RichardJensen Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 (edited) *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. If you call your business "Bel-Kirk Mustang", and put up a few relatively conspicuous signs (like on the counter, and in a line on your invoices) that say, "Not affiliated with Ford Motor Company", you would have like 80-90% of your butt covered. You would also want to avoid advertising with overly conspicuous use of the the Mustang logo, or the blue oval. Do those things and Ford has little grounds for complaint. In fact, I'm guessing there's a whole pile of precedent on the side of the small time operators, provided they clearly disclaim a relationship to Ford. In the matter of t-shirts, etc., I don't know what Ford's policy is, but since Ford allows aftermarket companies to use Ford's logo on mudflaps, floormats, decals, etc., I would imagine that they would also allow 3rd parties to make and sell Mustang apparel. Ford going after some small time outfit making T-shirts at the state fair, that's stupid (unless their use of the Mustang and/or Ford logos is, well in exceptionally poor taste). But if the company's selling the stuff online, through catalogs, or through a number of retailers, well, an outfit of that size needs to sign Ford's product licensing forms. Edited September 3, 2006 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one2gamble Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 so If I open store called "Jons Mustang Supply" and sell horse food do I have to put "not affiliated with Ford" on the door? The simple fact is Ford makes money by people using the mustang name. Those shops, mags etc have done nothing but STRENGTHEN the brand. Most of Ford knows this but thats what happens when you hire a dimwit MBA with no knowledge of the auto industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrtran Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 It seems to me that there's a few posters on this site that are somewhat young. Ford has been going after companies that use the term "Mustang" in association with automobiles for a good forty years. This kind of discussion only shows up around every 8 - 10 years, or when some loudmouth thinks he's got the right to use the word "Mustang" in association with car parts. Usually, the claim is that he's "helping Ford". Um, just how many new sales of '69 Mustangs is Ford getting out of Steve? Note: Mattel, Monogram/Revell and Ertl/AMT pay money to Ford (and the others) to use the words "Ford" and "Mustang" on their scale models. Even your Ford dealer pays money to Ford to be able to use the word "Ford", and to display the company logos. Notice, too, that in car commercials with "generic" cars (e.g. insurance companie ads) that all logos and identifying marks are removed from the vehicles. These logos (and in many cases, the car names themselves) are trademarked, and the tm owners are required to defend these trademarks in order to keep them. While Ford can't trademark the word "Mustang" for all uses (in the US, anyway), they most certainly have trademarked it in association with automobiles. No, Ford won't go after "Jon's Mustang Supply" 'cause it ain't got nothing to do with cars. "Steve's Mustangs" might even be okay - at least until Steve starts advertising the Ford Mustang logo, and starts putting the word "Mustang" on his parts. If Steve only did repair work and specialized in Mustangs, he might have a case, but since he's selling parts, Ford -must- defend their mark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluecon Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 So typical of Ford management. The whole place is falling down and they are attacking mom and pop operations. You would think they would devote their time to something more important. Like building vehicles, maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 According to the September 2006 issue of Mustang Monthly magazine, the matter is currently under negotiation with the various Mustang related vendors. The issue was not the production of Mustang parts which has been covered by licensing agreements for many years. The problem is that some pin head at Ford hired a law firm out of Salt Lake City (Howard, Phillips & Anderson) to send out "cease and desist letters" demanding that the parts vendors remove the word Mustang from their name, websites, destroy all advertising and promotional materials and pay Ford $10,000. This letter was mailed to several Mustang parts suppliers such as Mustangs Plus in California which has been in business since 1981. The outcry from the Mustang enthusiast community was overwhelming and apparently Ford has gotten the message. The letters and threats of litigation have stopped and a reasonable settlement should be concluded soon. Unfortunately, many hard feelings have resulted from this stupid policy. The Mustang vendors have been among those who kept the Mustang alive and supported the new Mustang. In addition, most of these vendors are Fords most loyal customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 "so If I open store called "Jons Mustang Supply" and sell horse food do I have to put "not affiliated with Ford" on the door?" No, because you don't sell automotive products. If your business was in Maine or Ontario, maybe they might get perturbed, because a mustang is a western horse. But if you were in Oklahoma or Arkansas or Alberta, you have every right to use the name by itself with no disclaimer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangeRover Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 This thread is retarded. All of these what if scenarios about business names and usage of words and logos associated with Ford are pointless. The bottom line is there are laws and systems that protect businesses from people that exploit the successes of others. If you have a soft spot for the little guy, so be it but at the end of the day an illegal action is illegal despite who committs the infraction. I assure you that Ford attorneys know patent and trademark infringement when they see it. If you think it is in poor taste WHO CARES. If it were your business and trademark you would think otherwise. Especially when the infringement is linked to parts that are associated with your product. Unhappy consumers will always blame the big guy. Ford has the right to protect their brand and anything that might hurt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 I guess these people want Ford to lose "Mustang" like they lost the names "GT40" and "Futura". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe771476 Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 These lawyers you are talking about: Are they the same morons who have allowed Ford to settle so many cases that were clearly NOT Ford's fault for billions of dollars? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangeRover Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 These lawyers you are talking about: Are they the same morons who have allowed Ford to settle so many cases that were clearly NOT Ford's fault for billions of dollars? No company willingly gives up money. If a case is settled there are reasons why. It is so easy for people to be critical. Let's sling some more dirt at peoples decisions with limited info on their rationale. Come on, let's hear about those pathetic Ford Lawyers that give away billions in cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 I am reading a number of common sense responses here that make lots of sense. Except they assume that Ford is also using common sense. Ford is insisting that any automotive related use of the WORD Mustang is no longer allowed. ANY use. Please look into this and get the facts about what Ford is doing. I will try to get some links up. Until you read what Ford is doing, you are not going to believe this. Especially when the infringement is linked to parts that are associated with your product. It is not linked to parts. Parts are made under license from Ford right now. There is no issue there. This is about the ability to use the word mustang. No, Ford won't go after "Jon's Mustang Supply" 'cause it ain't got nothing to do with cars. "Steve's Mustangs" might even be okay - at least until Steve starts advertising the Ford Mustang logo, and starts putting the word "Mustang" on his parts. If Steve only did repair work and specialized in Mustangs, he might have a case, but since he's selling parts, Ford -must- defend their mark. No, Jon would have to hire attorneys to defend himself. Ford is filing the actions. The entire issue is with dealers like Steve. Originally Ford allowed the use of the word Mustang in conjunction with a modifier, as in Steve's Mustangs. They have decided to change this policy. If Steve is authorized to sell parts that are manufactured under license from Ford, he is also authorized to use the logos. This is not about the logos. If you call your business "Bel-Kirk Mustang", and put up a few relatively conspicuous signs (like on the counter, and in a line on your invoices) that say, "Not affiliated with Ford Motor Company", you would have like 80-90% of your butt covered. Make that 0% covered as this is precisely what Ford is objecting to. Even in cases where they had previously allowed usage, they are now disallowing it. Read the Mustangs Plus story: http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art.../605100302/1003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Selby Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 I have spent a small fortune with the good people at Johns Classic Cougars. Being some names are no longer in use I wonder if Cougar, Fairlane, Falcon, etc, parts businesses will be targeted. Anyone know what old names Ford still owns the rights to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OAC_Sparky 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! Are you skinning the horses, stamping their hides into valve covers and selling them to go on Ford Mustangs? I'm guessing.....ummmmmm.....no. Ford only has a problem with people unofficially affiliating themselves with Ford or Ford's product. Do I agree with it? In principle, no. However, in today's litigious society you can't blame them, can you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 3, 2006 Share Posted September 3, 2006 From the article: 'Bramlett and his partners believed Mustangs Plus met that criteria, and a decade of silence from Ford quarters deemed confirmation.' Why not get a letter, in writing, confirming your opinion: silence does not constitute acceptance--unless you are willing to pay a fortune to get a lawyer to argue before a judge. 'But they have decided to rename the business using the word "restomod," a term referring to car restoration and modification that Mustangs Plus copyrighted.' And how jealous will they be of the term 'restomod'? Will they allow other businesses to advertise that they, too, sell "restomods"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Why not get a letter, in writing, confirming your opinion: silence does not constitute acceptance--unless you are willing to pay a fortune to get a lawyer to argue before a judge. The obligation to protect a trademark lies with the mark holder. As it turns out, silence does constitute acceptance. Failure to protect the mark, combined with no continued use, constitutes abandonment. This is how Ford lost GT40 and Futura. Ford should protect its trademarks. There are many smarter ways to do this with out costing the company some of its most loyal customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 As it turns out, silence does constitute acceptance. Failure to protect the mark, combined with no continued use, constitutes abandonment. This is how Ford lost GT40 and Futura. Ford had stopped building GT40s, and had stopped using the Futura name, that's why they lapsed. But silence only arguably and expensively constitutes acceptance. You have to get a lawyer to argue this, and that gets expensive. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Ford should've come up with a standard list of acceptable uses, and should have, for a reasonable fee (to cover auditing) allowed businesses a conditional use agreement, that would prevent periodic 'sweeps' like this. That's the prevention Ford should've done. The PR black eye they get from this is their cost. However, I simply cannot support the position of people who 'assume' they have the right to use a trademark, simply because they haven't been told "NO". They should do their homework. Who's going to come to my defense if I use copyrighted artwork on one of my websites and get sued? Who knows how long you can play music at a bar before an ASCAP attorney breezes through the doors. But once they do, you're going to be in trouble, unless you've paid ahead for the right to broadcast music in your public place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCK Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Yeah. Gee, requiring permission and asking for royalties from people that make money off your trademark. How fascist can you get? You officially have your head so fr up Fords ass its sickning. You think this is going to be good for ford in the long run? No............................but if ford made a descision...........no matter how bad......................you will blindly defend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 For those of you who have not been through the process: When you come up with the new name for your company, you apply for registration for you trademark, or service mark. Trademarks are used on the goods. If you are Scott Drake Mustang Parts, and you sell products that you manufacture under license from Ford Motor Company, You will apply for a Trademark. If you are Joe's Mustang Repair, you will apply for a service mark, since your name isn't on the product. If you are doing business on a solely local basis, you will probably apply with the Secretary of State for your locale (Joe is the best Mustang guy in Phoenix). If you are doing business on a national level (interstate commerce, Joe is on eBay selling restoration services) you will apply at the USPTO. Once you have made application, and an inspector has evaluated your marks, and concluded that no market confusion is likely to occur, then your mark is published for protest. If no party arises to protest the mark, it may move forward for registration. If you are allowed registration, then aggrieved parties may still contest the use, but the burden of proof of confusion is raised a notch or two. The longer a mark survives with out protest, the more difficult it will be to prove that it causes confusion in the market. This is where Ford is now. What Ford does have is a lot of money and lawyers, and as we all know, he who has the gold, makes the rules. This is a brief synopsis of the process. For more information you may want to go to the USPTO web site. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/b...trade_defin.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xr7g428 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 (edited) Who's going to come to my defense if I use copyrighted artwork on one of my websites and get sued? Copyrights are quite different from trademarks. I doubt that any one will rise to your defense for using material without copyright. What Ford is doing, is to contest the legal trademarks of Mustang parts vendors, outside the USPTO system. They are suing individual companies directly. I realize how staggeringly stupid this is and how hard it is to believe that they are doing this.... As I have said before, when I first heard about what they were doing, I suggested that they were just following good business practice as well... I do hope, as was suggested earlier, that Ford has their dogs out of this fight. There is just no time for this kind of foolishness when your back is against the wall. I am absolutely pro Ford, but I am not pro stupid. Edited September 4, 2006 by xr7g428 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 Here's why. If "Joe Blow Mustangs" screws over someone, they may say "I won't buy Fords again". Couldn't care less, the aftermarketers are getting filthy rich restoring old cars, so they should pay up. Can scream and yell, but GM, DCX and all are doing it too. Go buy a Chinese car then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 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. a magazine that gets most of its advertising from the types of people Ford is suing would have a very biased view of the situation. So no point in reading it. I can already tell you what their point-of-view is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fllcobra Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 I can see everyone's point of view and agree, that if Ford does not handle this right, it will look like David vs Goliath. Ford does need to draw the line with regards to authorizing printed logos that go on products. It's Ford's design and they deserve a cut. And Ford has an interest in protecting customers from inferior products made by unauthorized merchants touting its logos. Ford would be much better off following the National Football League model by educating the consumer to only buy Ford logo products from Ford authorized vendors. Of course Ford would have to come up with a program to license vendors that use its logo. As for the little guys, Ford just needs to enforce a policy that has them state, "Not associated in any way with Ford Motor Company or its affiliates". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLemon Posted September 4, 2006 Share Posted September 4, 2006 fightford.org he he he he! see also www.mustangsucks.com, Now Property of The FordLemon's Crew! :bandance: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sizzler Posted September 5, 2006 Share Posted September 5, 2006 I fall on the side of Ford on this issue. They need to protect the assets they've created, maintained and updated. Simple business. Some other businesses should (have) learn(ed) some simple rules as well. How about I open up a hot dog stand called McDonald's? Different product, different owners. Think McDonald's would be ok with that? Boss Hoss. Needs to bow down to Ford, or at least start using Ford engines... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebritt Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Didn't Carol Shelby try to sue anyone who ever bought or owned a Cobra clone a few years ago? That pissed off a lot of people. 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.