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.
[Source: The Times]
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
Volkswagen unveiling two-door Elise fighter in LA, new sports car
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
John P. @ Mar 14th 2008 8:07AM
Though it's a stupid thing to do, modifying such a car, I doubt Ferrari has much of a case. The guy didn't steal the car. Sheesh, Ferrari, get over yourself.
Nuieve @ Mar 14th 2008 2:35PM
That limo is pure hotness.
And btw, that's NOT a stupid thing to do. Rich people can do whatever they want with their Ferraris, just like poor people can do whatever they want with their Civics. But obviously, rich people have a lot more taste, if we compare this limo to a regular riced up Civic abomination on the road.
John P. @ Mar 14th 2008 3:17PM
Ok, maybe it's not stupid, but the car is now worth about 1/10th what it was. I agree he can do whatever the hell he wants with his car and Ferrari has no business in it after they have his cash. You know the saying, when you are poor, it's bad taste, when you are rich, it's "eccentric."
BrianM @ Mar 14th 2008 8:07AM
That's great Ferrari, it has already fallen into obscurity along with the previous ferrari limos, and now you go and round up a whole heap of free advertising and noteriety for the vehicle which you hate.
John P. @ Mar 14th 2008 8:15AM
and advertising for itself in the process.
sledge @ Mar 14th 2008 9:46AM
It's called the Streisand effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Eddie @ Mar 14th 2008 8:19AM
The guy enhanced a car (which im assuming he owns in full) to best suit his needs. I see no issue.
Under that same logic should Dodge sue people who made their vans into a handicap accessable vehicle?
Kattleox @ Mar 14th 2008 9:34AM
They are thinking along the lines of an artist who sells his work to a museum only to have it cut in half and filled with nine and a half feet of somebody elses art that kinda matches. And they arent wanting money, but the removal of the badges (aka signature).
I don't side with ferrari, but I can definitely see where they are coming from.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Mar 14th 2008 10:46AM
Art?
Ferrari is in it for the money, nothing else.
And the doctrine of first sale says that once I buy it, it's mine. If I want to put other art in or if I want to chop my Ferrari, it's mine to do.
You do realize that there is a form of art called collage that is made up of other people's stuff (including art), don't you?
DKB_SATX @ Mar 14th 2008 12:03PM
It's not bad enough that the button marked "Reply" really means "add a new comment that's not going to be related to the one where you clicked "Reply", but when you click the bloody timestamp on a comment it occasionally puts your response on a completely different comment with a matching timestamp. Idiotic.
Posted as a reply to Kattleox, but appearing as a non-sequitur reply to a post on the 2nd page of responses: I understand your thinking here, but the more appropriate situation is someone taking a PRINT of some artistic work and modifying it. Your example would apply to the original artwork, or to some handmade custom one-off vehicle that Ferrari produced, not to a series-built 360 Modena.
Menice @ Mar 14th 2008 8:26AM
ferarri is just pissed they arent making money off it like he is. please... they have sold the name out to everything except "Ferarrio's Cereal".
SPG @ Mar 14th 2008 9:29AM
If they ever do make "Ferrarios" I'll be the first in line.
I have this bizzare friend who would eat that up with a spoon.
I'm sure you hated that pun.
Mike @ Mar 14th 2008 11:09AM
Agreed Menice,
How can you put your logo on ugly ass, insanely overpriced desks, coffee tables, cell phones, eyewear, computers, etc., etc., etc. and bitch that someone bought a car from you and modified it how they see fit?
They just want their money and they'll do anything to get it. Ferrari has really become synonymous with gawdy, rich, d-bags with erectile disfunction and they want to capitalize in any way possible.
antrow @ Mar 14th 2008 8:36AM
PLeazzzzeeeee, Don't they have more important things to do?
I sure hope Volvo does not see the woodgrain and white wall tires I installed on my 08 XC70. They might try and take my Family Truckster away.
dpb! @ Mar 14th 2008 9:00PM
I am guessing you are joking, but if not, pics?
FSM @ Mar 14th 2008 8:40AM
Hypocrisy at its highest. Ferrari whores its brand name out to anybody that is willing to print it on something, but they have a problem with this?
Ted @ Mar 14th 2008 9:39AM
FSM,
You've got the whoring out part right.
Remember the Acer Ferrari laptop?
http://www.engadget.com/2004/03/05/acers-ferrari-laptop/
A Hyundai logo would have been more appropriate on an Acer product.
-ted
John Johnson @ Mar 14th 2008 8:42AM
No case. At all. The sold the car with Ferrari badges on it and, unless he signed a contract saying he wouldn't modify it or that if he did he would have to de-badge it, he's simply done something to his personal property. He's not trying to sell it.
If this case turns in to something, Honda just got a LOT richer.
FSM @ Mar 14th 2008 8:45AM
huh? Honda?
John Johnson @ Mar 14th 2008 8:47AM
Yeah, if altering a vehicle is grounds for a lawsuit, Honda just became the new Microsoft.