Aston Martin DB5 replica?
Discussion
I'm going to assume 5jon isn't active on the forum anymore, but a quick Google of his name plus DB5 brings up this interesting Link (look at the comments box)
Can any DB5 experts say if this is a replica or not? He cant have done it in a year surely?!
Not necessarily keen on the convertible, but i would definitely contact him about the replica if so!
Can any DB5 experts say if this is a replica or not? He cant have done it in a year surely?!
Not necessarily keen on the convertible, but i would definitely contact him about the replica if so!
mikeday1991 said:
I'm going to assume 5jon isn't active on the forum anymore, but a quick Google of his name plus DB5 brings up this interesting Link (look at the comments box)
Can any DB5 experts say if this is a replica or not? He cant have done it in a year surely?!
Not necessarily keen on the convertible, but i would definitely contact him about the replica if so!
Just a quick look but lights and interior all look like its Ben knocked up in a year to me. Each to their own but I don't understand the interest is replicas like a DB5. It's just not special enough. A Gullwing Merc, a Toyota 2000GT maybe but a DB5? Maybe if the detail was right but maybe not. Can any DB5 experts say if this is a replica or not? He cant have done it in a year surely?!
Not necessarily keen on the convertible, but i would definitely contact him about the replica if so!
I like kits like the Libra, a great car in its own right, although not much point with other great production cars that are omparable but I'd like one because it's so much more special than a production car and it's a clever design.
Pistom said:
Just a quick look but lights and interior all look like its been knocked up in a year to me. Each to their own but I don't understand the interest is replicas like a DB5. It's just not special enough.
Hah hah, well that's me a right chump then!! Reminds me of the urban myth of a real Countach turning up at Stonleigh and it being torn to bits on how wrong it was in the detail. 
It still doesn't look right to me but there you go.
Pistom said:
Hah hah, well that's me a right chump then!! Reminds me of the urban myth of a real Countach turning up at Stonleigh and it being torn to bits on how wrong it was in the detail.
It still doesn't look right to me but there you go.
I see where you are coming from, the dash does look fairly basic, but that was a high standard in 1964.It still doesn't look right to me but there you go.
This was of course a very low volume car and a considerable amount of items would have been sourced from other car manufacturers parts bins. Bring that theory up to date and if you look at the underside of the wing mirrors on a 2007 V8 Aston it has VOLVO embossed on them.
hidetheelephants said:
I'd have thought that if you were doing it yourself(i.e. no pecuniary advantage) and no intention of selling(no passing off) there would be little AM could do other than write you a snotty letter.
Quite right. If you build a replica for yourself and not for commercial gain, then they can only get their lawyers to write a letter warning you against selling any further copies. At least that holds true under UK law.In the case of the DB5 replica, that is probably what happened.
Where the law would get cloudy is if he came to sell, or lease, the moulds so that another enthusiast could build their own replica.
As mentioned above, the copyright/design rights on the DB5 would have long expired had A-M wanted to protect the design, but instead they are using the trademark route to protect various Aston-Martin features. For example they have claimed their radiator grille as a trademark - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK000024049... and the vent on the side of the wing - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK000024049... these by themselves would stop anyone selling accurate replicas of any Aston-Martins that carried these features.
Interestingly, A-M have also trademarked the shape of the DB5 - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK000026532...
and the DBR1 - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK000026540...
I'm not sure that these strictly fall into the definition of a trademark. The main difference being that A-M have been continuously using their trademark grilles and winged badges on their products to designate them as Aston-Martins, but have not been selling DB5s or DBR1s for a long time. What I do know for sure is that I wouldn't want to have to take on A-M in court.
agcmidas said:
Quite right. If you build a replica for yourself and not for commercial gain, then they can only get their lawyers to write a letter warning you against selling any further copies. At least that holds true under UK law.
Interestingly, A-M have also trademarked the shape of the DB5 - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK000026532...
and the DBR1 - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK000026540...
I'm not sure that these strictly fall into the definition of a trademark. The main difference being that A-M have been continuously using their trademark grilles and winged badges on their products to designate them as Aston-Martins, but have not been selling DB5s or DBR1s for a long time. What I do know for sure is that I wouldn't want to have to take on A-M in court.
Registering a trade mark is not the same as registering a design. The IPO site gives full information to those interested. A trade mark can be a word or a device, a device is a logo or shape like the M for Mac's.Interestingly, A-M have also trademarked the shape of the DB5 - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK000026532...
and the DBR1 - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK000026540...
I'm not sure that these strictly fall into the definition of a trademark. The main difference being that A-M have been continuously using their trademark grilles and winged badges on their products to designate them as Aston-Martins, but have not been selling DB5s or DBR1s for a long time. What I do know for sure is that I wouldn't want to have to take on A-M in court.
