Ferrari gets revenge on the idiot that cut a 360 and made it in a limo.

[EJ25RUN]

READ POST #114 ON PAGE 6

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/03/360_limo_450-op.jpg

The "destroyed" Ferrari (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfX56woNxIs)

You may remember a post we did a year ago about some yuk that chopped a gorgeous 360 Modena to turn the once-beautiful supercar into a 166 mph limo. Ferrari hasn't forgotten what Dan Cawley, of Cheadle, Manchester did to its black beauty, and the Italian supercar maker is suing the Brit for infringing on its trademark. According to lawyers, Ferrari feels cutting the 360 Modena in half and turning it into a limo no longer makes it a Ferrari. Under the terms of the lawsuit, Cawley has 14 days to remove the Ferrari badging or he'll have to go toe to toe with the prancing horse's legal department.

While it ticks us off that a company would have the cajones to sue someone for modifying a vehicle that the person paid a lot of money to own, Mr. Cawley almost deserves the legal headache. Ferrari may be confident that it'll win the suit, but anybody with the funding to buy a supercar, cut it in half, and add 9.5 feet of carbon fiber body panels probably has the resources to put up a pretty good fight. We reposted the video of the half-finished stretch 360 Modena after the jump.

[DieselNuts]

WTF is the point of sueing him? Its his car and he can do what he pleases. Do I agree with his concept, no, but its not my car, so who the fuk cares? We-tod-did

[Gutling]

this is like the same stupid **** ford did by making all the shops take mustang out of the title. wtf is wrong with car companys now

[STI101]

That is so gay.

[Sammich]

wtf is wrong with car companys now

gas prices are affecting them too...they need any kind of money they can get

[RUFFIAN]

This reminds me of the 911 Limo that Benny from Bennyhana used to own.

[EJ25RUN]

I'll be honest....i'm glad Ferrari is doing this.

Here is why......

I feel like Ferrari is doing this out of principle.

You see, Ferrari has never made anything besides sports cars and Race cars and from him to do this, it truly defies the point of what a Ferrari is. It's more than a car, it's like an idea and he used it for something it was never supposed to be.

They are not telling him to give the car back or to destroy it....Just to debadge it.

If i was Luca Luca Montezemolo, i would have done the same thing. Unlike a Ford Focus or a Honda Civic, Ferrari's hold a special market and the sere fact this "limo" exists might have brought Ferrari 360 prices down.

[MistaCee]

If thats the case many other companies should sue people who mess up there cars...

[EJ25RUN]

If thats the case many other companies should sue people who mess up there cars...

Ill be honest...I have a double standard i judge Ferrari by compared to everyone else.

[Papa_Smurf]

so is the same principal going to*** apply the ricers who slap honda badges on geo's?

[Sammich]

If thats the case many other companies should sue people who mess up there cars...
like ricers:D

[MistaCee]

Ill be honest...I have a double standard i judge Ferrari by compared to everyone else.

Haha. I see what your saying. Even though he messed up a perfectly good car, its his car and he can do as he pleases, unless he signed otherwise.

[NAIZBST]

I'll be honest....i'm glad Ferrari is doing this.

Here is why......

I feel like Ferrari is doing this out of principle.

You see, Ferrari has never made anything besides sports cars and Race cars and from him to do this, it truly defies the point of what a Ferrari is. It's more than a car, it's like an idea and he used it for something it was never supposed to be.

They are not telling him to give the car back or to destroy it....Just to debadge it.

If i was Luca Luca Montezemolo, i would have done the same thing. Unlike a Ford Focus or a Honda Civic, Ferrari's hold a special market and the sere fact this "limo" exists might have brought Ferrari 360 prices down.



well put

[hondachik]

I'll be honest....i'm glad Ferrari is doing this.

Here is why......

I feel like Ferrari is doing this out of principle.

You see, Ferrari has never made anything besides sports cars and Race cars and from him to do this, it truly defies the point of what a Ferrari is. It's more than a car, it's like an idea and he used it for something it was never supposed to be.

They are not telling him to give the car back or to destroy it....Just to debadge it.

If i was Luca Luca Montezemolo, i would have done the same thing. Unlike a Ford Focus, Ferrari's hold a special market and the sere fact this "limo" exists might have brought Ferrari 360 prices down.


u do have a point =)

[TehHakingS14]

wow, thats ridiculus

[LS2ner]

i actually completely agree with ej25. i think honda should sue ricers.

[EJ25RUN]

i actually completely agree with ej25. i think honda should sue ricers.

Most Hondas are disposable cars and allot of these "ricers" have made Honda allot of money. If anything Honda needs to share the wealth.

[EJ25RUN]

Haha. I see what your saying. Even though he messed up a perfectly good car, its his car and he can do as he pleases, unless he signed otherwise.

I've never seen a Ferrari contract but allot of high end cars have crazy stipulations most of use will never know about. I don't know if Ferrari's specifically says you can't turn yours into a Limo but.....unless you find someone that bought one, we won't know.

[ATK_Designs]

that's stupid, he got the money, he can do whatever to it. He can even rebadge it a KIA if he wanted to.

[kfzemx3]

this is so retarded lol, the limo is retarded, this entire topic = retarded, you purchased the car its yours to do with as you wish. If this isn't the case, any shops that do any type of engine modifications, body modifications, actual owner of the car or any one that modifies or creates aftermarket parts should be taken to court as well, because it's really no different from what this guy has done.

but yes, poor poor ferarri

[collins]

well what about that shop that took a maranello and highly modified it to 1000 hp? modification is modification, so where do you draw the line? are they gonna sue that shop too? i think its stupid to sue him. but again, if its in teh fine print, you shouldnt just pick and choose who you're going to sue once modified vehicles arise

[MistaCee]

Most Hondas are disposable cars and allot of these "ricers" have made Honda allot of money. If anything Honda needs to share the wealth.

x2 honda supports "ricey" cars. Haven't you seen the commercials

[MistaCee]

I've never seen a Ferrari contract but allot of high end cars have crazy stipulations most of use will never know about. I don't know if Ferrari's specifically says you can't turn yours into a Limo but.....unless you find someone that bought one, we won't know.

True :D

[EJ25RUN]

well what about that shop that took a maranello and highly modified it to 1000 hp? modification is modification, so where do you draw the line? are they gonna sue that shop too? i think its stupid to sue him. but again, if its in teh fine print, you shouldnt just pick and choose who you're going to sue once modified vehicles arise

Principle at work again....

Taking back from what i wrote earlier.....



You see, Ferrari has never made anything besides sports cars and Race cars and from him to do this, it truly defies the point of what a Ferrari is. It's more than a car, it's like an idea and he used it for something it was never supposed to be.

Many times in history has Ferrari worked with an outside company such as N.A.R.T. and Michelotto especially for their sports car racing efforts. This was especially true after 1968. There is also the issue of having other teams run the cars such as Ecurie Francorchamps back in the 60's.

Today companies like Hamann, Nardo, Novitec, Koenig, and others are licensed by Ferrari to make these modifications to the cars.

But all these people still build the cars with the intention of performance and speed being the primary goal of the car. Same with this twin turbo 550 from Garage Saurus.

That limo is abomination of every thing the Prancing Horse stands for.

It is the same thing as you going up to a church, buying a model of Jesus, and giving him a hair cut cause you don't like his hair do.

[ATK_Designs]

To me, Ferrari is just another vehicle. It's a tool, a thing, manufactured for use. Comparing it to Jesus's figure is not right.

Heck, should Lambo sue whoever it was, that stood on top of his lambo and use an electric chain saw, hack through it and make it an open roof? You don't see they do that?

[hondachik]

To me, Ferrari is just another vehicle. It's a tool, a thing, manufactured for use. Comparing it to Jesus's figure is not right.

Heck, should Lambo sue whoever it was, that stood on top of his lambo and use an electric chain saw, hack through it and make it an open roof? You don't see they do that?


that was Bam Margerra. I doubt that they would sue him considering he makes enough money to just trash that and buy another one. Plus, he'a s celebrity. I wonder if a celeb had done this, if they would be as pissed.

[EJ25RUN]

To me, Ferrari is just another vehicle. It's a tool, a thing, manufactured for use. Comparing it to Jesus's figure is not right.

Heck, should Lambo sue whoever it was, that stood on top of his lambo and use an electric chain saw, hack through it and make it an open roof? You don't see they do that?

OK, well you and i see Ferrari's differently, and after you see a Lambo and or a Ferrari made, you might change your mind. Oh and i have, i'm not just making a rhetoric statement.

[HeLLo iM iZzY]

This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen/heard of.

If I paid something with MY money, I will do whatever the fuk I want with the car. If I want to put a huge ass wing on my Ferrari, I will. If I want to put the biggest tires that can fit em, I will. This is like someone painting a Ferrari pink and then Ferrari suing them because the color pink doesn't scream "fast" or "sports-car."

That's fukin stupid. I'd sue them back for wasting my damn time.

[EJ25RUN]

This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen/heard of.

If I paid something with MY money, I will do whatever the fuk I want with the car. If I want to put a huge ass wing on my Ferrari, I will. If I want to put the biggest tires that can fit em, I will. This is like someone painting a Ferrari pink and then Ferrari suing them because the color pink doesn't scream "fast" or "sports-car."

That's fukin stupid. I'd sue them back for wasting my damn time.

Again....i really want to see if someone has a buyers contract for Ferrari.

[Cool Cat Racing]

I agree that it is an abomination but there is a fine line when you start doing things like this. It is his car and he can do with it as he sees fit, the 360's don't have the same contractual obligations as the "premier" cars do from Ferrari. I hate that he did it and if you ever stepped in my office you would understand how much I love Ferrari but I still have to say that it is his right to do with the car as he wishes and we just have to look away as it drives by.

[EJ25RUN]

I agree that it is an abomination but there is a fine line when you start doing things like this. It is his car and he can do with it as he sees fit, the 360's don't have the same contractual obligations as the "premier" cars do from Ferrari. I hate that he did it and if you ever stepped in my office you would understand how much I love Ferrari but I still have to say that it is his right to do with the car as he wishes and we just have to look away as it drives by.

