Porsche sues Singer
- Thread starter 2112
- Start date
dr914
GT Owner
Porsche should buy Singer so that they have a new outlet for modifications and redesign of the older cars. It is obviously a very popular thing to do. However Porsche has to protect their trade dress, copyright, and trademarks. Several years ago they got after us and several other Porsche mail order companies and we all had to sign an agreement. Things then changed forever. I can only imagine if Amco was still around and ran this ad! Instant lawsuit
Attachments
Interesting. Thanks for posting!
Carroll Shelby's suing the replica Cobra builders was a kinda/sorta similar thing.
I'm not an attorney and I only have a lay-person's knowledge of trademarks, but I can see how a company would have to take some sort of action to stop the runaway unauthorized use of their trademarks/logos/designs, etc.
About 25 years ago, Jeep's PR/Marketing departments launched a push on the car magazines (I was running Motor Trend at the time) to include the "R-in-a-circle" Registered Trademark label every time the Jeep name was printed. So, if you were doing a comparison road test with a Jeep and five competitors, there's a lot of use of "Jeep"...and that would require lots of R's in circles.
As an editor (and thinking as a reader) having that trademark thingy appear every time "Jeep" was mentioned slowed down the flow of the article. And, YES, Jeep insisted it be done every single time its name was used.
I remember saying to the Jeep PR execs, at the time, that there's a potential downside they may not have thought about: It could look to the readers that (if a magazine put a photo of a Jeep on its cover and used the "R-in-a-circle" logo with the Jeep name) it could appear that the magazine cover was bought and paid for by Jeep.
That would bite twice:
1. There goes any journalistic integrity on the magazine's part. Welcome to "Pay-to-Play Car Magazine", folks!
2. It also could look like Jeep had to resort to buying a front cover, so that must mean they're not getting many covers on their vehicles' merits. (Self-fulfilling prophecy there!)
But, they enforced it! Not that there's much that Jeep (no-R-in-a-circle) could do to you (other than remind you to not do it again) but it would indeed hurt that magazine & car manufacturer's relations, for a period of time, to blatantly refuse to honor their request.
The entire process got to be such a PITA for everyone, including Jeep (R-in-a-circle), to administer (and possibly because a year or so had elapsed while doing all those Rs-in-circles, so some precedence had been achieved) that the "Registered Trademark Forever Rule" faded away.
Carroll Shelby's suing the replica Cobra builders was a kinda/sorta similar thing.
I'm not an attorney and I only have a lay-person's knowledge of trademarks, but I can see how a company would have to take some sort of action to stop the runaway unauthorized use of their trademarks/logos/designs, etc.
About 25 years ago, Jeep's PR/Marketing departments launched a push on the car magazines (I was running Motor Trend at the time) to include the "R-in-a-circle" Registered Trademark label every time the Jeep name was printed. So, if you were doing a comparison road test with a Jeep and five competitors, there's a lot of use of "Jeep"...and that would require lots of R's in circles.
As an editor (and thinking as a reader) having that trademark thingy appear every time "Jeep" was mentioned slowed down the flow of the article. And, YES, Jeep insisted it be done every single time its name was used.
I remember saying to the Jeep PR execs, at the time, that there's a potential downside they may not have thought about: It could look to the readers that (if a magazine put a photo of a Jeep on its cover and used the "R-in-a-circle" logo with the Jeep name) it could appear that the magazine cover was bought and paid for by Jeep.
That would bite twice:
1. There goes any journalistic integrity on the magazine's part. Welcome to "Pay-to-Play Car Magazine", folks!
2. It also could look like Jeep had to resort to buying a front cover, so that must mean they're not getting many covers on their vehicles' merits. (Self-fulfilling prophecy there!)
But, they enforced it! Not that there's much that Jeep (no-R-in-a-circle) could do to you (other than remind you to not do it again) but it would indeed hurt that magazine & car manufacturer's relations, for a period of time, to blatantly refuse to honor their request.
The entire process got to be such a PITA for everyone, including Jeep (R-in-a-circle), to administer (and possibly because a year or so had elapsed while doing all those Rs-in-circles, so some precedence had been achieved) that the "Registered Trademark Forever Rule" faded away.
dr914
GT Owner
IMO, Singer doesn't dilute the Porsche brand one tiny bit. They are a phenomenal success and highly regarded by pretty much everyone.
Seems like free brand promotion to me.
Seems like free brand promotion to me.
PeteK
GT Owner
Yes Porsche should buy or sign an agreement with Singer, much like AMG and Mercedes (before MB bought AMG), Roush Saleen and Ford, etc. Not to mention Carol Shelby himself back in the 60's. But it won't happen because of German NIH and stubbornness.
PL510*Jeff
Well-known member
If you don't try to contain or defend your trade mark, you may loose it's ownership.
dreimer
GT Owner
Singer is not building replicas. Their craftsmanship is arguably the best.
I am Having a hard time seeing the trademark infringement on this.
I am Having a hard time seeing the trademark infringement on this.
extrap
GT Owner
Seems similar to the Eagles suing various entities for using "small" parts of their songs which the entities claim are only helping promote the Eagles. Well, 1) there's no formal definition of "small", 2) the Eagles aren't asking anyone for any promotion, and 3) if the Eagles don't fight the use of the current "small" portion of the song, how much bigger might "small" get over time? Give an inch type thing. I don't like litigation (and have never been involved with any, knock on wood) but I can see why the Eagles want to protect their property / content / rights / position. Sounds like Porsche feels the same. Kind of a shame, but whatareyagonnado.
twobjshelbys
GT Owner
PeteK
GT Owner
Looks like Porsche lawyers having to justify their fees, and engaging in "lawfare". I also don't see how what Singer is doing differs in principle or substance from what other custom car builders do with Fords, Chevys, many other makes, parts, etc. Let's see what happens.
dreimer
GT Owner
I just learned something new - I didn't know that crescent wrench came from a company name - just looked it up! Thanks!
PeteK
GT Owner
Upadte: The suit was settled/withdrawn a week and a half ago:
porsche-cars-north-america-inc-v-singer-vehicle-design
I wonder what the terms were? Maybe Singer just had to stop putting the Porsche name and logo on parts they made, like the rear light panels or deck lid.
Or maybe Singer had to agree to pronounce "Por' scha" with both syllables!
porsche-cars-north-america-inc-v-singer-vehicle-design
I wonder what the terms were? Maybe Singer just had to stop putting the Porsche name and logo on parts they made, like the rear light panels or deck lid.
Or maybe Singer had to agree to pronounce "Por' scha" with both syllables!
Last edited:
This is a bummer. Singer use to have a great relationship with Porsche. I love both of those brands and think they are good for each other.
Chip
Chip
dr914
GT Owner
Porsche likes to drive a wedge between great passionate supporters of their company. Happened with us
Cobrar
GT Owner
Exactly right! Don't register it if you don't plan on enforcing it. You'll need to budget for same, and it isn't inexpensive.
