rid of my Mustang and swearing off this dipshit company once and for all. I'm sure I won't be alone. Hey guys, instead of worrying about some small business that has a Mustang sticker kit, HOW ABOUT FIXING THE REST OF YOUR LAME ASS LINE UP!!!! Dumb asses. P.S. I'm sure Richie will tell us all what a great idea this is. lol Edited September 3, 2006 by Sixcav Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Yeah. Gee, requiring permission and asking for royalties from people that make money off your trademark. How fascist can you get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sixcav Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Yeah. Gee, requiring permission and asking for royalties from people that make money off your trademark. How fascist can you get? LOL, like the back of my hand moron. Only they aren't requiring permission Richie. It's not like you can pay Ford a royalty and continue to operate your business. They are making business quit using the word, as if the word Mustang can only belong to Ford. They are making businesses turn over any products they have to be destoried. Sounds pretty facist to me. Ford going to pay those companies for the cost of those products. Nope. We have a small business not far from where I live called "Steves Mustangs". This a shop that specializes in restoring and customizing Mustangs. Under this law suit he'll have to change the name of his business. lol Great idea. Ford will punish the guy who through his business encourages other people to buy Mustangs from Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Y'know that old line about how it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission? Ain't always so. "Steve" should've known better. "Steve" should've gotten permission. Why do you think this site is called 'blue oval forums' and 'blue oval news'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 It is not fascists, just bad business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sixcav Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Y'know that old line about how it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission? Ain't always so. "Steve" should've known better. "Steve" should've gotten permission. Why do you think this site is called 'blue oval forums' and 'blue oval news'? LOL, what a complete moron. So ok, some guy opens a store called, let's say, "Performance Mustangs" and I'm sure there's probably such a named store out there. Here's a store that specializes in customizing and working on just Mustangs. As a result some of the kick ass good looking Mustangs they customize encourages other people to buy Mustangs and have them customized at "Performance Mustangs". The result there is that Ford sold more Mustangs because this aftermarket shop specialized in making them look better, run faster, whatever. So that's a net gain for Ford. Let's say that Peformance Mustangs offers an engine dress up kit and as part of it the word "Mustang" is printed on one of the dress up parts. Or how about a shock tower stabilizer with the word Mustang painted on it? Now Ford is going to come along and not only make the owner of Peformance Mustangs change the name of his business, he also has to turn over to Ford all of his engine dress up kits and stabilizer bars to be destroyed. And oh yeah, cut us that check for 5 grand while you're at it. Not to mention all of their invoices that will say "Peformance Mustangs" on it. Have to be destroyed now. Any stickers they have that say "Customized with Pride at Performance Mustangs, 123 Amercia Street, Anywhere USA", yep they have to be turned over to Ford for destruction. lol So here's this guy who devoted his entire livelyhood to the car he loved and customized them and encouraged other people to buy Mustangs from Ford. Of course if you would like to have your Mustang customzied or tweaked just come see us at Performance Mustangs. Now Ford will punish this guy for helping Ford sell more Mustangs. Genius. It's a hypotheical I realize but you can bet there's many a Mustang specialty shop out there right now that will be in this boat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Oh, that's too stupid. Calling your business "Steve's Mustangs" dubious at best. Putting JUST the word "Mustang" on dress up parts? Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. Stupid stupid stupid. If the guy had spent all of $50 on a 10 minute conversation with any lawyer between Fairbanks and Ft. Lauderdale, he would've been told that he could expect this. I got NO sympathy for this guy. The moment he started putting "MUSTANG" on aftermarket parts he was totallllllly screwed. He might've gotten off better had he, oh, I don't know, put something like "Steve's" on his dress up stuff. Besides, it might actually generate more business for HIM (you know, like how Edelbrock stuff says "Edelbrock" on it, Holley stuff says "Holley", etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sixcav Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Richie. I encourage you to buy this months issue of Modified Mustangs. Read page 12. Learn