Please do. I'd be interested to read.
Somebody I know very well and trust from the FGT program told me that that was indeed the figure they started off at. Can't imagine he has any reason to fabricate.
OK, following are copies of messages on <www.gt40s.com> about the litigation that Safir GT40 Spares is involved in regarding: (1) the shape of the GT40; and (2) the name "GT40." All are from Bob Wood, one of three owners of Safir. There are two (or in this case three or more) sides to every story. However, I have met Bob Wood a number of times, spoken with him on the phone many times, and believe him to be a straight shooter. I have no axe to grind nor financial stake in this, BTW. Read and draw your own conclusions.
Message from Bob Wood Regarding the GT40 Shape:
In our application for a trademark on the shape, Ford and H&M opposed Safir, i.e., those two entities did/do not want us to have it. This has been going on for several years now. Safir needed/wanted to enter into our case with Holman a deposition that Holman did for Ford, we issued a subpoena to get it, and the action was done in the NC federal district court. The action as quoted above is accurately quoted, however, the information appears to indicate that Ford has a new action against us, Safir. That is not the case.
Bob Wood
Message from Bob Wood Regarding the GT40 Name:
Thank you for the impetus and the forum to tell the real story! We have told several publications the true story, all of which have Ford as a major advertiser. We feel that we will never get a fair deal with any of the automotive periodicals.
I will begin with two statements that are absolutely true. We never demanded any amount of money from Ford, never demanded $40 million, and the Ford Motor Company never made Safir an offer to evaluate. That being stated, one must understand that Ford was unwilling to spend any real money to buy the trademark.
Ford never registered the "GT40" word mark. Peter Thorp did in 1985 to make his MkVs the only legitimate GT40s with the name and successive serial numbers. In 1995 a toy company approached Ford to make a model of the GT40, and Ford realized at that time that they did not have any rights to the GT40 mark. Peter Thorp granted Ford the right to register a "GT40" mark for a different class of products (toys), which registration he could have opposed as it was a "GT40" model of his "GT40" cars. He allowed Ford to do so for no charge. Ford agreed never to interfere with Safir's registration or use of the "GT40" mark for full size automobiles.
When Ford decided to make the GT40 Concept into a production vehicle, Ford asked us (Safir) what we wanted for the mark to sell it to Ford, not just license it. We knew that Ford charges 7.5% of the retail price of a product to license the Blue Oval. We suggested that we begin our negotiations at that level, and that number was in fact $40million. For said that that was out of the question. We then asked Ford to make us an offer. Ford said that they did not want to make us an offer that we would not accept (?); essentially asking us to bid against ourselves! We said that we would take $25million. They laughed and we laughed, and then Ford said, "Seriously, what do you want?" We said, "Seriously,you make us the offer." For never would make us an offer in writing. Several things were suggested for which we asked a written offer. Tom Scarpello of Ford would never put anything in writing.
We told young Keith Crane (K.C.), son of Keith Crane owner Crane publications, just as above. It was K.C. Crane who printed the words "demanded", "bombshell" and that things got "ugly". We never demanded, it was never a bombshell, and we communicated with Ford for three months begging Ford for an offer. Ford for three months kept telling us that the "market equation" which they used to determine how many more cars they would sell as "GT40" vs. "Ford GT" would not justify spending much money on the trademark. Scarpello told us that the trademark was worth only that which we paid for the Safir assets which included the mark;he asked what did we pay $10,000, $15.000, $25,000. Ford never made us an offer, we never demanded any amount, much less the $40million tale, and K.C. Crane published something that was very misleading. It made us look very bad, and Ford the injured party. Ford did not care about the trademark.
We have heard from within Ford that we were offered the first and last car and $5million (Scarpello told that to a group of Ford enthusiasts gathered at a luncheon; he knew that it was not true), that we were offered $1million and a car each (Neil Ressler told me that himself) and that we would not take it, and that we were impossible to deal with. None of which is true.
We were only approached by Automotive News Weekly (K.C.Crane) for our side of the story. K.C.Crane mislead the readers with his wording. No other publication, no other publication, no other publication asked us for the story. DBLDREW links readers to Road and Track who never contacted us. The R&T article is just the same B.S. that R&T got from the Crane article. This is true for every article that has been written, except for articles that were written by Jim Mateja if the Chicago Tribune whom we subsequently contacted, and who wrote the true story. However, that story received little press when compared to the Crane story.
We would deserve the derogatory comments ( "gents" ((above)), "hosers", etc.) which we have been called if in fact there were any truth to the "offers" from Ford. We would have been idiots to have turned down millions of dollars and new cars, and we would not have had they been offered.
The shape is not in the public domain. A tenet of trademark law establishes that if a visual image conjures in one's mind a word mark, then the two are deemed to be one and the same. Does anyone look at a GT40 shaped car and think of anything other than "GT40"? Each mark is able to be registered.
Think of a winged red horse...Mobile Oil?
Thank you for reading! There is more to the story which will be published in the forth-coming Shelby World Registry. As Don S. has written, anyone can call me, and I will be happy to elborate. This is a great site, Ron. Thank you for the forum!
Bob Wood
Another Message from Bob Wood:
Having read thr R&T article, DBLDREW, I must admit that it did not cast the very negative slant on Safir that ANW did. However, we at Safir have a general dissatisfaction with all of the publications in that not one, not one contacted us for the true story. Had DeLorenzo contacted us, we would have told him that Ford would not make us an offer, and that Ford told us that our GT40 trademark was not worth much to Ford when their "market equation" was used. That printed, maybe the public would not have the impression that we were/are "hosers", but that it was/is the Ford Motor Company who did not negotiate in good faith and really did not care much about the tradematk. It was DeLorenzo who, in fact, referred to us as "hosers" in a subsequent article. DeLorenzo would never return my phone calls, never would acknowledge that he "learned" the real story from my very lengthy voice mails, and never retracted the "hosers". That certainly is B.S.!
As DBLDREW aptly states there is always a second side to the story. We feel that all of the publications had a journalistic obligation to get that second side instead of simply following ANW's lead and making Safir look so very bad.
In contrast, Keith Martin in Sportscar Market did retract his negative comments after having spoken to us.