Good way to disagree, your obviously a smarter man than most of the other people in this thread. You know how to properly get your point across.

[EJ25RUN]

Comparing it to Jesus's figure is not right.



To add to what you wrote.

One of the famous quotes from Italy is:

On race day, Enzo was more important in Italy, than the Pope.

[ATK_Designs]

OK, well you and i see Ferrari's differently, and after you see a Lambo and or a Ferrari made, you might change your mind. Oh and i have, i'm not just making a rhetoric statement.

Well, I'm not on that guy's side either. I'm just saying, based on the reality and ownerships of materialistic tools. He was a fucturd, doing that to a Ferrari and I despite that. However, for Ferrari to go out and sue the guy, they're not right either.

Please don't take it wrong the wrong way. :cheers:

[IP37]

WTF is the point of sueing him? Its his car and he can do what he pleases. Do I agree with his concept, no, but its not my car, so who the fuk cares? We-tod-did

x2

this is almost as stupid as ford telling that forum or whatever they can't make a mustang calendar from pictures of their own damn cars

[umairejaz]

The argument made about jesus is actually quite stupid.

[EJ25RUN]

Well, I'm not on that guy's side either. I'm just saying, based on the reality and ownerships of materialistic tools. He was a fucturd, doing that to a Ferrari and I despite that. However, for Ferrari to go out and sue the guy, they're not right either.

Please don't take it wrong the wrong way. :cheers:

I guess i just feel more pasionatly about this.....Not arguing with you, just dicing out my opinion. More than any other car company, Ferrari has responsibilities that are more than just to make money. These responsibilities are the reason why owning a Ferrari used to be a privilege.

Enzo would invite you to his house to have diner and see your table manners to decide whether to sell one of his children to you. Enzo passed 20 years ago so you can't do that anymore.

Your right, you spent the money, its yours, whatever.......... right?

Wrong!

Sadly like most of these rappers are buying these cars to put nasty rims on their cars and abusing them to hell.

Just read about my encounter to see what i mean. (http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161010&highlight=ferrari+ricer)

If i was Ferrari CEO, besides making sure the F1 effort is at 100%, i'd make sure the cars make it into proper hands.

I would actually deny people from being allowed to buy them.

What would happen? No, not outrage, my car would be worth more because of the demand.

It's like being let into the Masters Golf Club. You didn't get accepted....Sorry try harder next time.

I would do all this to make sure thing like that "limo" were to never happen. If you disagree, fine.....I'm just here to keep respect in the name.

That's just the way i see it. I don't feel it's ignorant, i see ignorants as someone destroying my vision in a car. So if Enzo would have said NO, I'd do the same.

If you think that's evil.........Ettore Bugatti and Henry Rolls did the same thing.

[EJ25RUN]

The argument made about jesus is actually quite stupid.

*explain*

[man]

WTF is the point of sueing him? Its his car and he can do what he pleases. Do I agree with his concept, no, but its not my car, so who the fuk cares? We-tod-did

Agreed, all this does is make Ferrari look desperate. If they really think a 360 limo can affect their image they are delirious.

[Elbow]

Most baller limo ever, it's sexy

[EJ25RUN]

Agreed, all this does is make Ferrari look desperate. If they really think a 360 limo can affect their image they are delirious.
Desperate? What?

From Auto observer.
Ferrari Reports Sales Record for 2007

"Ferrari reported its 2007 sales worldwide grew 14 percent in 2007 compared with 2006, to about 6,400 cars. It was a record result for Ferrari.

Company executives said sales were especially robust in emerging markets. In the Asia-Pacific region sales grew by 50 percent, in the Middle East by 32 percent.

In 2007, Ferrari also created a U.S. branch of its financial services unit and invested significantly in its facilities. The company plans to invest $30 million in its facilities this year."

And India and China are still to hit as hard. On top of that they just took full importing responsibilities of their cars into Japan, Their second biggest market.

Desperate is a word to describe someone doing anything to make money....Aka whoring themselves out. With a sales record, i don't see them being anywhere near that point.

[mushroom_toy]

Who cares what the man does. Its his money. If you don't like it too bad. You all have cars and there is bound to be someone that is going to hate on yours. If Ferrari sells a car to someone then that person owns the vehicle, and should be able to do what he chooses with it. Most people decide to run theirs into brick walls or trees, but he isnt destroying the car he is merely modifying it. Ugly it may be but thats his decision. This man is just trying something different and is being frowned upon. What a load of crap on Ferraris part.

[EJ25RUN]

Who cares what the man does. Its his money. If you don't like it too bad. You all have cars and there is bound to be someone that is going to hate on yours. If Ferrari sells a car to someone then that person owns the vehicle, and should be able to do what he chooses with it. Most people decide to run theirs into brick walls or trees, but he isnt destroying the car he is merely modifying it. Ugly it may be but thats his decision. This man is just trying something different and is being frowned upon. What a load of crap on Ferraris part.

But it's not a Ferrari anymore.

[mushroom_toy]

But it's not a Ferrari anymore.

Im pretty sure if you look into his contract of agreement on the purchase of the car, it probably says he bought a ferrari. Like it or not, it still is the same basic thing, and just like someone else said its just a tool to move you around. Dont glorify it to the point of insanity. Its just a car.

[EJ25RUN]

Im pretty sure if you look into his contract of agreement on the purchase of the car, it probably says he bought a ferrari. Like it or not, it still is the same basic thing, and just like someone else said its just a tool to move you around. Dont glorify it to the point of insanity. Its just a car.

....I guess. But glorifying it to the point of insanity might make one of these IA posters get mad and make a post full of worthless b.s. because they don't know how to have a discussion without getting pissed of.

....Your right on what you wrote, i just see it differently. I guess this is one of those, to each his own type things.

[MistaCee]

^^ yup. Its sad its a Ferrari but in the end its just a car

[mushroom_toy]

Everyone has their values in a car, its just to be honest, everyone is the same basic thing. While each car is built differently and for a different purpose, they all are just tools. Whether for our pleasure,racing, or just to get to work and back. I just don't think Ferrari should take it to the point of suing the man. If Ferrari was suing me I would probably rip the badges off anyway and substitute it with my own name or something. Who wants to buy a very expensive car from someone and turn around and have em sue ya. :) XD

[MistaCee]

Everyone has their values in a car, its just to be honest, everyone is the same basic thing. While each car is built differently and for a different purpose, they all are just tools. Whether for our pleasure,racing, or just to get to work and back. I just don't think Ferrari should take it to the point of suing the man. If Ferrari was suing me I would probably rip the badges off anyway and substitute it with my own name or something. Who wants to buy a very expensive car from someone and turn around and have em sue ya. :) XD

well put:D

[EJ25RUN]

If Ferrari was suing me I would probably rip the badges off anyway and substitute it with my own name or something.

That's all they want......it's very simple really.

[mushroom_toy]

That's all they want......it's very simple really.

IM pretty sure there is also some monetary gain they are looking for as well though. Anyway the guy should be free to choose. He might not want to take the badges off. Either way who knows the outcome, but probably Ferrari will make some money and that will be the last we hear of it.

[Thighs]

i think its kinda dumb that they are suing him. i agree that it looks dumb and i would never do that to the car, but it is HIS car, and if he wants a limo ferrari he should be able to have it.

but if i was in his shoes, i would de-badge it, put if for sale, and then let the next person who buys it put their badges on it, then id buy another ferrari just to piss the company off. lol

another thing, shouldnt ferrari sue the retards who drive nsxs or mr2s with ferrari logos on them? ive seen both around before, and thought it was dumb.

[EJ25RUN]

another thing, shouldnt ferrari sue the retards who drive nsxs or mr2s with ferrari logos on them? ive seen both around before, and thought it was dumb.

That's not on the same level of destroying something comping from Maranello.

[EJ25RUN]

IM pretty sure there is also some monetary gain they are looking for as well though. Anyway the guy should be free to choose. He might not want to take the badges off. Either way who knows the outcome, but probably Ferrari will make some money and that will be the last we hear of it.

Just read post #36, and reply to that cause im tired of typing.

[Thighs]

That's not on the same level of destroying something comping from Maranello.

but theyre suing(sp) him for copyright infringement and saying that he cant have ferrari badges on it if its not a ferrari, and by their definition it isnt.

im not sure, but i doubt a honda or toyota would be considered a ferrari...

[EJ25RUN]

but theyre suing(sp) him for copyright infringement and saying that he cant have ferrari badges on it if its not a ferrari, and by their definition it isnt.

im not sure, but i doubt a honda or toyota would be considered a ferrari...

I guess if you really get into it on that level.....Ferrari wants a divorce from that exact car. Like their are disowning it.

See what i'm getting at?

[Thighs]

I guess if you really get into it on that level.....Ferrari wants a divorce from that exact car. Like their are disowning it.

See what i'm getting at?

they dont own the car, the retard limo guy does. ferrari has no right to sue him for modifying his own car.

i see what your saying, and i agree to an extent, but i think its a little silly for ferrari to actually take him to court over it.

[mushroom_toy]

I would actually deny people from being allowed to buy them.

What would happen? No, not outrage, my car would be worth more because of the demand.

It's like being let into the Masters Golf Club. You didn't get accepted....Sorry try harder next time.

I would do all this to make sure thing like that "limo" were to never happen. If you disagree, fine.....I'm just here to keep respect in the name.

That's just the way i see it. I don't feel it's ignorant, i see ignorants as someone destroying my vision in a car. So if Enzo would have said NO, I'd do the same.

You would make a good dictator lol. You cant really deny someone of owning something, especially in the world we live in today. Where theres a will theres a way, and Im pretty sure someone would find a way to get their hands on what they want whether anyone likes it or not.

Really though all this is besides the point. Everyone is bringing about personal opinions, and its all biased.