something from people that know a whole lot more about the issue than you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Richie. I encourage you to buy this months issue of Modified Mustangs. Read page 12. Learn something from people that know a whole lot more about the issue than you do. What more to know? A guy puts the word "Mustang" on stuff to be installed in "Mustangs", stuff that competes with stuff sold by Ford, and Ford is supposed to say, "Good on ya'"? The rest is just the hurt feelings of businessmen that should've known better. Or are you telling me there's a novel legal theory propounded, whereby good intentions are more legally relevant than actual conduct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 My buddy is rebuilding a 69 Mach 1. I went to a swap meet in Ohio (all Ford-I was forced) and you could buy every body part of a 69 Mustang. They stamp the parts in Taiwan. What are you supposed to call the parts? As a matter of fact you can buy a whole body shell for a 69 Camaro on the aftermarket. What should they call these parts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sixcav Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Ok so don't read it Richie it's up to you. You wanna be ignorant about it, that's cool. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g48150 Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 My buddy is rebuilding a 69 Mach 1. I went to a swap meet in Ohio (all Ford-I was forced) and you could buy every body part of a 69 Mustang. They stamp the parts in Taiwan. What are you supposed to call the parts? As a matter of fact you can buy a whole body shell for a 69 Camaro on the aftermarket. What should they call these parts? Here's what they should call them, polish on the bow of the :titanic: Oh well, at least the Good Old Boy network gets rich off this... Its NOT Bill Ford... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Is my alma mater collecting royalties from Ford then?? Wikipedia: Southern Methodist University The Ford Mustang by Ford Motors is named after SMU's mustang mascot, Peruna. So technically, SMU should also get a piece of the pie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc-o Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Whenever any company tries to clamp down on unauthorized trademark usage it's *usually* a stupid move, in my opinion. This is definitely still one of those cases - my guess is that this is probably just a threat, at least I hope so because Ford has bigger fish to fry (this is NOT the way to generate revenue). As for Steve's Mustangs, that's exactly the kind of victim you wouldn't want suffering, but is obviously the easiest target. I can understand wanting to keep cheap knockoff parts off the market, but some non-Ford uses of the term "Mustang" can clearly be benificial to the franchise. Overall this would be a stupid move that would affect the most loyal enthusiasts most...dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Is my alma mater collecting royalties from Ford then?? Wikipedia: Southern Methodist University So technically, SMU should also get a piece of the pie. Contemporary accounts from those involved in the project state that the Mustang was named after the Army's P51 "Mustang" BTW, you can bet yer backside those guys that sell Camaro panels have spoken to GM ahead of time, and that's what this is about. Getting permission before you make money off another company's brand. I'm sure Ford's lawyers have handled some of these cases badly. They're known to do that. However, in the end, the name "Mustang", as applied to cars, belongs to Ford. They have every right to prevent people from affixing it to automotive products without their permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparks will fly Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 (edited) Oh, that's too stupid. Calling your business "Steve's Mustangs" dubious at best. Putting JUST the word "Mustang" on dress up parts? Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. Stupid stupid stupid. If the guy had spent all of $50 on a 10 minute conversation with any lawyer between Fairbanks and Ft. Lauderdale, he would've been told that he could expect this. I got NO sympathy for this guy. The moment he started putting "MUSTANG" on aftermarket parts he was totallllllly screwed. He might've gotten off better had he, oh, I don't know, put something like "Steve's" on his dress up stuff. Besides, it might actually generate more business for HIM (you know, like how Edelbrock stuff says "Edelbrock" on it, Holley stuff says "Holley", etc.) Some of these places have been around for years. In the eighties we had 2 places in KC that had the mustang as part of the name. They evn had parts that they sold that were manufactured in house that had the mustang name on them, It has only been since the new leadership come along that such F'd up demands be put on the mustang name, all in the name of money. Edited September 3, 2006 by sparks will fly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Richard, You are right from a purely legalistic standpoint. When I first heard about this I wrote posts just like yours. When you review the facts and the history, I believe you may change your mind. What Ford is doing is legally correct, just ill advised. If this goes to a jury anywhere, Ford will lose. The jury will be handed dozens of products called Mustang, every thing from lawn mowers to shoes. They will be shown pictures of horses and planes and every thing you might imagine. English professors will espouse on how the word is not just a noun, just like Ford also means to cross the river, to make the word even more common in use and meaning. The word will be deemed overly broad, and well used in the language. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit." Every dealer who ever sold Mustang parts will talk about how big, bad. heartless, unfeeling, evil Ford allowed them to use the name for years (they did, as long as it was used with a qualifier, like Classic Mustang), and is now getting into a competitive business, and acting in restraint of trade. They will nail Ford to the cross when they start talking about how Ford has changed their policy, the independents did not not change theirs. Ford will be shown to have failed to protect Futura and GT40 and many other names. This will establish a precedence. Ford will be shown to have acted too late, and on too broad an interpretation. It will turn out that the Mustang LOGO might be protected, but not the word. Even Coke knows they don't own the colors red and white. Further, the court will find that the word is descriptive in nature and essential to identify the goods. Restraining the independents will be shown to clearly be not only a restraint of trade, but also interference with their businesses. Perhaps the court would find that Ford had licesnsed the independents to build reproduction parts, and now by denying the ability to market the parts, was attempting to convert those assets to their own use through intimidation and duress. After all, if you are making Mustang parts, how do you sell them with out calling them Mustang parts? This could find its way to criminal court. The independents will then figure out that they have suffered damages. Damages are settled under tort. The minimum Ford will pay will be three times actual damages, plus any punitive damages. Once one attorney wins a case, every attorney will know exactly how to proceed. Ford will then be sued by every dealer that ever caved to Ford threats, and by a few who didn't but suffered real or imagined distress. All of these dealers who have a close relationships to their customers will remind those customers that Ford cares nothing about the cars built 40 years ago. They will do their best to build a wall between what Ford is today, and what Ford was then. Fords hold on these enthusiasts will be weakened. A new Nissan Truck can pull that trailer to the show just fine. Ford will find that they very brand equity that sought to protect, is now a joke. There is a fine line between bold and stupid. This is just boldly stupid. And through it all, the lawyers will charge Ford millions. Can you say $23 Billion in cash? First they stir up the hornets nest, then to make the hornets happy, one at a time. No expense will be spared. Some one at Ford needs to understand that they sell cars. NO ONE is trying to sell a new Mustang car. Some one needs to realize that they own a Mustang LOGO, not the word Mustang. Protect the product, protect the logo's. Stop pissing off your most loyal committed customers. This is just another example of the bad judgement that has landed Ford where they are today. And what makes you guys think that The Blue Oval is not going to fall into protected territory? It is descriptive enough that no one needs any other information to know it is a Ford oriented site? It is at least as recognizable as the shape of a Coke bottle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitchhiker Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Many of you may or may not know that a law firm by the name of Howard Phillips and Andersen on behalf of Ford Motor Company is actively filing law suits against any company or organization with the "Mustang" in their name or products. Ford is apparently concerned with preserving the legacy of the Mustang. So much so that they are willing to destroy an entire industry and alienate millions of Mustang owners in the process. What it comes down to is if you have a business with the word Mustang in it Ford is going to sue you and demand that you cease using the name and in addition you will be forced to turn over to Ford any items you have with the word Mustang on it to be destoryed. And if that's not enough you also have to give Ford a $5,000. cashiers check. If you don't comply Ford will sue you for $100,000. Hey great thinking Ford. The Mustang is about the only car you have that's doing worth a shit and now you want to target the entire aftermarket and destory it for all the Mustang enthusiasts out there. Genius!!! What next, a new version of the Edsel? If this comes to pass or even starts coming to pass I'm getting rid