You can buy a burger from Wimpy and have the same named firm build you a house. They are in separate classifications and therefore no conflict arises. I registered the trade mark "Exocet" in class 12 but not in the ammo class, I also registered "Batmobile" but not in the toy class. "Replicar" is a recent registered trade mark that I had approved.
Aston Martin have applied to register DBR1 and DB5 devices as trade marks not designs, big difference, but they have not even passed the initial exam stage.
When and if they do they will be published, then anyone can object.
If these devices do become registered trade marks then you will not be able to make fridge magnets or put the same device on your car bonnet as a badge.
The distinctive AM front grille is covered in a design reg for the V8 and Rapide that are registered. AM could attempt to stop private individuals or firms from using that shape as it forms part of a registered design.
That said there is lots of entries on the www re Ford stealing the AM front grille shape. A DB5 replica with a new Ford Focus grille should be safe, but not with an Aston Martin badge on it, that is known as passing off.
A design must be registered within 1 year of it being seen by the public and will expire after 25 years(assuming it is renewed every 5 years). "Design right" however protects un registered designs for 10 years from when it was put to market or 15 years from when it was created.
I have not registered my designs as if anyone copies my work "design right" offers a level of protection.
I have covered "protecting your design" in my book "design and build a sports car"
agcmidas said:
Quite right. If you build a replica for yourself and not for commercial gain, then they can only get their lawyers to write a letter warning you against selling any further copies. At least that holds true under UK law.
In the case of the DB5 replica, that is probably what happened.
Where the law would get cloudy is if he came to sell, or lease, the moulds so that another enthusiast could build their own replica.
Quite agree with the above. I have first hand experience of this rather by accident and lack of knowledge than trying to make money through dodgy means. In the case of the DB5 replica, that is probably what happened.
Where the law would get cloudy is if he came to sell, or lease, the moulds so that another enthusiast could build their own replica.
I had acquired a set of moulds to make a fullsize Dalek. After sitting on them for a few years and losing interest I tried to sell them on ebay. The listing was removed from ebay and a week later I had a visit from my local trading standards team. Initially they wanted to take them away to destroy them but I pleaded ignorance and was allowed to keep them. This was allowed only after pictures had been taken and I had been issued a warning not to sell the moulds or produce from them for sale. A few weeks later I was issued with a letter from the solicitors of the BBC or whoever owns copyright to the Dalek reiterating the warning previously given and legal action should I be a naughty boy.
I don't think AM could do a thing to a hobbyist building a unique one off other than issue a stern warning like I received. Producing more than one though and like others have said I wouldn't like to stand up in court against the might of AM.
[quote=Stuart Mills]
Aston Martin have applied to register DBR1 and DB5 devices as trade marks not designs, big difference, but they have not even passed the initial exam stage.
When and if they do they will be published, then anyone can object.
If these devices do become registered trade marks then you will not be able to make fridge magnets or put the same device on your car bonnet as a badge.
The distinctive AM front grille is covered in a design reg for the V8 and Rapide that are registered. AM could attempt to stop private individuals or firms from using that shape as it forms part of a registered design.
That said there is lots of entries on the www re Ford stealing the AM front grille shape. A DB5 replica with a new Ford Focus grille should be safe, but not with an Aston Martin badge on it, that is known as passing off.
A design must be registered within 1 year of it being seen by the public and will expire after 25 years(assuming it is renewed every 5 years). "Design right" however protects un registered designs for 10 years from when it was put to market or 15 years from when it was created.
Yes there's an element of A-M trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted as it is now much too late to protect the DB5 as a registered design.
I don't believe that the attempt to trademark the shape of the DB5 or DBR1 will stand up to scrutiny as 1)trademarks are not there to protect the overall shape of a product and 2)A-M have not been producing either the DB5 or DBR1 for some time, so they cannot claim continued use. If any car could claim that its shape was a trademark then that would surely be the classic Morgan 4-wheeler as the basic shape has been in production for over 60 years.
The Ford grille is also an interesting point. At first glance it is very similar, but on closer examination it doesn't feature the S-curves of the A-M grille which would probably be cited as the distinguishing feature. I imagine that Ford's legal department know how far they can take it without infringing A-M's IP, after all it used to belong to Ford not so long ago. Then again would A-M really want to take Ford to court.
Aston Martin have applied to register DBR1 and DB5 devices as trade marks not designs, big difference, but they have not even passed the initial exam stage.
When and if they do they will be published, then anyone can object.
If these devices do become registered trade marks then you will not be able to make fridge magnets or put the same device on your car bonnet as a badge.
The distinctive AM front grille is covered in a design reg for the V8 and Rapide that are registered. AM could attempt to stop private individuals or firms from using that shape as it forms part of a registered design.
That said there is lots of entries on the www re Ford stealing the AM front grille shape. A DB5 replica with a new Ford Focus grille should be safe, but not with an Aston Martin badge on it, that is known as passing off.