The real matter is whether or not what Ferrari is doing is right or wrong. If they do sue the guy then they SHOULD sue everyone that has bought a Ferrari and even added something as little as a sticker. Expression is how people show themselves. You can buy a Ferrari and be happy with it untouched, or you can turn it into a limo. The real issue is freedom of choice, and whether or not people should have the right to modify their cars according to ferrari, evidently.

[EJ25RUN]

they dont own the car, the retard limo guy does. ferrari has no right to sue him for modifying his own car.

i see what your saying, and i agree to an extent, but i think its a little silly for Ferrari to actually take him to court over it.

Many things are a little silly.... i like this one cause it might deter other idiots from destroying their Ferrari.

So you dont get confused Modify Ferrari to go faster = OK
Modify Ferrari to sit 15 Drunk prom girls = Not OK

[mushroom_toy]

Many things are a little silly.... i like this one cause it might deter other idiots from destroying their Ferrari.

So you dont get confused Modify Ferrari to go faster = OK
Modify Ferrari to sit 15 Drunk prom girls = Not OK

See thats completely one sided and biased out the ass. More or less just opinion.

[EJ25RUN]

You would make a good dictator lol. You cant really deny someone of owning something, especially in the world we live in today. Where theres a will theres a way, and Im pretty sure someone would find a way to get their hands on what they want whether anyone likes it or not.

Really though all this is besides the point. Everyone is bringing about personal opinions, and its all biased.

The real matter is whether or not what Ferrari is doing is right or wrong. If they do sue the guy then they SHOULD sue everyone that has bought a Ferrari and even added something as little as a sticker. Expression is how people show themselves. You can buy a Ferrari and be happy with it untouched, or you can turn it into a limo. The real issue is freedom of choice, and whether or not people should have the right to modify their cars according to ferrari, evidently.

Point taken.... Your right.

The should sue everyone part i commented in my previous post.

Again...my opinion on this biased topic so................. :tongue1:

[EJ25RUN]

See thats completely one sided and biased out the ass. More or less just opinion.

No...then why are Novitec and Hamann licensed to modify Ferraris?

[mushroom_toy]

No...then why are Novitec and Hamann licensed to modify Ferraris?

Money.

[Thighs]

Many things are a little silly.... i like this one cause it might deter other idiots from destroying their Ferrari.

So you dont get confused Modify Ferrari to go faster = OK
Modify Ferrari to sit 15 Drunk prom girls = Not OK

LOL you cant sue somebody because YOU think what they are doing is right or wrong.

maybe i should sue you because i dont think new beetles should drift like the one in your sig, and i think you should remove it because it isnt a real new beetle

[Ran]

What an absolute load of BS. I hope this guy comes out on top then counter-sues Ferrari to put these elitist morons in their place.

[EJ25RUN]

LOL you cant sue somebody because YOU think what they are doing is right or wrong.

maybe i should sue you because i dont think new beetles should drift like the one in your sig, and i think you should remove it because it isnt a real new beetle

Well i counter sue you for wasteing my time for the last 40 min.

[EJ25RUN]

Money.

so if this guy came to Ferrari with "Money", then this would be ok?

[Thighs]

Well i counter sue you for wasteing my time for the last 40 min.

well ive only wasted about 10 minutes of your time. but it is in the thread that you created?

lets do it. ill email judge judy now

[mushroom_toy]

Umm he already paid for the car. They already have his money. You asked why Novitec and Hamann were licensed to mod Ferrari. I said money.

[UpSideDownDesi]

someone chopped a lambo diablo a while ago and turned into a Limo....did lambo sue him?

[EJ25RUN]

Umm he already paid for the car. They already have his money. You asked why Novitec and Hamann were licensed to mod Ferrari. I said money.

Novitec and Hamann have to show Ferrari all their stuff before they can put it on the car.

I highly doubt when someone at Ferrari sold him that car.... any idea of a backward limo creation was in order.

[EJ25RUN]

well ive only wasted about 10 minutes of your time. but it is in the thread that you created?

lets do it. ill email judge judy now

Not necessary......I just want those few on this site that get over upset in an argument and take it to heart.

Like 350z owners :yes:

[bigdare23]

Damn, after every post EJ25RUN comes back defending Ferrari.


Stop being a fanboy.

[EJ25RUN]

Damn, after every post EJ25RUN comes back defending Ferrari.


Stop being a fanboy.

It's not that...... :D

i just figured i'd play defence in this discussion......cause no one else will.

It's like the ESPN show PTI (GOOD SHOW) don't matter if they both feel the same way. One of them has to take the opposing side.

[EJ25RUN]

Where did everyone go?

Things were getting heated...... :rant:

[G.C]

thats dumb...

[Danny]

so is the same principal going to*** apply the ricers who slap honda badges on geo's?

(not strickly directed to you, some other responses influenced my response)

Honda has no reputation to the elite, its an economy car. Ferrari has spent its entire life as a company designing and building cars that are an exotic art form. Honda makes things that carry kids to soccer practice, entry level semi-sports cars, and kick ass lawnmowers. Ferrari makes, purpose built street cars, with bloodlines directly from their F1. Honda rents out a couple IRL and Kart engines through out the year, thats about it. Point is, as nice as honda's are, they have no ground to sue ricers, as to some degree they market to that crowd (it makes them money). Not to mention the pure mathematical part, you cant sue all the ricers or even enough of them to make a point; there is just too many of them. When Ferrari found out someone made a limo that was making 'headlines' (if u will), ruining everything Ferrari has stood for over the decades, that gives them grounds to sue.

For example, if Picasso sold an original to Bobby, and bobby came home and painted in some extra things onto the canvas, but left Picasso's signature. Is it a true Picasso, of course not, its garbage (although it still has appeal and value to certain individuals).
Just my 2 cents.

[EJ25RUN]

(not strickly directed to you, some other responses influenced my response)

Honda has no reputation to the elite, its an economy car. Ferrari has spent its entire life as a company designing and building cars that are an exotic art form. Honda makes things that carry kids to soccer practice, entry level semi-sports cars, and kick ass lawnmowers. Ferrari makes, purpose built street cars, with bloodlines directly from their F1. Honda rents out a couple IRL and Kart engines through out the year, thats about it. Point is, as nice as honda's are, they have no ground to sue ricers, as to some degree they market to that crowd (it makes them money). Not to mention the pure mathematical part, you cant sue all the ricers or even enough of them to make a point; there is just too many of them. When Ferrari found out someone made a limo that was making 'headlines' (if u will), ruining everything Ferrari has stood for over the decades, that gives them grounds to sue.

For example, if Picasso sold an original to Bobby, and bobby came home and painted in some extra things onto the canvas, but left Picasso's signature. Is it a true Picasso, of course not, its garbage (although it still has appeal and value to certain individuals).
Just my 2 cents.

Wow.... Well written,

Hits what i was trying to say.

[Ran]

A car is a car. Whether it's a Bugatti or a Daewoo, an owner buys a car and thus it is their property and they should be free to do what they want with it. Whether it's turning it into a limo, making it perform better, or adding helicopter propellers.

Ferrari's head is way too swollen if they think that they have any justifiable right to tell an owner (car not leased, but owned) what he can or can't do with his own vehicle.

If anything, I hope that this actually scares potential buyers away from Ferrari due to their limitations on what they'll "allow" owners to do with their own vehicles.

[Danny]

Wow.... Well written,

Hits what i was trying to say.

Thanks, on one hand I want to scream INSANITY. But on my more realistic, thought out hand I realize that branding is everything is this world. The people that do not understand branding, and how difficult it is to build a brand that is world recognized for performance, beauty, and uniqueness will be the same people to yell BS and scream "ELITIST PIGS" at the top of their lungs. No I didnt read all the posts, i only read 3 or 4, but I would bet a few dollars at least one person has screamed something very similar in this thread.

It all comes down to upholding a brands image, and they have the right to [ask /prove to] a jury if their brand has suffered damage from this guys moronic decision to destroy a Ferrari and in the process blatantly disregarded every ideal Ferrari has established, over the past what... 80+ years now?

[EJ25RUN]

A car is a car. Whether it's a Bugatti or a Daewoo, an owner buys a car and thus it is their property and they should be free to do what they want with it. Whether it's turning it into a limo, making it perform better, or adding helicopter propellers.

Ferrari's head is way too swollen if they think that they have any justifiable right to tell an owner (car not leased, but owned) what he can or can't do with his own vehicle.

If anything, I hope that this actually scares potential buyers away from Ferrari due to their limitations on what they'll "allow" owners to do with their own vehicles.

Read



Thanks, on one hand I want to scream INSANITY. But on my more realistic, thought out hand I realize that branding is everything is this world. The people that do not understand branding, and how difficult it is to build a brand that is world recognized for performance, beauty, and uniqueness will be the same people to yell BS and scream "ELITIST PIGS" at the top of their lungs. No I didnt read all the posts, i only read 3 or 4, but I would bet a few dollars at least one person has screamed something very similar in this thread.

It all comes down to upholding a brands image, and they have the right to [ask /prove to] a jury if their brand has suffered damage from this guys moronic decision to destroy a Ferrari and in the process blatantly disregarded every ideal Ferrari has established, over the past what... 80+ years now?


Couldn't have said it better myself.

Let me use this example Ran.....

Im guessing you like anime....

So lets say your an anime artist.
You sell your work.
Someone buys your work.
That someone modifies your work but continues to call it yours.
What do you do?

[Ran]

The people that do not understand branding, and how difficult it is to build a brand that is world recognized for performance, beauty, and uniqueness will be the same people to yell BS and scream "ELITIST PIGS" at the top of their lungs. No I didnt read all the posts, i only read 3 or 4, but I would bet a few dollars at least one person has screamed something very similar in this thread.That would be me.

I understand that it takes a lot to build a performance vehicle that is unique and I give all the credit in the world to Ferrari for their accomplishments. However, for them to take a step this drastic against an owner is just wrong and thus does justifiably tag them as "Elitist Pigs".