of my Mustang and swearing off this dipshit company once and for all. I'm sure I won't be alone. Hey guys, instead of worrying about some small business that has a Mustang sticker kit, HOW ABOUT FIXING THE REST OF YOUR LAME ASS LINE UP!!!! Dumb asses. P.S. I'm sure Richie will tell us all what a great idea this is. lol Does that mean that the 'Mustang Ranch' is closing? Oh Well...The Moonlight Bunny Ranch is open! :tease: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 (edited) Every dealer who ever sold Mustang parts will talk about how big, bad. heartless, unfeeling, evil Ford allowed them to use the name for years (they did, as long as it was used with a qualifier, like Classic Mustang), and is now getting into a competitive business, and acting in restraint of trade. They will nail Ford to the cross when they start talking about how Ford has changed their policy, the independents did not not change theirs. Ford will be shown to have failed to protect Futura and GT40 and many other names. ... And what makes you guys think that The Blue Oval is not going to fall into protected territory? It is descriptive enough that no one needs any other information to know it is a Ford oriented site? It is at least as recognizable as the shape of a Coke bottle. Hey, I think "Steve's Mustangs" as a dealership that specializes in classic Mustangs is borderline acceptable, as in, years ago Steve takes up pen and paper and writes, "Dear Ford Legal guys, I would like to call my business "Steve's Mustangs." My name is Steve, and I want to sell and restore '64-69 Mustangs. I am willing to abide by your restrictions on use and implication of Ford sponsorship, etc., because this is your trademark and you have a lot of money invested in this brand, sincerely, Steve a Mustang oriented businessman", coupled with a nice, framed response from Ford in the form of a usage agreement and contract, spelling out the conditions under which Ford grants said businessman permission to use the Mustang name. You do that, you're fine. Even if you don't do that, you can argue that your use of the Mustang name is descriptive, and that you clearly state on your letterhead, advertising, and so forth that you are not affiliated with or sponsored by Ford Motor company. Provided that you took steps ahead of time to disclaim a relationship with Ford Motor Company. Even if you don't put those disclaimers up (which any attorney would recommend before you even got done asking him about your ideas), you could probably still get by, arguing that your use is descriptive: you're "Steve" and you sell "Mustangs", what more is there to ask? But to manufacture products with the Mustang name on them for inclusion in Mustangs, without Ford approval? That is complete irresponsiblity, and it's worth remembering that these are not just Mustang fans, these are businessmen that are seeking to increase their profitability by blurring the line between OEM and OEM sanctioned equipment and their own stuff. It may be good, it may be popular, where it is, Ford should license it, but there is no way on earth Ford should just let this go. They let this stuff go and it WILL be like letting the lousy Futura brand name and the GT40 name lapse. BTW, this site used to be called Ford News, or something similar. Robert was sued for injunctive relief, because the name was too close Ford's own Ford World News publications. Robert now has a signed document from Ford authorizing use of "blue oval news." Invariably, a lawsuit precedes a settlement, but where businessmen (and let's not forget that these guys want to make money off an implied affiliation with Ford that does not actually exist) are involved, I think it's fair to ask why they never contacted lawyers of their own to make sure this was okay? I hope I'm not generalizing overmuch when I suggest that either these entrepreneurs viewed seeking legal advice before doing this as unnecessary (in which case they're boneheads), they figured that they would get turned down (in which case they should be sued), or they figured they'd slip below the radar (suprise!!). It's certainly not because they didn't have the money. It would cost all of a $150 consulation to get a written opinion on the use of "Mustang" in whatever context you were considering. Letting this stuff slide further erodes Ford's ability to sustain a cross-claim when someone, say, sells a Mustang branded suspension coil made out of recycled beer cans, pot metal, fiberglass and tinsel, which breaks, causing a fatality, and whammo, guess who's named as a co-defendant in the wrongful death suit? Ford can't win this either way you slice it. At least this way they lose while doing some good to protect their name. If they let anybody brand anything you can bolt onto a Mustang with the word "Mustang", well, they're screwed that way too. I mean, come on, are we collectively so stupid that we can't foresee that Ford may have some interest in how we use the names of their products? That they may want to at least KNOW what we're doing, so they can give us permission? You know why Otis' LEMON site is still