Ford Corporate is out of control

Django · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:18 am

WTF? Ford is attacking a Ranger enthusiast website. They want the domain and for the owner to pay THEM $5k.

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32801

This is sugar and I encourage everyone to use this form to tell them what idiots they are.

https://secure.ford.com/footer/contact-ford/contact-us-email?contactMainTopic=PublicAffairs

What I wrote:
I am a pretty serious Ford enthusiast. Over the years I have had 4 Ranger trucks and a Bronco II. My wife drives a Focus and I have 4 1936 Fords that I have restored or are in the process thereof.

I just learned of your attack on therangerstation.com and I find it disgusting. You would seriously make them shut down AND pay you $5000 for PROMOTING YOUR PRODUCT???!!! They are ENTHUSIASTS sharing information and love for YOUR PRODUCT. Times are tough right now. Want to know the quickest way to erode your brand loyalty? Keep pulling stunts like this.

Second Air Force · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:17 pm

Another of the big three kept us from making and selling Hudson resin model cars in the nineties :roll:

.

Scott

Django · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:25 pm

Who are your biggest brand loyalists? The enthusiasts. Who buys more than one brand product? The enthusiasts. Who constantly promotes the brand? The enthusiasts.

Django · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:19 pm

Seems there's more to the story than in the original cry for help. Looks like the issue is he was selling Ford logo decals on the site and that is why they pinched him...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450rwhp
Gregory D. Phillips to me
show details 9:49 AM (12 minutes ago) Reply

Ryan,

Thank you for your email. What people do not understand is that the Ranger Station was selling, without a license, counterfeit Ford® decals as depicted below:

Attachment 1153

Attachment 1154

Attachment 1155

These Ford trademarks are the intellectual property of Ford and Ford has authorized licensees who sell these decals and pay a licensing royalty to Ford. Think about it this way. Assume that you are a world-famous celebrity and people are counterfeits of your autograph or photos that were falsely autographed by you and making money off of your autograph and image. You would demand that these people stop selling your counterfeit autograph and image and that these people compensate you for misappropriating your image. Similarly, if someone were selling counterfeit images of Mickey Mouse, the Walt Disney Corporation would go after them. If someone were selling T-Shirts with counterfeits of the Dallas Cowboy logo, the Dallas Cowboys would go after them.

Ford has no complaints with Ranger enthusiasts or people who support the Ford brand. All Ford is doing is protecting its intellectual property, and protecting its licensees.

Here is an article that I wrote recently about why Ford protects its trademarks. I hope that it helps you understand Ford’s position. I also hope that you will post this email on your discussion boards that Ranger enthusiasts consider and understand Ford’s position.

The Ford trademarks and trade dress are some of the most recognizable in the world. Ford takes a tremendous amount of pride in this, and considers its trademarks to be among the most valuable assets. In an effort to both enhance and protect the value of the Ford name and image, Ford is constantly engaged in both promoting its trademarks and policing their use to ensure that persons and businesses authorized to do so use the trademarks in an acceptable manner.

Because of the cachet of the world-famous Ford name, thousands of independent businesses and people make a living from or pursue a hobby related to Ford products and services. Unfortunately, many of these businesses improperly attempt to affiliate themselves with Ford by using Ford trademarks and trade dress (for instance, the depictions or photographs of Ford’s distinctively shaped vehicles) in advertising their products and services. Ford appreciates the enthusiasm these people have for Ford products. Ford in no way wants to put these companies out of business, or prevent these businesses from advertising their products and services in a manner that is fair under Federal and state trademark laws. Ford cannot, however, allow these businesses to use Ford’s trademarks and trade dress in a way that creates the appearance that these businesses are affiliated with, sponsored by, or approved by Ford when they are not.