It all comes down to upholding a brands image, and they have the right to [ask /prove to] a jury if their brand has suffered damage from this guys moronic decision to destroy a Ferrari and in the process blatantly disregarded every ideal Ferrari has established, over the past what... 80+ years now?Ferrari's only real hand in "upholding their image" lies on their dealer showroom floor. Once someone legally purchases a vehicle and has the title, then that owner should be free to do what he wants with it.

You guys make a nameplate hold too much value. It's a piece of property that this man bought with his money and legally owns. Who's right is it to tell him what he can or can't do with it? It's common sense at it's finest and I'm not seeing a lot of it in this thread.


Let me use this example Ran.....

Im guessing you like anime....

So lets say your an anime artist.
You sell your work.
Someone buys your work.
That someone modifies your work but continues to call it yours.
What do you do?If I sell my artwork to someone for good money, then they can do whatever they want with it. If I didn't want anything to happen to it, I wouldn't sell it to them in the first place.

Isn't this why Ferrari has such high standards for buyers in the first place? One guy slips under their radar and suddenly they get their panties in a wad. They need to just suck it up.

[Danny]

A car is a car. Whether it's a Bugatti or a Daewoo, an owner buys a car and thus it is their property and they should be free to do what they want with it. Whether it's turning it into a limo, making it perform better, or adding helicopter propellers.

Ferrari's head is way too swollen if they think that they have any justifiable right to tell an owner (car not leased, but owned) what he can or can't do with his own vehicle.

If anything, I hope that this actually scares potential buyers away from Ferrari due to their limitations on what they'll "allow" owners to do with their own vehicles.


Its a free world, and you can do anything you want to your property (inless in some sort of enforceable contract of course). The point here is not "you cant do that", its BRANDING. They are simply saying "you cant call it a Ferrari anymore".

Now for the people saying "its still a Ferrari Danny!!!!" If I sold you my XBOX, and when you got home you realized that somehow (use your imagination) I replaced the CD/DVD drive with a blue ray drive (cant play games anymore). Remember the XBOX still works, the controllers just move the blueray menus around and stuff. It powers up, looks basically the same, has the same cpu and graphics card (engine and drivetrain) but there is one major flaw in the XBOX i sold you: its NOT an XBOX, because it does not preform and operate as an XBOX should. It now serves a completely different purpose, a purpose Microsoft never intended it to. Now lets use our imaginations a little more, I start mass selling (or somehow elese generate a certain level of public interest) these because its a cheap blueray player. Microsoft would be pissed, I have in some way, shape or form blemished their branding of the XBOX and possibly confused some potential Microsoft customers that the XBOX is no longer a game console.

Not the best example, but you have to remember they are fighting for branding, not ones right to do with their property as they please.

[EJ25RUN]

That would be me.

I understand that it takes a lot to build a performance vehicle that is unique and I give all the credit in the world to Ferrari for their accomplishments. However, for them to take a step this drastic against an owner is just wrong and thus does justifiably tag them as "Elitist Pigs".

Ferrari's only real hand in "upholding their image" lies on their dealer showroom floor. Once someone legally purchases a vehicle and has the title, then that owner should be free to do what he wants with it.

You guys make a nameplate hold too much value. It's a piece of property that this man bought with his money and legally owns. Who's right is it to tell him what he can or can't do with it? It's common sense at it's finest and I'm not seeing a lot of it in this thread.

If I sell my artwork to someone for good money, then they can do whatever they want with it. If I didn't want anything to happen to it, I wouldn't sell it to them in the first place.

Isn't this why Ferrari has such high standards for buyers in the first place? One guy slips under their radar and suddenly they get their panties in a wad. They need to just suck it up.

um.... one is all it takes to open the flood gates.

Ran......I hope your not talking about me and common sense. I have common sense, again im not saying your wrong about ownership.

But if i make something and and sell it to someone. Then they proceed to destroy it, i'll let them know how i feel about it.

Ferrari has chosen to do it this way.

[PlatanoPower]

This is absolutely ridiculous on Ferrari's part. If they don't want their over glorified cars modified in such manners then they should keep them to themselves.

At the end of the day the owner paid his money for what is now his car, not Ferrari's.
I'm pretty sure it's not affecting Ferrari in any way except that Ferrari fan boys will e-fight until their elitist arguments are without answer.

[EJ25RUN]

Its a free world, and you can do anything you want to your property (inless in some sort of enforceable contract of course). The point here is not "you cant do that", its BRANDING. They are simply saying "you cant call it a Ferrari anymore".

Now for the people saying "its still a Ferrari Danny!!!!" If I sold you my XBOX, and when you got home you realized that somehow (use your imagination) I replaced the CD/DVD drive with a blue ray drive (cant play games anymore). Remember the XBOX still works, the controllers just move the blueray menus around and stuff. It powers up, looks basically the same, has the same cpu and graphics card (engine and drivetrain) but there is one major flaw in the XBOX i sold you: its NOT an XBOX, because it does not preform and operate as an XBOX should. It now serves a completely different purpose, a purpose Microsoft never intended it to. Now lets use our imaginations a little more, I start mass selling (or somehow elese generate a certain level of public interest) these because its a cheap blueray player. Microsoft would be pissed, I have in some way, shape or form blemished their branding of the XBOX and possibly confused some potential Microsoft customers that the XBOX is no longer a game console.

Not the best example, but you have to remember they are fighting for branding, not ones right to do with their property as they please.

No it's a very good example actually.

[EJ25RUN]

This is absolutely ridiculous on Ferrari's part. If they don't want their over glorified cars modified in such manners then they should keep them to themselves.

At the end of the day the owner paid his money for what is now his car, not Ferrari's.
I'm pretty sure it's not affecting Ferrari in any way except that Ferrari fan boys will e-fight until their elitist arguments are without answer.

For your first post id take the time to read the entire thread through and then make a posts.

You obviously haven't.

[Danny]

Ok.. I cant say it any better. Cya, good thread. But i can only say BRANDING so many times. And yet, everyone but EJ25 continues to think Ferrari is sueing on basis of the modification, when they are not. Wake up people, branding is the life blood of any good company, and they do not take it lightly when someone has the possibility of damaging it.

[Nemesis]

Ok.. I cant say it any better. Cya, good thread. But i can only say BRANDING so many times. And yet, everyone but EJ25 continues to think Ferrari is sueing on basis of the modification, when they are not. Wake up people, branding is the life blood of any good company, and they do not take it lightly when someone has the possibility of damaging it.

Just like taking a photo that has a water mark on it, photoshopping it , and in turn making it look like garbage, but still retaining your watermark.

[OnURleft]

I really don't like it because its slow. If it had a pair of Novitec suprechargers and 750hp then that would be tight. Ferrari 360 limo that keep pace with a standard 360

[Ran]

Ran......I hope your not talking about me and common sense. I have common sense, again im not saying your wrong about ownership.EJ, you're pretty cool with me man. Almost all of your posts make sense and I tend to agree with you on a lot of things. However, there just isn't one point on Ferrari's side that I can agree with in this situation.


But if i make something and and sell it to someone. Then they proceed to destroy it, i'll let them know how i feel about it.That's fine, let them know! Ban them from buying your product ever again if you want. However, you would have no real right to make legal charges against a man who did something to a product that he bought from you. Once he bought it, it was no longer in your possession and thus not your choice what he does with it.


Its a free world, and you can do anything you want to your property (inless in some sort of enforceable contract of course). The point here is not "you cant do that", its BRANDING. They are simply saying "you cant call it a Ferrari anymore".This again points back to the elitist attitude that Ferrari seems to have developed. This one vehicle isn't going to suddenly alter the global image of Ferrari. That's like saying a riced-out Civic suddenly turns all Honda's into rice-burning pieces of trash.


Now lets use our imaginations a little more, I start mass selling (or somehow elese generate a certain level of public interest) these because its a cheap blueray player. Microsoft would be pissed, I have in some way, shape or form blemished their branding of the XBOX and possibly confused some potential Microsoft customers that the XBOX is no longer a game console.If you do this to YOUR PERSONAL XBOX, then Microsoft has no right to seek legal charges. If you mass market them with the XBOX brand, then yes, they can file charges against trademark infringement as you would be marketing a product. However, the fact that your personal item does or does not generate attention is an element of it's own and Microsoft has no right to charge you for it.


Not the best example, but you have to remember they are fighting for branding, not ones right to do with their property as they please.By fighting for "branding" they are essentially telling this guy that "you can't do this to a Ferrari without penalty", which comes off as complete crap.

[PlatanoPower]

For your first post id take the time to read the entire thread through and then make a posts.

You obviously haven't.
I've been following the thread before signing up and I've analyzed both sides to the arguement. The fact is this guy isn't mass producing these "Ferrari limos". He isn't taking it to the track and exclaiming subpar Ferrari performance. He's taken responsibilty for his modification and is quite content with it.

I don't see why you'd be personally upset by this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfX56woNxIs&feature=related

[Ran]

I've been following the thread before signing up and I've analyzed both sides to the arguement. The fact is this guy isn't mass producing these "Ferrari limos". He isn't taking it to the track and exclaiming subpar Ferrari performance.Exactly.

I find it surprising that Ferrari finds this one vehicle as an actual threat to their image. It's a laughable situation and I laugh at Ferrari.

[Ran]

Just like taking a photo that has a water mark on it, photoshopping it , and in turn making it look like garbage, but still retaining your watermark.But what if the owner of said picture you sold openly expressed his responsibility to the modifications?

The guy in this situation isn't proclaiming that this is a crazy Ferrari that they built just for him. He has openly stated that he bought a Ferrari car and modified it to his personal wishes. Anyone who directly connects that as poor craftsmanship on Ferrari's original vehicle is an idiot and probably wouldn't qualify to buy one anyway.

Example:

"I bought this original photo from George, as you can tell by the watermark. However, I did this, this, and this to it to make it how it is now. I'm responsible for the changes."

That's what this guy is saying.

[EJ25RUN]

EJ, you're pretty cool with me man. Almost all of your posts make sense and I tend to agree with you on a lot of things. However, there just isn't one point on Ferrari's side that I can agree with in this situation.

