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

[EJ25RUN]

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

That's my name

[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/timet...e/0203/800.jpg
http://www.topgear.com/content/timet...e/0202/800.jpg

Ha! 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..........

[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

[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 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

[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 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 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/...wered-mustang/

[EJ25RUN]

BTW I think this thread is quite relevant.

http://hotrodhomepage.com/hrhp/2005/...wered-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....

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 defamation

When 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, and typically comprises a name, word, phrase, logo, 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.

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