A design must be registered within 1 year of it being seen by the public and will expire after 25 years(assuming it is renewed every 5 years). "Design right" however protects un registered designs for 10 years from when it was put to market or 15 years from when it was created.
Yes there's an element of A-M trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted as it is now much too late to protect the DB5 as a registered design.
I don't believe that the attempt to trademark the shape of the DB5 or DBR1 will stand up to scrutiny as 1)trademarks are not there to protect the overall shape of a product and 2)A-M have not been producing either the DB5 or DBR1 for some time, so they cannot claim continued use. If any car could claim that its shape was a trademark then that would surely be the classic Morgan 4-wheeler as the basic shape has been in production for over 60 years.
The Ford grille is also an interesting point. At first glance it is very similar, but on closer examination it doesn't feature the S-curves of the A-M grille which would probably be cited as the distinguishing feature. I imagine that Ford's legal department know how far they can take it without infringing A-M's IP, after all it used to belong to Ford not so long ago. Then again would A-M really want to take Ford to court.
agcmidas said:
Interestingly, A-M have also trademarked the shape of .... the DBR1 - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK000026540...
Interesting date on that application. I wonder if a certain kit prompted that .... 
StephenP said:
agcmidas said:
Interestingly, A-M have also trademarked the shape of .... the DBR1 - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK000026540...
Interesting date on that application. I wonder if a certain kit prompted that .... Made Engadget (but not Jalopnik?!):
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/30/3d-printed-car/
Here are the source links:
http://www.solidoodle.com/2013/07/solidoodler-3d-p...
http://www.replicadb4.com/default.aspx
http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/30/3d-printed-car/
Here are the source links:
http://www.solidoodle.com/2013/07/solidoodler-3d-p...
http://www.replicadb4.com/default.aspx
This is very interesting, I am not convinced that this approach however would be an economic alternative, the finishing is going to be very labour intensive. However the fascination with this relatively new printing technology was presumably to great to resist.
The DB4/5 doors are a single curve so a sheet of rolled alloy would create a near perfect finished article in minutes. I will stick with flex ply and jelutong for my patterns though. I can then smash then after wards without too much concern over the costs.
MEV REPLICAR pattern being crushed, no tears though, it served it's purpose!
On closer inspection you can see that despite wood and filler being used the finish on this pattern is just fine.
The DB4/5 doors are a single curve so a sheet of rolled alloy would create a near perfect finished article in minutes. I will stick with flex ply and jelutong for my patterns though. I can then smash then after wards without too much concern over the costs.
MEV REPLICAR pattern being crushed, no tears though, it served it's purpose!
On closer inspection you can see that despite wood and filler being used the finish on this pattern is just fine.
Stuart Mills said:
This is very interesting, I am not convinced that this approach however would be an economic alternative, the finishing is going to be very labour intensive.
I think that was his point, he didn't mind putting in the labour himself and he reckoned materials were going to cost him about $2250 NZD whereas getting the foam CNC'd for him was going to cost north of $12-15k NZD.That's the beauty (and cost) of DIY, the expectation is that you suck up the labour costs.
Additionally he can do the dash and various other components if needs be.
Moogle said:
I think that was his point, he didn't mind putting in the labour himself and he reckoned materials were going to cost him about $2250 NZD whereas getting the foam CNC'd for him was going to cost north of $12-15k NZD.
That's the beauty (and cost) of DIY, the expectation is that you suck up the labour costs.
Additionally he can do the dash and various other components if needs be.
Agreed, but I would not wish anyone to go away thinking that printing loads of small parts is an economically viable alternative to produce simple shapes like a door skin pictured below. A sheet of ply or alloy could be used, much cheaper, much quicker, maybe he is getting his "ink" (ABS/PLA filament)for free. I printed a piece 100 mm x 50 mm x 10 mm and it cost about £50 in materials alone. Although it was a complex, non car related shape and well worth it.That's the beauty (and cost) of DIY, the expectation is that you suck up the labour costs.
Additionally he can do the dash and various other components if needs be.
Stuart Mills said:
Agreed, but I would not wish anyone to go away thinking that printing loads of small parts is an economically viable alternative to produce simple shapes like a door skin pictured below. A sheet of ply or alloy could be used, much cheaper, much quicker, maybe he is getting his "ink" (ABS/PLA filament)for free. I printed a piece 100 mm x 50 mm x 10 mm and it cost about £50 in materials alone. Although it was a complex, non car related shape and well worth it.
Didn't get the impression that he was getting it for free although Solidoodle may have now started sponsoring him since I bet his giving them a LOT of traffic.I agree with you though, there are certain sections that he could have probably produced a lot quicker/cheaper but that being said, how on earth did you manage to rack up £50 in a 100x50x10mm piece?!
Gassing Station | Kit Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff