We Speak Lawsuit: PA parts dealer sues Ford over new ad campaign slogan
Click above to watch the video after the jump
Ford's "We Speak Car" campaign was designed to extol the virtues of the 2010 Ford Fusion, but one parts dealer isn't happy about it. Frank's Auto Supply Inc. of Uniontown, PA, has apparently been using the very same slogan since 2003 and it even owns the domain name wespeakcar.com. Frank's feels that Ford stole its catch phrase, so the parts store is suing Ford for unfair competition under the Federal Trademark Act. The Fusion commercials, which began airing on March 3, start with "We speak car," a phrase that was just Thursday trademarked by Frank's Auto Supply. The parts store claims that Ford has spent $60 to $80 million on the ads to date, a number that we assume is being thrown out to show that the Blue Oval's substantial ad budget is stealing the catch phrase from Franks'.
In Ford's defense, if "We Speak Car" wasn't trademarked until after the ads aired, how was the Blue Oval supposed to know that some auto supply store in Pennsylvania was already using it? Additionally, we''re also not entirely sure that the Ford Fusion is direct competition to a parts store. In fact, as the Fusion gets up in years, owners of the midsize sedan may even go to Frank's for parts. Hit the jump to view Ford's "We Speak Car" commercials.
Gallery: 2010 Ford Fusion Sport
[Source: Post-Gazette]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Marc 4:11PM (4/02/2009)
Anything to make a buck!
Reply
Mike 4:48PM (4/02/2009)
Darn straight. The interview KDKA did with him made him seem like a complete idiot out to get money. He is a complete fool.
Ligor 5:30PM (4/02/2009)
+1
Frank is a moron and as such he likes to sue someone for money. Wait he found Ford is using a phrase in their ad. Frank goes and gets a patent on the phrase then sues Ford. what a moron. Now had he paid his patnet fees (likely $10-15k) when he used it the first time he might have had a case.
Now, as far as I know once information of a design comes out int he public it neds to be patent pending (you might have up to one year to file) otherwise it becomes public knowledge and anyone can use it and there is not much you can do.
so I say screw Frank and his store, that dummy
Spiel 8:04AM (4/03/2009)
Hahaha, same town where people publicly spoke out again Obama being African American in the elections. That says it all.
I have the "displeasure" of driving through Uniontown on my way from Pittsburgh to go whitewater rafting, God that town is depressing. It reminds me of the movie Nothing But Trouble, yuk!
This should be an easy win for Ford, hope the guy bankrupts on lawyer fees.
Jay 9:07AM (4/03/2009)
Ligor, you have a lot of misinformation in your comment. If someone uses a catch phrase in their advertising for several years, by law they have rights to that phrase, even if they did not trademark it. Frank's does have a valid case and could ask Ford to cease and desist use of the wording. The fact they just trademarked the phrase a week ago has no relevance. Also, it's costs $325 to apply for a trademark, not $10-15k.
nardvark 4:11PM (4/02/2009)
Maybe Frank's pissed at Ford for improving their quality, and reducing his business.
Reply
arturo 4:12PM (4/02/2009)
This is totally irrelevant. I am sure if someone browses trough the web you will find the we speak car somewhere else as well. This does not mean that ford took it straight from them. I am sure the add was ford own creation. At this pace I will trademark the entire dictionary and I am a start suing people from using my words.
Reply
ronnie schreiber 4:26PM (4/02/2009)
A trademark is exactly that, a mark used in trade, i.e. commerce. The phrase, word, or mark has to be used in business to qualify as a trademark. Your notion of trademarking the dictionary is silly.
It matter not whether Ford knowingly used a mark that belonged to someone else, what matters in trademark law is the standard of "likelihood of confusion". One can unknowingly violate a trademark and it's still a violation.
Alex 4:32PM (4/02/2009)
But can one preemptively violate a trademark that doesn't exist until after said violation?
Wunderbird 6:15PM (4/03/2009)
Ronnie - Spoken like a true lawyer.
Alex - Although I think this guy is digging for gold, I have to wonder why Ford didn't think to trademark it first.
Quan 6:18PM (4/02/2009)
A trademark is established when a company uses it in legal business use, regardless of whether it is registered or not. The registration process just allows for an easier litigation process. Trademark infringement lawsuits for an unregistered trademark also often can be defended only in the business's principle place of business or where the business can be logically expected to expand. If Ford infringed on the trademark and used it in Frank's principle territory of business, then Ford is at fault.
Also there is the scenario of trademark cancellation, where by not bothering to defend their trademark and following through on litigation, they could lose the trademark completely. So whether you're on the side of Ford or not, or if this is simply a cash grab or not, if the company has actually heavily invested in this trademark, it's in their best interests to defend it and litigate.
ronnie schreiber 6:54PM (4/02/2009)
I'm not a lawyer, but I own some trademarks and a patent. The fact that someone above referred to a patent, when this is a trademark case shows how little the general public understands about intellectual property.
arturo 8:26PM (4/02/2009)
@ ronnie
I was not been serious about trademarking the dictionary. In the other hand I agree that this means bad publicity to the suing party since most of us are supporting Ford motor company.
sjd 4:14PM (4/02/2009)
Yeah, the fact that they trademarked the statement after the ads aired hopefully works in Ford's favour. If you are in PA be sure ot boycott Frank's Auto Supply. Enough of these stupid nuisance lawsuits.
Reply
ronnie schreiber 4:31PM (4/02/2009)
It's not a nuisance lawsuit. Frank's unquestionably owns the trademark. They've used in it the business of selling car parts. Ford sells car parts so there is indeed some likelihood of confusion. Ford's lawyers screwed up. They should have worked out a licensing arrangement with Frank's so Ford could use the phrase in national advertising. I'm sure Frank's would have been happy for a few hundred thousand dollars, the cost of running the ads a few times.
Frank's has spent a lot of resources establishing their trademark on their website and their advertising. Since the courts expect owners of intellectual property to defend their property rights, Frank's had little choice but to sue.
Mike 4:50PM (4/02/2009)
Frank wants a few million. He got the trademark in order to make money, and if you listen to him speak you know it after 5 seconds.
Sean 5:48PM (4/02/2009)
He patented it AFTER the campaign started. Whether or not he was using it previously is irrelevant. You will not find a jury (that hasn't been paid off) that will side with this moron.
ronnie schreiber 6:59PM (4/02/2009)
He didn't "patent" anything. Before you comment on something about which you know nothing, read a little about trademarks, copyrights and patents.
Frank's trademark was established when he first used it in business, period. That he registered it in order to further protect his property rights just makes him smart. The Patent and Trademark Office obviously felt he had rights to the mark or they wouldn't have accepted the registration.
mapoftazifosho 4:15PM (4/02/2009)
This is complete garbage...
Reply
ronnie schreiber 4:22PM (4/02/2009)
In Ford's defense, if "We Speak Car" wasn't trademarked until after the ads aired, how was the Blue Oval supposed to know that some auto supply store in Pennsylvania was already using it?
In 2009 due diligence on the part of their lawyers should include checking domain name registrations.
The item wasn't "trademarked" last Thursday. Rights to a trademark are first established by its use in commerce. That trademark, which Frank's Auto Supply already owned, was registered with the US Patent & Trademark Office last Thursday. Registration helps resolve ownership disputes and strengthens one's rights to a mark, but using a mark in commerce is the primary way that those rights are established.
This was a screwup on Ford's part, or at least their lawyers'.
Reply