That's fine, let them know! Ban them from buying your product ever again if you want. However, you would have no real right to make legal charges against a man who did something to a product that he bought from you. Once he bought it, it was no longer in your possession and thus not your choice what he does with it.


This again points back to the elitist attitude that Ferrari seems to have developed. This one vehicle isn't going to suddenly alter the global image of Ferrari. That's like saying a riced-out Civic suddenly turns all Honda's into rice-burning pieces of trash.

If you do this to YOUR PERSONAL XBOX, then Microsoft has no right to seek legal charges. If you mass market them with the XBOX brand, then yes, they can file charges against trademark infringement as you would be marketing a product. However, the fact that your personal item does or does not generate attention is an element of it's own and Microsoft has no right to charge you for it.

By fighting for "branding" they are essentially telling this guy that "you can't do this to a Ferrari without penalty", which comes off as complete crap.

Ok.... like Danny said im tired with this. This isn't something where one side can win.

Ran, you bring up good points and ill take them as such.

But after analyzing what everyone has had to say i feel that i'll stick to my original opinion.

Just like Danny said, It's the image of what a Ferrari is thats been tarnished.

Yes, he bought the car and yes he owns it.

Here is the best way i can describe it.

The reason i have made as many posts in this thread as i have is because im looking at the Ferrari name.....as an idea.

That idea has been taken by that man and used for something else.

An idea is not a material thing.

That is why, i persist. They don't want him to surrender or destroy the car.

They want the symbol of this idea to be taken of the car.

If you don't get that, i dont know what else to say.

[Danny]

If you do this to YOUR PERSONAL XBOX, then Microsoft has no right to seek legal charges. If you mass market them with the XBOX brand, then yes, they can file charges against trademark infringement as you would be marketing a product. However, the fact that your personal item does or does not generate attention is an element of it's own and Microsoft has no right to charge you for it.

By fighting for "branding" they are essentially telling this guy that "you can't do this to a Ferrari without penalty", which comes off as complete crap.


sorry, ill try to make this my last post. I just could pass up your def of trademark infringement.

I am by no means a lawer, but I have never seen any defenses for trademark infringement (U.S. common law) include:"not mass marketed". I suggest you do a refresher on law.
Please everyone think a little bit more out of the box. Laches is a defense to trademark infringment, and to write this potential (and widley used equitable defense) defense off the list: Ferrari has acted NOW.

Point is we shouldn't act like we understand the law when have zero clue. I know just enough about the law to get me in trouble, but I know enough that Ferrari is doing the right thing. Last thing they want is a army of Ferrari limos running around. So please, try to understand that. And for goodness sake, sign up for a couple law classes.

[Danny]

But what if the owner of said picture you sold openly expressed his responsibility to the modifications?

The guy in this situation isn't proclaiming that this is a crazy Ferrari that they built just for him. He has openly stated that he bought a Ferrari car and modified it to his personal wishes. Anyone who directly connects that as poor craftsmanship on Ferrari's original vehicle is an idiot and probably wouldn't qualify to buy one anyway.

Example:

"I bought this original photo from George, as you can tell by the watermark. However, I did this, this, and this to it to make it how it is now. I'm responsible for the changes."



seriously man, sign up for some law classes. Again, i have never seen this as a defense for trademark infringement.

[Ran]

The reason i have made as many posts in this thread as i have is because im looking at the Ferrari name.....as an idea.

That idea has been taken by that man and used for something else.

An idea is not a material thing.I think this is where we split. His personal tastes, decisions, ideas, or whatever else do not reflect the original "idea" of Ferrari. If Honda's idea for a Civic Hybrid is fuel efficiency and an owner turns it into a V12 gas-guzzling monster, does that suddenly destroy Honda's "idea" for the vehicle? No. The only thing it changes is this one person's personal vehicle.


They don't want him to surrender or destroy the car.

They want the symbol of this idea to be taken of the car.

If you don't get that, i dont know what else to say.Once a buyer is the owner of the vehicle, it's not a matter of what Ferrari wants. They can "want" all they want to, but that does not give them legal grounds to force their ideals about what they think is appropriate down upon this man and his vehicle after they've legally sold it to him. He should be able to turn it into a submarine if he wants to. It's not promoting a seperate idea of what an original Ferrari is or was.

Again, I find it rather humorous that Ferrari actually considers this one man's modifications to be a treat to their image.


I know just enough about the law to get me in trouble, but I know enough that Ferrari is doing the right thing. Last thing they want is a army of Ferrari limos running around. So please, try to understand that.If Ferrari doesn't want bad things to happen to their cars, then they just shouldn't sell them in the first place.


And for goodness sake, sign up for a couple law classes.I'm pretty sure this is a sugar-coated personal attack, but no thanks. I'd just fall asleep while swimming through all the improper BS. Much like the situation for this thread.



Like EJ said, I'm pretty sure this is a situation where we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'm pretty sure I understand where you're coming from, but I just can't justify any actual legal action on Ferrari's part. Oh well, my hat goes off to you for the debate. :cheers:

Here's my vote hoping that Ferrari gets served a nice plate of humble pie. :D

[EJ25RUN]

tell you what.

Everyone has had their say on this matter.

Let's just see what ends up happening and when can spend 5 pages talking about that.

Fun talking with you guys later/

[Danny]

Ran you win. Your blind, and wont listen. You fail to realize that its not the modification that bothers them, its the trademark infringement and their branding at risk that bothers them. Not sure if it was a personal attack, your coming up with senseless defenses that have zero legal grounds. To add to that your being ignorant to the subject.

[EJ25RUN]

One more :D .....Cause i am Grand Champion :king:

User Name Posts

EJ25RUN................35
mushroom_toy........8
Ran......................7
mastakey05...........6
Danny..................6
jesse4846.............5
ATK_Designs..........3
hondachik.............2
PlatanoPower........2
phatboislim...........2
Nemesis...............1
OnURleft..............1
Cool Cat Racing.....1
TehHakingS14.......1
AirBrcak..............1
LS2ner................1
fcman ..............1
bigdare23............1
Gutling................1
90_ZC_HATCH......1
DieselNuts............1
STI101................1
kfzemx3...............1
RUFFIAN..............1
simontibbett.........1
IP37....................1
umairejaz.............1
G.C.....................1
collins..................1
UpSideDownDesi ....1
NAIZBST...............1

[Danny]

tell you what.

Everyone has had their say on this matter.

Let's just see what ends up happening and when can spend 5 pages talking about that.

Fun talking with you guys later/


great call


**unsubscribed**

[Elbow]

i think its kinda dumb that they are suing him. i agree that it looks dumb and i would never do that to the car, but it is HIS car, and if he wants a limo ferrari he should be able to have it.

but if i was in his shoes, i would de-badge it, put if for sale, and then let the next person who buys it put their badges on it, then id buy another ferrari just to piss the company off. lol

another thing, shouldnt ferrari sue the retards who drive nsxs or mr2s with ferrari logos on them? ive seen both around before, and thought it was dumb.

You can't just walk in and buy a Ferrari anymore. :(

[Ran]

Ran you win. Your blind, and wont listen. You fail to realize that its not the modification that bothers them, its the trademark infringement and their branding at risk that bothers them. Not sure if it was a personal attack, your coming up with senseless defenses that have zero legal grounds. To add to that your being ignorant to the subject.Well, any respect you may have had on my end just got flushed down the toilet. I try to agree to disagree and find a peaceful end, but you throw out some BS like this.

Have fun employing the elitist dictatorship of Ferrari over it's buyers. :rolleyes:

[PURP]

who cares its just an over priced piece of shiit that really means nothing.... yeah its carbon everything and 600+ horsepower but thats it and you have to pay 350,000 dollars for that.. take a quarter of that and build a honda, nissan, mazda whatever and you beat it....carbon craetions and other company's make all carbon panels and any GOOD motor work shop can build the **** outta your car for 50,000... think about it you'll save so much money....fuuck the big Italian F

[Nemesis]

who cares its just an over priced piece of shiit that really means nothing.... yeah its carbon everything and 600+ horsepower but thats it and you have to pay 350,000 dollars for that.. take a quarter of that and build a honda, nissan, mazda whatever and you beat it....carbon craetions and other company's make all carbon panels and any GOOD motor work shop can build the **** outta your car for 50,000... think about it you'll save so much money....fuuck the big Italian F


Ran I really was going to respond with something good, but this threw me off. Like seriously, I lost my entire thought process.

[Ran]

Ran I really was going to respond with something good, but this threw me off. Like seriously, I lost my entire thought process. :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: No kidding.

[EJ25RUN]

who cares its just an over priced piece of shiit that really means nothing.... yeah its carbon everything and 600+ horsepower but thats it and you have to pay 350,000 dollars for that.. take a quarter of that and build a honda, nissan, mazda whatever and you beat it....carbon craetions and other company's make all carbon panels and any GOOD motor work shop can build the **** outta your car for 50,000... think about it you'll save so much money....fuuck the big Italian F

Down Honda boy......Down!!!! :lmfao:

[speedminded]

You people don't understand, not only the emblem but the shape of Ferrari's and Porsche's are TRADEMARKED. If an owner of a trademark feels someone is degrading their product that they've worked so hard and invested so much into then they have every right in the world to seek action against them.

It's also trademark dilution, Ferrari is known for their sportscars and it's degrading to their vehicle(s).

[Danny]

You people don't understand, not only the emblem but the shape of Ferrari's and Porsche's are TRADEMARKED. If an owner of a trademark feels someone is degrading their product that they've worked so hard and invested so much into then they have every right in the world to seek action against them.

It's also trademark dilution, Ferrari is known for their sportscars and it's degrading to their vehicle(s).



give it up man. People like Ran are too blind to understand, they think its an Elitist company trying to "hold the man down" when in reality its just trademark infringement (or a host of other legal terms we will let lawyers work on). Its the same people that think you have to profit off something copyrighted by someone else for it to be illegal, they are called morons. And in this case, ignorant morons.

man this thread is just irresistible.

Ran, come on man, i am not personally attacking you. I am defining your actions, which are ignorant and foolish. If you take offense, then prove you want to learn and correct your baseless comments and I will stop calling you ignorant. Till then, thanks for the neg reps lol and i am sorry my negative reps are not as big as yours (damn elitist IA is holding me down, what bull****.. rofl). Oh and I am far from worried about you not respecting me, its a mutual feeling and has been for many posts now.

[LS2ner]

Im still on Ej's Danny and Speedminded side. They arent sueing him for the fact that he modified his ferrari. They are sueing him for the fact that it is no longer the car they built. The car they built was a Ferrari. The car that is being discussed is a limo with Ferrari badging. I respect the fact that they are defending their image and integrity. They ARE an elitist company. They are worldly respected and like EJ posted, they only sold a little over 6000 cars in a single year. This makes them elite. They have legal ground to sue the guy. End of discussion. Regardless if you think its retarded or not, you cant argue the fact that they can and ARE doing it.

On a similar note, i didnt mean i think honda should sue ricers. But they could under the same grounds if they wanted to. They chose not to because of monetary reasons.

[PlatanoPower]

http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140367&highlight=ferrari
Oh, I'm sure Ferrari will be suing the owner of this creation as well. :rolleyes:

It's sad really that a few members on IA choose to swipe down on other fellow car enthusiasts.

The stench of raw sewage is sure to follow those members around IA with their sticky rotten pride.

[VickNotic]

who wouldn't rock a ferrari limo and still hitt'n 175mph ??

i wouldnt buy it, but if given to me free i sure as hell take it in a heart beat... ..

hmm this will surely raise my pu$$y rate 10+ lol

[man]

Desperate? What?

From Auto observer.
Ferrari Reports Sales Record for 2007

"Ferrari reported its 2007 sales worldwide grew 14 percent in 2007 compared with 2006, to about 6,400 cars. It was a record result for Ferrari.

Company executives said sales were especially robust in emerging markets. In the Asia-Pacific region sales grew by 50 percent, in the Middle East by 32 percent.

In 2007, Ferrari also created a U.S. branch of its financial services unit and invested significantly in its facilities. The company plans to invest $30 million in its facilities this year."

And India and China are still to hit as hard. On top of that they just took full importing responsibilities of their cars into Japan, Their second biggest market.

Desperate is a word to describe someone doing anything to make money....Aka whoring themselves out. With a sales record, i don't see them being anywhere near that point.

Never said desperate for sales or money, Ferrari isn't really about either.

[scrxils]

drama, drama, drama lol

[EJ25RUN]

Here is an example of another version with a different ending.

This car started out life as a Ferrari ENZO. James Glickenhaus didn't like the styling so he took it to Pininfarina to have it rebodied as this creation.

Now with what yall have read me say, you might assume Ferrari was angry with him. No! Instead the asked him to bring the car to Marenello to have it be officially badged as a true Ferrari and become the only Ferrari p4/p5 in the world.

http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections/wallpapers/store/0203/800.jpg
http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections/wallpapers/store/0202/800.jpg

[MistaCee]

^^ Thats pretty nice

[Malice]

Oh, I'm sure Ferrari will be suing the owner of this creation as well.

It's sad really that a few members on IA choose to swipe down on other fellow car enthusiasts.

The stench of raw sewage is sure to follow those members around IA with their sticky rotten pride.
how ignorant can you be? im really having trouble making sense of this brain vomit... you're not calling the ones who are sticking up for ferrari, enthusiasts? the thing is you're having too much trouble wiping the drool off your face and can't see that it's the principle behind it. making a beautiful car and turning it into garbage just doesn't roll right with ferrari, can't you and all the other dull minded people understand this?

[koukis14]

Here is an example of another version with a different ending.

This car started out life as a Ferrari ENZO. James Glickenhaus didn't like the styling so he took it to Pininfarina to have it rebodied as this creation.

Now with what yall have read me say, you might assume Ferrari was angry with him. No! Instead the asked him to bring the car to Marenello to have it be officially badged as a true Ferrari and become the only Ferrari p4/p5 in the world.

http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections/wallpapers/store/0203/800.jpg
http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections/wallpapers/store/0202/800.jpg

from what I remember reading this car is much lighter and faster than an Enzo.

[koukis14]

http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140367&highlight=ferrari
Oh, I'm sure Ferrari will be suing the owner of this creation as well. :rolleyes:

It's sad really that a few members on IA choose to swipe down on other fellow car enthusiasts.

The stench of raw sewage is sure to follow those members around IA with their sticky rotten pride.

After reading your post I caught the stench of vinegar. I am guessing because it was written by a HUGE DOUCHE BAG!!!

[EJ25RUN]

from what I remember reading this car is much lighter and faster than an Enzo.

#1 When you quote someone, Either delete the pics or dont have them show up as such......Makes reading allot easier. If i posted them, people can find them.

#2 Thats not important. I don't think it is anyway.

The point is......

1. Man modifies Ferrari
2. Ferrari find out
3. Ferrari ask man to bring his car to factory
4. This creation becomes official Ferrari and recieves honorary Prancing Horse
5. No lawsuit, just a Creation that applies to the "Ferrari Idea" gets respect from the mother company.

[koukis14]

#1 When you quote someone, Either delete the pics or dont have them show up as such......Makes reading allot easier. If i posted them, people can find them.

#2 Thats not important. I don't think it is anyway.

The point is......

1. Man modifies Ferrari
2. Ferrari find out
3. Ferrari ask man to bring his car to factory
4. This creation becomes official Ferrari and recieves honorary Prancing Horse
5. No lawsuit, just a Creation that applies to the "Ferrari Idea" gets respect from the mother company.

I am so so sorry, it will never EVER happen again MR.Important:rolleyes:

[EJ25RUN]

I am so so sorry, it will never EVER happen again MR.Important:rolleyes:

That's my name :goodjob:

[speedminded]

Here is an example of another version with a different ending.

This car started out life as a Ferrari ENZO. James Glickenhaus didn't like the styling so he took it to Pininfarina to have it rebodied as this creation.

Now with what yall have read me say, you might assume Ferrari was angry with him. No! Instead the asked him to bring the car to Marenello to have it be officially badged as a true Ferrari and become the only Ferrari p4/p5 in the world.

http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections/wallpapers/store/0203/800.jpg
http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections/wallpapers/store/0202/800.jpgHa! That's awesome, i'd seen photos of the car but didn't know that's how it came about...it was always titled as a Ferrari "concept" car.

The difference between this situation is the guy with the limo didn't go to a company that's been designing and building cars with Ferrari for decades... obviously they're going to praise most, if not all, their work.

[Truegiant]

not really sure how i feel about this one..

[87 Turbo II]

The car came with those badges, is registered under that Vin, and the man payed the rights to that car badges and all. I don't give a $hit what the Ferrari badge represents or how important it is to the company that this man esentialy took the essence out of what the car represents. Yes, some Ferrari owner bought their cars because ALL Ferraris are purebreads and it is a racing pedigree family but ONE limo 360 existing shouldn't lower the whole face of the company. I mean This isn't even the first Ferrari limo and if anything Ferrari should sue the guy who made his NSX a Ferrari F50, or those Pontiac Fiaros with 315 Kits, this whole thing is stupid. Ferrari should let the man be happy with his creation and let him paint it red white and green with HUGE Ferrari prancing horses, Pinifinara (or however you spell it) and Ferrari text, badging everywhere, and let him post it all over the freaking web if he wanted to. It's just ONE CAR with a few badges. He is not selling it claiming it is a Ferrari, he is driving the Ferrari he paid for with heavy modification.

Here are some others I suppose Ferrari is going to sue as well..........

http://news.windingroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/limo-bob-ferrari-f40-convertible.jpg

http://www.gizmag.com/pictures/hero/8033_14090732948.jpg

[PlatanoPower]

how ignorant can you be? im really having trouble making sense of this brain vomit... you're not calling the ones who are sticking up for ferrari, enthusiasts? the thing is you're having too much trouble wiping the drool off your face and can't see that it's the principle behind it. making a beautiful car and turning it into garbage just doesn't roll right with ferrari, can't you and all the other dull minded people understand this?

It's a matter of taste. This Ferrari owner decided to do as he pleased with HIS Ferrari.

If his creation leaves the taste of sour milk in your mouth spew it on someone elses post. If you had any sort of reading comprehension skills you'd undertstand the logical standpoint of my arguement.

It's seems as if the true dull individuals fail to understand anything besides Ferrari elitism.

[PlatanoPower]

After reading your post I caught the stench of vinegar. I am guessing because it was written by a HUGE DOUCHE BAG!!!
Thanks for spewing more garbage on an otherwise logical arguement.

I'd also like to thank you Koukis, a shamelessly rotten individual, for leaving reps :cheers:

[Malice]

It's a matter of taste. This Ferrari owner decided to do as he pleased with HIS Ferrari.
you apparently didn't read the whole thread, of course it has to do with taste, something the owner is extremely lacking on. lacking on taste as much as you are brain cells. you're comparing a ferrari and the way people use them to any other vehicle on the road. turning a ferrari into a limo, something totally different, is like turning you into einstein. only an incompetent buffoon could combine words like you...


If his creation leaves the taste of sour milk in your mouth spew it on someone elses post. If you had any sort of reading comprehension skills you'd undertstand the logical standpoint of my arguement.
here's the thing, there is no "logic" behind your arguement. the only thing i can make sense of is that you're apparently unfamilier with the english language and is having to resort on asking your little sister what the "big"(since this is the only way you'd understand what im trying to say) words im typing mean.


It's seems as if the true dull individuals fail to understand anything besides Ferrari elitism.
why am i not suprised, another ingenious combination of words by none other than you! you're only reading a few words and refuse to see the whole piece of the pie. do yourself a favor and take the time and write up notes from all the other neanderthals that have posted before you. and examine them, then and only then will you realize how stupid your arguement sounds.