Ford’s trademarks and trade dress serve several important purposes. First, seeing the distinctive Ford logo on a product or business is an immediate indication that the product or business is authorized by Ford. Second, a product bearing a Ford trademark is an indication that the product is of high quality and has passed Ford’s strict quality control procedures and inspections. Third, placing a Ford trademark on a product indicates that Ford, or an authorized agent, is the source of the product, and that the product is genuine and not counterfeit. When the public purchases a product or service sold under a Ford trademark, the public has every right to expect that the product or service is the “real thing.” All of this, in turn, contributes to the value of Ford trademarks as legitimate and important business assets of the company.

At times Ford enthusiasts question why Ford is so adamant about policing its trademarks and preventing unauthorized uses or infringements of them. It is quite common for someone who is using a trademark without permission to say, “I’m giving Ford free advertising, so why does Ford care?” Ford cares because it is important that Ford be able to exercise control over the quality of the product or service bearing Ford’s trademarks. If a disreputable business sells an inferior product or service that uses a Ford trademark, the poor quality of that product or service reflects on Ford. A person who is disappointed by that poor product or service will not take the time to determine whether Ford in fact authorized the use of its trademarks. They will, probably rightly, assume Ford to be the ultimate source of their disappointment and may transfer their loyalty to a competitor.

If a business not affiliated with Ford uses any Ford trademark, whether through the use of photographs, depictions or silhouettes, or any confusingly similar variation thereof, without Ford’s express, written consent, then that business is violating Federal and state trademarks laws. That business is also misleading the public into believing that such business is affiliated with Ford. It is also not sufficient for a business to state that it is not affiliated with Ford but continue to use Ford trademarks without permission. The business is still misappropriating the goodwill and reputation developed by Ford, and attempting to capitalize on or profit from Ford’s goodwill and reputation. Even with the best of intentions, unauthorized use of another company’s trademark is against the law and misleading to the general public.

Unauthorized and infringing uses of Ford’s trademarks come in many disguises. Examples of cases in which Ford has successfully pursued infringers include the following: (1) businesses that use Ford trademarks in their business name such as “John Doe’s Ford Repair;” (2) businesses that use Ford trademarks or trade dress in advertisements, including phone book advertisements; (3) businesses that place Ford trademarks or trade dress on products such as shirts, coffee mugs, key fobs, etc.; and (4) businesses that use Ford trademarks in their Internet domain names.

Ford genuinely hopes the public understands the need for Ford to police and enforce the proper use of its trademarks and trade dress. To protect the value of its trademarks, Ford is obligated to object to and pursue unauthorized uses of its trademarks and trade dress, even if the use of the trademark or trade dress does not appear offensive or objectionable. If Ford does not do so, it may be deemed under the trademark laws to have abandoned its trademark rights. We thank you for your understanding and support.

Gregory D. Phillips
Howard Phillips & Andersen
560 East 200 South, Suite 300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
801-366-7707
801-366-7706 (Fax)

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:48 pm

This is something that many people don't realize when they see these kinds of things happen.

For example, I administer a network that hosts Virtual Airlines (VA's) for Flight Sim. We have a rule on the network that no one can use a real world airline's name or logo without providing us with a copy of written permission from the airline to use their logo and name. The reason for this is that several airlines are keen to control their copyrighted logos very strictly and have shutdown websites in the past for unauthorized use (even non-commercially) of their logos and likeness. Most airlines are more than happy to give permission for VA's because by issuing that letter, they now have proof if they need to defend their copyright that the website(s) that might be used by a defendant in the case had requested and received a "license" to use the copyrighted information for non-commercial use.

In fact, I've found that several airlines (large ones at that) openly support and ENCOURAGE Virtual Airlines of themselves (United being one) as they encourage customer loyalty and introduce new potential pilots to airline operations when done correctly, and thus it's a win-win for them. The US Coast Guard has provided a lot of support for the Virtual US Coast Guard (www.vuscg.org) over the years for the same reason - they see it as a recruiting tool.

Okay, rant mode off - I just think this is a great example of why we (the enthusiasts) should ask about these kinds of things because you will be surprised how aware or these things companies are and how many of them truly do want to support our hobbies.

