Ford anti-squatting efforts out of control?
In an effort to better protect the Mustang name, Ford Motor Company has taken to prosecuting companies with names incorporating a Ford trademark, including Mustang and nicknames like Stang and Pony. According to Mustang Monthly, companies that violate the rules are being presented with a letter directing the company to transfer internet domain names containing "Mustang" to Ford, as well as instructions to stop using Mustang in the company name. The letter also reportedly requests that all marketing materials, including brochures, banners, business cards, etc. be turned over to Ford so that they can be destroyed, and also directs the company to cut Ford a check for $5,000 in damages. Companies choosing not to comply could end up in a legal battle with Ford costing in excess of $100,000. Seems a little excessive, but it's within Ford's right and responsibility to protect its trademarks, right?
But what about the collateral damage? What of the companies that will undergo financial harm by halting advertising until the issue is resolved, or those small shops that don't have the marketing budget to reprint all of its materials? And what about Ford's efforts over the years to encourage aftermarket shops to produce product for the Mustang, thereby increasing the Mustang's attractiveness to car buffs looking to customize.
So what's the answer, dear readers? Is Ford going overboard, or is the company rightly protecting its property?
Thanks to Matt for the tip.
[Source: Mustang Monthly]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
emulous1974 7:15PM (6/01/2006)
The company can choose any legal way in which to protect it's copyrights. So I think we all can agree that Ford is legally correct in what it's doing. However Ford is making the biggest marketing mistake ever.
This is something the AFA should choose to boycott Ford over.
If Ford wanted to protect it's copyrights, it should of squashed it from the begining instead of allowing an industry to grow up using it for the last 30 - 40 years. That aftermarket industry for the Mustang is what has helped Ford sell it's Pony car and keep it from extinction, which is what Ford was intending to do with the Probe. By shops using the Mustang name they are giving free advertising for Ford, no one believes even the Saleen's you can buy at a Ford Dealership are related to Ford Motor Company for all those aftermarket goodies.
Even with the loss of SVT products, Ford really should be happy these folks are keeping the mystic alive on the Mustang peformance.
Subaru has done the same thing with the Impreza name.
Ford should be supporting these companies using the name and not trying to beat them to a pulp and piss of Ford's customer base.
If Ford was really serious about this, they should give these shops/businesses a years time to stop using their marketing materials and changing their names to not use the Mustang/Pony registered trademarks.
I'm willing to beat, that there will be possibly successfull countersuits to Ford, because after 30-40 years, why is Ford just now cracking down?
Reply
Howard Kerr 7:20PM (6/01/2006)
Ford is probably going a bit overboard, but wasn't/isn't DCX doing the same thing by being (overly?) protective of the name Jeep...oops, I forgot to add the registered trademark symbol.
Reply
Corey 7:24PM (6/01/2006)
Ridiculous. Clearly a scare tactic.
Reply
Ron 7:38PM (6/01/2006)
It's probably fair to try to stop the leeches who try to get some reflected 'glory' from a well-established brand. And as for the smaller companies who can't afford to reprint materials, well, I have no sympathy for them - do you really think that they used the Mustang name by coincidence?
Reply
not important 7:40PM (6/01/2006)
unless there is a company that sells cars with 'stang in the name this is completly rediculous.
Reply
Tom Design 7:43PM (6/01/2006)
It's called trademark law, and our opinions don't count. It's a cut and dry formula for name usage. Ford is within their rights, and, I am relieved to see there won't be a Mistsubishi Mustang (how cleverly they stole the Lancer name), nor a Chery Mustang. There are tons of names to be used, and real names, not 300SL or A3...stupid unglamorous letter/number combos. Volkswagon and Honda and Chevrolet and Buick have the right idea in my mind. I love driving a 'Stang. My 740GLE is just dopey, like no one cared or bothered to add an image, just some engineer nerd's nomenclature. Let's have some sexy image names!
Reply
Sparkdog 7:44PM (6/01/2006)
I have not blogged here in a while. I am the one, in the past that would blast Ford. Today I decided to blog here. Today I have a great oppurtunity to say that Ford has the dumbest ideas I have ever seen in my life. Well I take that back, you always have to give the ideas belonging to Hitler a jump in the dumbest. This is a company that is financially in a hole the size of texas, and they are picking on other bussinesses. They just dont want to be liked do they.
WASNT A MUSTANG A HORSE LONG BEFORE FORD WAS A CAR. In the defense of every company the word mustang does not belong to any person in paticular. It belongs to God.
Reply
John 8:01PM (6/01/2006)
I concur, the Mustang and its popularity exist primarly due to the passion of its buyers. Many of their customers also happen to start their own business to share their joy derived from the Mustang with others. The fact that Ford would aim to sever this unbinding relationship is beyond me.
Ford should offer licensing at a nominal fee to the companies that violate the misuse of "Mustang" or "Ford" if they wish to protect their copyright. Granted, if Ford does abosolutely nothing, they run the risk of the term "Mustang" leaping into common usage and into the public domain... but I don't recall anyone ever referring to all 2-door coupes as a mustangs. Maybe Ford wants to be the only Pony Car in the upcoming Domestic V8 RWD war?
Reply
Brad 8:02PM (6/01/2006)
Ford owns the copyright for "Mustang" related to all things automotive. The copyright does not apply to the horse.
Reply
James 8:04PM (6/01/2006)
Beyond doubt, this will hurt Ford in terms of public perception - something they can ill afford to lose. However, speaking from a market closely related to automotive manufacturing, I feel safe in saying that many lawyers will say that in order to maintain your trademarks/copyrights, enforcement along these lines is necessary. Is it stupid? Absolutely. But blame our legal system and lawyers as well as Ford's management for caving in over what should simply be a common sense issue.
Reply
JR 8:23PM (6/01/2006)
Interesting people do not have a clue between a copyright and a trademark are :-(
Kinda stupid for vendors to spend big bucks on a trademark and then some pimps to make hugh profits on internet sites and forums to use those trademarks and not pay the royality
Good for Ford and others should do this and enforce it since many cyberspace vendors who rip off people do not even have a business license much less legal permission to use the trademarks that are the magnet bringing them customers.
If Ford or others just ignored the laws related to trademarks then the feds should just do away with them altogether
Why should some sell car T-shirts using trademarks for $20-40 ( when they pay $3) and not pay the owner of that trademark, logo, etc ?
Reply
Peter 8:24PM (6/01/2006)
Lucky for Ford, the Mustang Ranch is out of business. I'll bet they would've put up a fight.
Reply
AR 8:30PM (6/01/2006)
What kind of company would want to incorporate the Ford trademark in its name?
FORD: At least they circled the problem!
Reply
Steve J 8:57PM (6/01/2006)
It all depends on how broadly they apply this. If they keep the focus within the automotive space (including accessories, parts, makers of unauthorized merchandise like t-shirts, hats, etc.) and any other instances where a reasonable consumer would be presented with confusion, they are well within their rights and would almost certainly prevail in court.
However, if they cast a wide net and start going after businesses that clearly have nothing to do with auotmotive and no reasonable person would see as either a competitor or receiving an endorsement from Ford, then they cross the line from legitimate protection of a very valuable trademark to bullying. Going after a hypothetical Mustang Overnight Delivery would be legit (implies a use of the vehicle), but going after Mustang Fried Chicken wouldn't. Trademark law is pretty clear that while you're given a very wide berth in defending your mark where legitimate confusion is created or endorsement implied, it's also pretty clear that you can't claim control over unrelated things.
Unfortunately, the OP provides zero insight into how aggressively and broadly Ford is going to pursue this. Which means that some of the questions are not only unanswerable but pretty much unwarranted. If a company is forced to stop selling unauthorized Mustang-logo t-shirts and hats, whatever "collateral damage" they suffer is entirely warranted, as they own zero rights to profit off of another company's mark. Different story if they take a run at the hypothetical Mustang Friend Chicken I mentioned earlier.
Reply
tmcphail 9:02PM (6/01/2006)
Hey did you also know that the law firm HPA that Ford rewards for taking down domain names is also sending Cease and Desist letters to its own Ford dealers now!
Reply
Aaron 9:02PM (6/01/2006)
Wow, That is so wayyy overboard. I could understand if like Chevy made a Chevy mustang, but come on people.
Reply
Tony 9:37PM (6/01/2006)
Ford must have gotten this great idea from Mazda with the "cease and desist" orders. Mazda NA pulled this same crap about a year ago and cracked down on any and all "profiteers" of the Miata name. Even down to the little guy who made name badges for all of the Miata clubs in the US. Nothing like keeping the priorities in line! Way to go Big Blue!
Just make the damn vehicles better will ya?
Proud owner of an '00 Expedition :) And yes I tow with the beast, I mean truck :)
Reply
John 9:46PM (6/01/2006)
To #12: I think the scope is to target "baby businesses" that cater to Mustang owners but without being Motorcraft or other authorized parts distributors. Like Calfornia Mustang (parts supplier), Stangparts.com, Mustang Depot, www.fomoco.com, etc. None of these companies have a direct affiliation to Ford, but they do provide Mustang fans access to new peroformance parts, or replacement parts for restorations.
I think, these firms do encroach on the Mustang name, hence why I think there should be some form of licensing to allow the firms to continue operation without a name change. I do not feel Ford demanding these companies to change their moniker is in Ford's best interest. These firms aren't peddling pirated DVDs or porno. Rather, they're just simple companies that give local customers access to parts.
Reply
JZeke 9:53PM (6/01/2006)
Cessna makes a small prop plane called the Mustang, does Ford get to go after them too?
In aerospace the Mustang was the hero plane of the end of WWII. Its also a big reason the Ford even has the name, the popularity and success of the P-51 was such that a generation of boomers whose parents fought in the war immiediately were drawn to it.
Cessna might be using a trademarked name, but arent they more closely aligned to the real Mustang mystique anyway?
Reply
Ryan 9:57PM (6/01/2006)
Ford doesn't have absolute rights in the Mustang trademark. It has the right to prevent others from using the mark in situations where consumers would likely be confused -- is this product from Ford, or is it from someone else? On the one hand, companies selling Mustang parts are in pretty much the same line of business as Ford. On the other hand, it defies common sense to think anyone would think California Mustangs = Ford. And aftermarket shoppers are probably pretty savvy; they'd know the difference between Ford and someone else.
Reply