up? Because it's not a commercial site. Commercial speech is not free speech. Pardon my rant, I just have little sympathy for sloppy, lazy, or willfully negligent business practices, and this is all about business. You want to remain in the dark about OSHA regs? Fine. Don't hire people. You can't be bothered to check with Ford ahead of your launch of a business that centers on Ford products? Fine. Don't come crying to me when you get sued. Edited September 3, 2006 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 Yeah if Ford goes through with this, then they deserve to fold up and go home. Maybe the math dictates that millions of dollars can be obtained by this stupidity to fund their operations! They're hurting right now you know! Besides, isn't Mustang the name of a horse? Myself, I wonder how they can claim any rights to that name. There's about 5 various companies using the Fusion name. What if I opened a horse farm near a ford (definition: a place where a river is shallow enough to cross by wading) and called it the ford mustang barn? What could they do? NOTHING! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTP WORKER Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 It's a good thing no one else is using Fusion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sixcav Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 (edited) Yep, looks like Ford is going to have to sue Gillette while they're at it. Edited September 3, 2006 by Sixcav Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 (edited) I thought there was a thread about this a couple of months ago, and someone who claimed to have inside knowledge came on and said that Ford had called off the dogs. My son takes his '65 Mustang to a place called "Bel-Kirk Mustang" for parts and service. It is run by an older man and his ditzy wife, with a handful of clerks and mechanics. It would not surprise me in the least if they didn't contact Ford's legal department before forming the business. If they had not had the word (and I say word) "Mustang" in their name, there is a good chance we would not have found them. There is a good chance they would not exist, and there is a good chance parts for my son's 42 year old car would be just that much harder to find. They are a local resource for the Mustang enthusiast community - whose cars are a rolling testament to Fords (past) greatness, and have inestimable value to the Ford brand. If Ford is still going on with this, it is the stupidest thing I can remember seeing a major corporation do, at least since "New Coke". In what upside-down universe could this possibly make any sense? Take petty, enraging, abusive, corporate legalistic bullying like this, and couple it with the shitty quality of my overpriced T-Bird, and you can kiss this life-long Ford customer goodbye. *Just went back and read the first page of posts. Let me clarify my position: No, somebody should not be putting the word "Mustang" or the Mustang logo on aftermarket parts that are not licensed from Ford. That is misleading and illegal. You are correct Richard, in saying that it would be stupid. Even innocous things like sticker kits and floor mats I suppose (reluctantly - where do we stop? T-Shirts?). However, if somebody has the word Mustang in their business name - like the case above, they should be left alone. It would be extremely stupid for Ford to make life difficult for such businesses. Edited September 3, 2006 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sixcav Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 I thought there was a thread about this a couple of months ago, and someone who claimed to have inside knowledge came on and said that Ford had called off the dogs. Apparently it's still going on from what I read in this months issue of Modified Mustangs. It's a really stupid thing for them to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 (edited) A partially related story: In my own profession, a company called AutoDesk controls about 90% of the Architectural CAD software market with their AutoCAD software. In fact, AutoCAD is almost a generic name for CAD software, the way "Kleenex" is for tissue. I learned from a software developer friend of mine, who was developing a product in cooperation with AutoDesk about 12 years ago, that AutoCAD did not put any copy protection on their software, for the reason that they knew it was going to be pirated (which in fact it was - en masse), but they also knew that this would make it ubiquitous. They only went after larger abusers, who could well afford the software licenses. An engineering firm I knew, with around 50 employees, was fined $50,000.00 for using unlicensed copies. The little guys, they let fly under the radar, knowing that they would grow into the fold. By now, if I'm not mistaken, they have instituted copy protection on their software. But, by now they control about 90% of their market. Some companies are dumb like a fox, some are smart like a stubbed toe. Ford is tripping over itself on this one. Edited September 3, 2006 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.