A2C · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:23 pm

Same problem w/ Boeing. The MayoCraft P-26 was originally going to be built using original plans, but Boeing didn't let them do it under threat of Lawsuit. Pretty stupid stuff...

Django · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:54 pm

Currently posted on "The Ranger Station" Looks like they came to an agreement. Ford wasn't really being a bad guy, they just wanted the owner of the site to agree to a few things.

Quote:

A while back I had started making decals such as the old FORD tailgate letters, and offering some other decals for Ranger enthusiasts such as the Ranger windshield banner with the Ford logos on each side of it.

Although it was intended to be used as a way to keep The Ranger Station up and running and not a method of becoming independently wealthy...it was vilolating Fords trademarks.

I have talked to Scott Monty from Ford Motor Company and have agreed to:

1) Stop selling the decals since I do not have a trademark license to sell

2) Agree that the 'Ranger' is a product of Ford.

3) Not display any ads on The Ranger Station that would promote a competitor (Example: Banner ad for the new Chevy Colorado, etc)

4) Not use the site to make disparaging comments about Ford (AKA - Anti Ford Site)

5) Not turn The Ranger Station name over to anyone else.

I believe that's about it. I'm waiting from a letter from their attorney.

In return, Ford will allow us to keep The Ranger Station name and will not require that I pay the $5000.00 that the attorneys were asking for.

Scott went on to tell me that they recognize and support their fan websites and I would suggest that any other website owner/administrator reading this will be OK if they judge themselves on the items I had listed above. If you have ad banners you may want to make sure you have Fords competition filtered out.

I would like to say thanks to those that emailed Ford and spread the word. The attention and support from other enthusiats greatly helped in getting this resolved quickly.

I would ask that anyone who has posted about this on another website link the discussions here and ask that the moderator on that site lock the topic.

I also want to thank the other site owners for their support.

262crew · **Joined:** Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:24 pm **Posts:** 877

That is total B U L L S H I T :!:

If they are that desperate and going after the little guy who is promoting their product for money then why don't they go all the way and start taking money from the Salvation Army because the metal used to make the money pots in front of grocery stores may have been made from a former product of theirs. I didn't want to say the auto makers name because I don't want to get sued! This really P!SSES ME OFF because I'm a dyed in the wool fan of theirs in fact I am currently driving a 1965 two door big block product of a certain company that starts with F and ends with U. I have owned many of their products and have always been very happy with them.........until now!

k5083 · **Posted:** Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:23 pm

That's a good letter by that lawyer, although it pushes the law just a little. FWIW, it probably cost Ford several hundred dollars to get you that response.

WIXLA nit-pick time: CAPFlyer, your issue (and the Ranger site's) has to do with trademark, not copyright. If it's something you deal with, the difference is important to know about.

August

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Thu Dec 11, 2008 8:14 am

262crew wrote:

If they are that desperate and going after the little guy who is promoting their product for money...

What you fail to realize is that if they don't protect their copyrights and trademarks, they could loose the rights to them and thus not be able to control (and license) their own image. That means that potentially, they could have to pay someone else just to be able to use their own logo and name on their products and media.

Here's what happened in the FlightSim world - People were using the American Airlines logos and lettering without permission on both freeware and payware addons. A company (with a slimeball "owner") decided to go and enter into an "Exclusive Licensing" scheme with AA. AA tried to issue "cease and desist" letters to all whom were using their logos (free or pay). Several filed a class-action suit against AA and Papa Tango (the company in question) and successfully argued that the paint scheme could not be trademarked as they were in public view. The logos could be trademarked, but the paint scheme itself could not and thus AA could not enter into an "Exclusive Licensing" agreement with Papa Tango. PT ended up with its owner being thrown in jail and banned from the software industry in the UK over this and several other items, but the gist of the matter was that because AA did not protect their trademarks, they were unable to successfully argue that they could prevent ANYONE from using their logo without permission no matter whether for private or non-commercial use or for commercial use since they had allowed such use for a sufficient amount of time previously. An agreement was eventually reached with most of the airline industry that as long as payment was not requested for individual "repaints" of a model, they would not require licensing fees (i.e. you were paying for the model, not the paint and thus the company wasn't making money on any of the trademarked material).

