Ferrari rename their F1 car again

[JulesMaximus]

Here is some info on trademark law from Harvard which actually provides a case which sets the precedence for this one and would result in a Ford win.

Ford most definitely had a case, in fact, that example is absolutely perfect. Family boats vs. performance boats with similar names. You can argue that Ferrari was not selling the "F150," but on the other hand, Slickcraft and Sleekcraft aren't exact either, but they still ruled in Slickcraft's (Ford in this example) favor.

That's almost the entire point of my argument...and one that you keep ignoring. Again, the link I provided gives an expert's opinion which supports mine.

What makes these circumstances interesting is that Ferrari’s racecar is not available for sale. It is only raced by a factory team and therefore cannot be purchased by a consumer. Given such situation, one would almost certainly argue that Ferrari’s F150 is not used in commerce—a prerequisite for both trademark dilution as described in the Federal Trademark Dilution Act and likelihood of confusion, which is required for infringement. Even if one was to say, arguendo, that Ferrari’s use was in commerce, it is difficult to imagine that the level of commerce is so similar that it gives rise to an association between the two marks.

In your example both companies are selling boats. Ferrari isn't selling its F1 car, and Ford doesn't make F1 cars either. Ferrari also doesn't sell pickup trucks. They are completely different scenarios.

 

[EightySix Four]

That's almost the entire point of my argument...and one that you keep ignoring. Again, the link I provided gives an expert's opinion which supports mine.



In your argument both companies are selling boats. Ferrari isn't selling F1 cars, nor is Ford. Ferrari also doesn't sell pickup trucks.

But Ferrari is branding another vehicle "F150," which Ferrari intends to use to make money. Ford owns the trademark. Period. The previous case I showed from the Harvard site shows that the pickup truck part is irrelevant, as both are automobile manufacturers.

You're arguing that if Dell made an ultra-high performance desktop computer called a "Macbook Pro" and took it around to computer shows, but didn't intend on selling it, it would not infringe on Apple's trademark of the name "Macbook Pro." That is an insane line of argument.

 

[JulesMaximus]

But Ferrari is branding another vehicle F150, which Ferrari intends to use to make money. Ford owns the trademark. Neither of those brands overlap (family cruisers vs. speed boats) but they are both boats.

It's not used for commerce though. <snip>irrelevant<snip>

 

[EightySix Four]

It's not used for commerce though. And Ferrari doesn't make any money from F1...it costs them hundreds of millions of dollars annually to participate in the sport, a small portion of which they recover from their standings at the end of the season, and through sponsorship of their cars by other firms looking to advertise their products on the car (like AMD, Marlboro, etc).

Hahaha, you seriously believe Ferrari sees F1 as a net loss year after year? That's like saying the NFL Owners lose money because of all the money they pay players. They recover a "small portion"? Are you fucking kidding me? I've heard many argue Ferrari makes the majority of their profit from F1.

This line of argument is 100&#37; invalid if they sell even one Ferrari F150 t-shirt. It was a commercial transaction utilizing the trademarked name "F150." It's estimated Ferrari made 8m euros in 2006 on F1 merchandise. Marlboro pays 80m euros a year to put their logo on Ferrari's car... There's your commercial transaction right there.

Due to the nature of F1, an exact figure can&#8217;t be published, but looking at all revenue sources, a team like Ferrari and McLaren will raise &#163;160 million through sponsorship, &#163;10 million through merchandise, and &#163;90 million through FOA-distributed profits. This totals an estimated &#163;260 million. So after all, it looks as though a front-running Formula One team does make a profit, with mid-field teams breaking even.

source

 

[JulesMaximus]

This line of argument is 100&#37; invalid if they sell even one Ferrari F150 t-shirt. It was a commercial transaction utilizing the trademarked name "F150." It's estimated Ferrari made 8m euros in 2006 on F1 merchandise. Marlboro pays 80m euros a year to put their logo on Ferrari's car... There's your commercial transaction right there.

Now you're comparing t-shirts to pickup trucks?

And I've never seen Ferrari merchandising that shows the model designation of their F1 cars on it. They usually show the Scuderia Ferrari logo or the word Ferrari or a picture of the car or the drivers.

 

[rcpratt]

Is this thread still going?