[IndianStig]

I HOPE FERRARI LOSE'S THE CASE AND HAS TO PAY MR. CAWLEY'S LEGAL FEE'S. NO MATTER WHAT THE PRINCIPLE OF A FERRARI IS, HE BOUGHT THE CAR, THUS HE CAN DO WHATEVER THE **** HE WANTS TO IT. IT WILL COST HIM TIME TO REMOVE THE BADGES, AT THE VERY LEAST, THEY SHOULD PAY HIM LABOUR TIME TO REMOVE THE BADGES. IMO THAT LABOUR RATE SHOULD BE $500,000 AN HOUR.


ALSO, I WOULD NEVER DO THIS TO A FERRARI, BUT IT WOULD BE BADASS AS **** TO ROLL UP SOMEWHERE IN A FERRARI LIMO, LOL.


EDIT: KNOWING THE EUROPEAN LEGAL SYSTEM, FERRARI WILL PROLLY WIN THIS. PRIDE OVER PRINCIPLES, LOL....WOW.



THIS ONE GETS A BIG :2up: TO FERRARI. I WOULD LOVE FOR SOME RICH PEOPLE TO GO OUT AND BUT THE F430 AND DO THE SAME THING JUST TOO PISS THEM OFF.

[IndianStig]

But it's not a Ferrari anymore.


FERRARI BADGED IT, LET THEM COME AND DEBADGE IT. OH WAIT, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO TOUCH A CAR THAT SOMEONE PAID THEM MONEY FOR COMPLETE OWNERSHIP OF.

[ThEGrNGoBLiN]

this thread = dumb but its pretty interesting.. its like buying a really expensive sports car and putting heavy rims on it and even though your name is on the title and you bought the car, the person who made the car sues you because your rims are too heavy and it defeats the purpose of being a sports car just my :2cents:

[EJ25RUN]

I HOPE FERRARI LOSE'S THE CASE AND HAS TO PAY MR. CAWLEY'S LEGAL FEE'S. NO MATTER WHAT THE PRINCIPLE OF A FERRARI IS, HE BOUGHT THE CAR, THUS HE CAN DO WHATEVER THE **** HE WANTS TO IT. IT WILL COST HIM TIME TO REMOVE THE BADGES, AT THE VERY LEAST, THEY SHOULD PAY HIM LABOUR TIME TO REMOVE THE BADGES. IMO THAT LABOUR RATE SHOULD BE $500,000 AN HOUR.


ALSO, I WOULD NEVER DO THIS TO A FERRARI, BUT IT WOULD BE BADASS AS **** TO ROLL UP SOMEWHERE IN A FERRARI LIMO, LOL.


EDIT: KNOWING THE EUROPEAN LEGAL SYSTEM, FERRARI WILL PROLLY WIN THIS. PRIDE OVER PRINCIPLES, LOL....WOW.



THIS ONE GETS A BIG :2up: TO FERRARI. I WOULD LOVE FOR SOME RICH PEOPLE TO GO OUT AND BUT THE F430 AND DO THE SAME THING JUST TOO PISS THEM OFF.

1. So does having everything capitalized make your post more important than everyone else's?

2. You are the twenty second person to say the same thing, it got old on page 3. You saying it on page 7 means nothing.

3. There are reasons why some of us agree with Ferrari and some of us that disagree on this matter.

4. For most of the posts i've read, it seems to me that the people on Ferrari's side are able to bring up more up more facts vs emotional rants. The one exception is Ran. Your post with the cussing and whatnot, really has no value. You basically jumped on the bandwagon and wasted thread space.

5. If you have something intelligent, relevant, or new to say about this issue, then go ahead and find it. Cause im really tired of you, PlatanoPower, 87 Turbo II (I lost respect for his post awhile back).

6. Most of the people involved in this thread decided to see the outcome and comment on that./

[HeLLo iM iZzY]

I didn't know we had a Ferrari spokesman on IA.

[EJ25RUN]

I didn't know we had a Ferrari spokesman on IA.

Talking about me? If so i would be if i had one, but i don't :(

[speedminded]

I HOPE FERRARI LOSE'S THE CASE AND HAS TO PAY MR. CAWLEY'S LEGAL FEE'S. NO MATTER WHAT THE PRINCIPLE OF A FERRARI IS, HE BOUGHT THE CAR, THUS HE CAN DO WHATEVER THE **** HE WANTS TO IT. IT WILL COST HIM TIME TO REMOVE THE BADGES, AT THE VERY LEAST, THEY SHOULD PAY HIM LABOUR TIME TO REMOVE THE BADGES. IMO THAT LABOUR RATE SHOULD BE $500,000 AN HOUR.


ALSO, I WOULD NEVER DO THIS TO A FERRARI, BUT IT WOULD BE BADASS AS **** TO ROLL UP SOMEWHERE IN A FERRARI LIMO, LOL.


EDIT: KNOWING THE EUROPEAN LEGAL SYSTEM, FERRARI WILL PROLLY WIN THIS. PRIDE OVER PRINCIPLES, LOL....WOW.



THIS ONE GETS A BIG :2up: TO FERRARI. I WOULD LOVE FOR SOME RICH PEOPLE TO GO OUT AND BUT THE F430 AND DO THE SAME THING JUST TOO PISS THEM OFF.

FERRARI BADGED IT, LET THEM COME AND DEBADGE IT. OH WAIT, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO TOUCH A CAR THAT SOMEONE PAID THEM MONEY FOR COMPLETE OWNERSHIP OF.
Do you not understand the laws behind trademarks? Just because someone purchases something does not mean they own the rights to it. You CAN NOT legally alter trademarked objects whether you "own" the object or not, especially not when you are doing it to produce an income.


Say you purchased a fountain or vending machine with Coke graphics on it and put Pepsi products in it...Coke has every right in the world to file suit against you. Even though you "own" the machine it's still their trademark so they still have say as to how it is used.

[Mr_Mischif]

I Really like this thread. Now, that being said:


You CAN NOT legally alter trademarked objects whether you "own" the object or not, especially not when you are doing it to produce an income.

So where do NASCAR cars come into this? They're still called "Avengers" and "Camrys", but there's basically nothing connecting the mass-produced grocery getter and the tube-framed, 900HP producing race car.

Also, where do companies like TOM'S, MINE'S and Spoon come into this?


Say you purchased a fountain or vending machine with Coke graphics on it and put Pepsi products in it...Coke has every right in the world to file suit against you. Even though you "own" the machine it's still their trademark so they still have say as to how it is used.

This makes no sense to me. Unless the fact that there were Pepsi products in it somehow tarnished their reputation, what could they do? I could put a "sucks" decal right under the Coke name and they still couldn't do anything about it, unless they want to try to pull something out of their butts like defamation


For example, if Picasso sold an original to Bobby, and bobby came home and painted in some extra things onto the canvas, but left Picasso's signature. Is it a true Picasso, of course not, its garbage (although it still has appeal and value to certain individuals).
Just my 2 cents.

Well this would be fraud if he was selling it as something only Picasso did, but even though it's a Picasso with some stupid shiz on it that annihilates its value.



The people that do not understand branding, and how difficult it is to build a brand that is world recognized for performance, beauty, and uniqueness will be the same people to yell BS and scream "ELITIST PIGS" at the top of their lungs.

But see, that's just the thing: Ferrari builds STREET-LEGAL RACERS AND F1 CARS. That's ALL THEY DO, and EVERYONE KNOWS IT. Nobody thinks that that car would have rolled out of Maranello like that, so they must figure it was done by some idiot with more money than brains. The only way they could claim it tarnished their image is if it makes people believe that they sell to rich idiots, which they do and must know they do, so what's the problem?


I doubt that Nissan thought that their 240SX would become a drift icon, but there it is. Yet they don't think they should sue everyone in Form. D or D1.

I doubt that Ford thought that their Mustang would have a RB26 dropped into it and drifted down a mountain, but it happened, and they haven't taken anyone to court.

If they can prove that because some guy added nine feet to his 360 that people aren't buying F430s, then more power to them. But until then they are being elitist.

[Mr_Mischif]

BTW I think this thread is quite relevant.

http://hotrodhomepage.com/hrhp/2005/12/12/nissan-powered-mustang/

[EJ25RUN]

BTW I think this thread is quite relevant.

http://hotrodhomepage.com/hrhp/2005/12/12/nissan-powered-mustang/

*explain*

[Mr_Mischif]

And why the forg is this in Car Pics? It should be in Lifestyle or Entertainment, cause this thread is entertaining.

[Mr_Mischif]

*explain*


People put RB26 in Fastback
Domestic owners come out and bash the **** out of it (and import drivers, but that's a diff. story) b/c it's different and has a RB in it, which is blasphemy
Other people come out and defend it, saying they have the right to do whatever the forg they want to the car (and all import drivers are not ricers, but that's a diff. story)
Big, multi-year Import/domestic flamewar ensues
?????
PROFIT

[EJ25RUN]

People put RB26 in Fastback
Domestic owners come out and bash the **** out of it (and import drivers, but that's a diff. story) b/c it's different and has a RB in it, which is blasphemy
Other people come out and defend it, saying they have the right to do whatever the forg they want to the car (and all import drivers are not ricers, but that's a diff. story)
Big, multi-year Import/domestic flamewar ensues
?????
PROFIT

Um i don't really see how this is relevant. Are you saying that now people have started to put RB motors into domestics?

And how was money made? Rb are not produced anymore and neither are Fastback Mustangs. Plus as i have said before, Nissan and Ford are different than Ferrari so this applies differently to them.
This Ferrari one is a different story.

Anyways, i've got 35+ post in here, i'm waiting for the outcome to talk.

[Mr_Mischif]

Um i don't really see how this is relevant. Are you saying that now people have started to put RB motors into domestics?

And how was money made? Rb are not produced anymore and neither are Fastback Mustangs. Plus as i have said before, Nissan and Ford are different than Ferrari so this applies differently to them.
This Ferrari one is a different story.

Anyways, i've got 35+ post in here, i'm waiting for the outcome to talk.
The profit part was a joke; I'm saying this is relevant because SOME people got mad because SOMEONE ELSE did something, but it was their property, so they could do whatever they wanted with it.