CH2Tdriver · **Posted:** Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:55 pm

A friend emailed this to me. Kinda sad but true nowadays:

A Modern Parable.

A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American company (Ford Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River

Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat.

A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people rowing.

Feeling a deeper study was in order; American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.

They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people r owi ng the boat greater incentive to work harder.

It was called the 'Rowing Team Quality First Program,' with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rowers.

There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.

The pension program was trimmed to 'equal the competition' and some of the resultant savings were channeled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid-off one rower, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment.

The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses.

The next year, try as he might, the lone designated rower was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles,) so he was laid off for unacceptable performance, all canoe equipment was sold and the next year's racing team was out-sourced to India .

Sadly, the End.

Here's something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US , claiming they can't make money paying American wages.

TOYOTA has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US .

The last quarter's results:

TOYOTA makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.

Ford folks are still scratching their heads, and collecting bonuses...

IF THIS WEREN'T SO TRUE IT MIGHT BE FUNNY

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:35 pm

But yet it's not true.

The last 3 rounds of layoffs have been overwhelmingly the so-called "white collar" salaried & management employees at all 3 of the autormakers. They have plenty of "workers", just not enough of them actually work. Then, the union workers complain when the plant shuts down for a month because they're not getting "full pay". Funny, if I get laid off at my job for a month, I get no pay unless I apply for unemployment. They get 80% of their full pay from the company during this time, still accrue sick and vacation time, and still get full medical benefits. Guess that's really rough...

As an "outsider" I see the parking lot at Arlington empty within 20 minutes of the end of the shift when I've been nearby. The only people I see left? Management & Supervisors who are staying late dealing with problems.

I was listening to the radio the other day. Here's the story of one GM "Manager" -

The gentleman was a 25 year employee of GM. He was an Electrical Engineer (or as they called him an Electrical Systems Supervisor). He was salaried, so he got no overtime. He often worked 60 hour weeks, on holidays, and typically only got to use about half of his vacation time becuase he was dedicated to his job. During that time, he didn't get many raises and those he did were paltry when compared to the union employees. The union employees at the factory where he worked lined up at the clock and were all gone within 5 minutes of the end of the shift with little exception. If they stayed late, they got overtime and if they worked on a weekend or holiday, they got overtime plus. They couldn't be forced to stay late. Work rules required they be asked. He retired within the last 5 years and since he did, he's lost almost half of his retirement (corporate cut backs) and is at risk of loosing the rest of it in this bailout. Meanwhile, the union employees have "Job Bank" where they get paid for not working, they have full pension and benefits when they retire thanks to the unions taking charge of them, and they always get to take their time off.

Now, some of the UPPER management may be doing things less-than-honest, but the majority of the management at these companies have been getting screwed for the last 15+ years, get paid less than many of the union workers, and no one stands up for them. Yet people are more than willing to lump them in with the guys at the top who make 6 figures plus.

I'm not saying that the Unions are at fault either, but when you look at the work rules and pay structure for the Unionized auto makers versus the non-Union auto makers, you'll see that there is a vast difference in expense for the companies and they seem to have much happier employees in the process.

CAPFlyer · **Posted:** Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:39 pm

k5083 wrote:

WIXLA nit-pick time: CAPFlyer, your issue (and the Ranger site's) has to do with trademark, not copyright. If it's something you deal with, the difference is important to know about.

A little late on this, but thanks for the clarification August. I've made appropriate modifications to the website I admin where this is still an issue we deal with on an almost daily basis. The letter I got from Allegiant Airlines when I got permission to use their stuff for some repaints said "all copyrighted and/or otherwise protected material" so I figured that since we were talking about mainly stuff in print (i.e. on a website) then it was copyrighted stuff which was the concern.

Warbird Information Exchange

Ford Corporate is out of control

Who is online