PS did you check the link? That was the Tokyo Drift Mustang.

[Mr_Mischif]

BTW when will this go to court/end?

[EJ25RUN]

The profit part was a joke; I'm saying this is relevant because SOME people got mad because SOMEONE ELSE did something, but it was their property, so they could do whatever they wanted with it.

PS did you check the link? That was the Tokyo Drift Mustang.

Hmm.... :rolleyes:

Yes, yes, your not the first to say that.

I do know it was the TDM.

Don't know when the court date is but ill stay posted and break the link when it happens.

[BABY J]

I Really like this thread. Now, that being said:



So where do NASCAR cars come into this? They're still called "Avengers" and "Camrys", but there's basically nothing connecting the mass-produced grocery getter and the tube-framed, 900HP producing race car.

Also, where do companies like TOM'S, MINE'S and Spoon come into this?



This makes no sense to me. Unless the fact that there were Pepsi products in it somehow tarnished their reputation, what could they do? I could put a "sucks" decal right under the Coke name and they still couldn't do anything about it, unless they want to try to pull something out of their butts like defamation



Well this would be fraud if he was selling it as something only Picasso did, but even though it's a Picasso with some stupid shiz on it that annihilates its value.




But see, that's just the thing: Ferrari builds STREET-LEGAL RACERS AND F1 CARS. That's ALL THEY DO, and EVERYONE KNOWS IT. Nobody thinks that that car would have rolled out of Maranello like that, so they must figure it was done by some idiot with more money than brains. The only way they could claim it tarnished their image is if it makes people believe that they sell to rich idiots, which they do and must know they do, so what's the problem?


I doubt that Nissan thought that their 240SX would become a drift icon, but there it is. Yet they don't think they should sue everyone in Form. D or D1.

I doubt that Ford thought that their Mustang would have a RB26 dropped into it and drifted down a mountain, but it happened, and they haven't taken anyone to court.

If they can prove that because some guy added nine feet to his 360 that people aren't buying F430s, then more power to them. But until then they are being elitist.

Smartest post in the thread. Ferrari has no ground to stand on and will fail miserably.

/thread

[speedminded]

So where do NASCAR cars come into this? They're still called "Avengers" and "Camrys", but there's basically nothing connecting the mass-produced grocery getter and the tube-framed, 900HP producing race car.

Also, where do companies like TOM'S, MINE'S and Spoon come into this?You think NASCAR vehicles aren't licensed and developed by their manufacturer? Do you have any idea about the magnitude and importance of racing to manufacturers? Toyota spends about $100 million a year on NASCAR! Then Toyota has invested $2.5 BILLION in Formula 1 since 2002, "Toyota spends an estimated $400 million a year on its F1 program, but has yet to win a race in five seasons"...BILLIONS from their pocket. Of course manufactures use the names of their street cars TO PROMOTE the sales! Do either have a single bolt in common? Most likely not but it's a marketing investment. Don't say manufactures don't have a stake in the motorsports their cars participate in if you don't know what you are talking about.



This makes no sense to me. Unless the fact that there were Pepsi products in it somehow tarnished their reputation, what could they do? I could put a "sucks" decal right under the Coke name and they still couldn't do anything about it, unless they want to try to pull something out of their butts like defamationWhen you own a trademark you have proprietary rights to how the product or object is used, period.



But see, that's just the thing: Ferrari builds STREET-LEGAL RACERS AND F1 CARS. That's ALL THEY DO, and EVERYONE KNOWS IT. Nobody thinks that that car would have rolled out of Maranello like that, so they must figure it was done by some idiot with more money than brains. The only way they could claim it tarnished their image is if it makes people believe that they sell to rich idiots, which they do and must know they do, so what's the problem?If one person does it then another one will...then another...then another. Even though Ferrari sold the car they still have rights to how the car is used. If for instance someone wanted to use a Ferrari in a movie then Ferrari can say no and threaten a lawsuit if they want to. It's not just the Ferrari stable emblem of Baranca's horse that is trademarked, it's the entire car and what is done to it. It may be the owners car BUT it is still Ferrari's trademarked object.



I doubt that Nissan thought that their 240SX would become a drift icon, but there it is. Yet they don't think they should sue everyone in Form. D or D1.

I doubt that Ford thought that their Mustang would have a RB26 dropped into it and drifted down a mountain, but it happened, and they haven't taken anyone to court.Name a single reason why they should? If it's non-threatening or they don't have a problem with it why should they?


If they can prove that because some guy added nine feet to his 360 that people aren't buying F430s, then more power to them. But until then they are being elitist.Get your head out of your ass and listen for once. Ferrari owns the rights to how their automobiles are used, how they are modified, etc. If they don't like it they have the choice of a) not giving a ****, or b) requesting it not be done or it will result in them seeking legal action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

[BABY J]

This guy's limo is ALSO non-threatening. If I want to buy a Ferrari and put a pizza hut sign on it and deliver pizzas I can --- and Ferrari can't do SH*T about it.

If he is building replicas of his AUTHENTIC and MODIFIED Ferrari, and badging AND selling them AS Ferraris then there is obvioulsy some issues.

Bottom line - he modified a car. People buy Cadillacs all day and turn them into limos - it's STILL a Cadillac, and other than denying warranty-work there is nothing Caddy can do. As well as Hummer. As well as any other limo out there.

There is no "modification clause" when you go in and purchase a Ferrari. As much as you Ferrari supporters hate it, this guy is doing NOTHING wrong, and has broken no laws.

[87 Turbo II]

This makes me want to badge my car as a Ferrari and paint it red, not to be a ricer, but to piss Ferrari off. I'd take tons of pics, and sent it straight to them.

[BABY J]

Ferrari is just pissed b/c they missed an ingenous marketing opportunity. They could have produced 5 of these a year and made a KILLING. But "some other guy" gets to rent his out for a few bucks a weekend and they don't like it. And the KICKER is, if they do it he has all the web publicity to see who came up w/ the idea 1st... and he can theoretically counter-suit.

[Mr_Mischif]

When you own a trademark you have proprietary rights to how the product or object is used, period.

So let me get this straight: even though I buy some property from someone else, THEY can still tell me "no, you can't do that and we won't let you"? So you're telling me that Ducati could theoretically sue the people behnd the second Matrix because they think that the movie makes people think Ducatis are fragile, even though the girl RAN ONE INTO A F*CKING BUILDING?!


If one person does it then another one will...

So? You can't stop idiots.


Even though Ferrari sold the car they still have rights to how the car is used.


It's not just the Ferrari stable emblem of Baranca's horse that is trademarked, it's the entire car and what is done to it.

Are you serious? I mean, really f*cking serious? Because that's irrelevant to the problem here. The car is different from what Ferrari made. Point-blank, PERIOD. He has changed it radically from Ferrari's original design. It may not be Ferrari's idea of what a Ferrari should be, but it still has a Ferrari VIN and a Ferrari title, and thus in the law's eyes it is still a Ferrari.


It may be the owners car BUT it is still Ferrari's trademarked object.

But see, that's just the thing: IT ISN'T. Now, I'll take something from the Wikipedia article you linked to: "A trademark is a type of intellectual property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property), and typically comprises a name, word, phrase, logo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo), symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol), design, image, or a combination of these elements."

Does the design of that limo look ANYWHERE NEAR a 360? Sure, in some ways it might, but there's one big thing separating them: ABOUT NINE FEET.
Like I said before, the design is radically different, and thus they have no trademark over the car. Sure, the badges might be the same as the the ones on a 612 coming off the line (which ITE is the reason for this suit), but as I said before it's still a Ferrari in the law's eyes, and a Ferrari badge on a Ferrari is not a trademark issue.


Get your head out of your ass and listen for once. Ferrari owns the rights to how their automobiles are used, how they are modified, etc. If they don't like it they have the choice of a) not giving a ****, or b) requesting it not be done or it will result in them seeking legal action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark

Your head is as far up your ass as my head is up mine! They DO NOT have the right to say how cars that technically ARE NOT THEIRS are used! I see how they could say something about the badges (which is the whole point of the suit), but not the car itself.

[speedminded]

So let me get this straight: even though I buy some property from someone else, THEY can still tell me "no, you can't do that and we won't let you"?YES. A trademarked object (name, design, etc.) legally can't be modified without their approval. There could possibly be loopholes if it's a private vehicle BUT it is not. At the very least they can force him to debadge the car and not advertise it as a Ferrari but it could be way more than that.


Somewhat of a stretch but if you went to the bank and got 4 quarters for $1.00 and took a bolt cutter and sliced one in half than that is considered destruction of government property. If you burn cash in a fireplace that YOU earned it's still destruction of government property. It's you're money right? you earned it? So how can that be?

[GSRteg®]

Here is an example of another version with a different ending.

This car started out life as a Ferrari ENZO. James Glickenhaus didn't like the styling so he took it to Pininfarina to have it rebodied as this creation.

Now with what yall have read me say, you might assume Ferrari was angry with him. No! Instead the asked him to bring the car to Marenello to have it be officially badged as a true Ferrari and become the only Ferrari p4/p5 in the world.

http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections/wallpapers/store/0203/800.jpg
http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections/wallpapers/store/0202/800.jpg

I do like the design and wonder what its worth?

[87 Turbo II]

http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections/wallpapers/store/0202/800.jpg

I do like the design and wonder what its worth?I think he bought the Enzo for $1.2 Million and spent $700,000 for the new one-off carbon fiber body by Pinifinara. It's the $1.9 million Ferrari.

[nuhustle]

this is ****ing stupid. let the man do what he wants to do with his car. let the company sue him. we cant ever afford on so f.uck it. honda, toyota, nissan, mitsubishi, subaru and kia would never do this because they know whopays the bills. us, tuners. why do you think they keep releasing cars geared towards modification? last time i checked ferrari didnt have an in house performance department,ie: trd, nismo etc... high-end cars like that are not meant to be modified like ours. when toyota tells me i cant put an rx7 motor in my mr2, then ill give two shi.ts