Porsche Vs Singer

Porsche Vs Singer

Author
Discussion

P1983

Original Poster:

11 posts

2 months

Sunday 31st March
quotequote all
Outlaw garage on YouTube have posted a video about Porsche suing Singer for trademark infringement.

Did a little digging and found the court docs but can’t upload as I am a new Pistonheads member but you can Google. Interested to hear all your thoughts on this?

Smollet

10,714 posts

191 months

Sunday 31st March
quotequote all

TDT

4,956 posts

120 months

Sunday 31st March
quotequote all

Cheib

23,328 posts

176 months

Sunday 31st March
quotequote all
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1...

This has been in the works for a while from what I’ve heard. Singer were not allowed to bring cars to Rennsport Reunion recently which was a departure from the last RR. I guess now Singer have Private Equity backing they were getting more adventurous (e.g. the Turbo) and Porsche has an opinion about that.

bobthemonkey

3,847 posts

217 months

Sunday 31st March
quotequote all
Cheib said:
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1...

This has been in the works for a while from what I’ve heard. Singer were not allowed to bring cars to Rennsport Reunion recently which was a departure from the last RR. I guess now Singer have Private Equity backing they were getting more adventurous (e.g. the Turbo) and Porsche has an opinion about that.
Whatever it was, it’s now over.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/52461782/...

Porsche filed to dismiss in the week.


ETA a better link.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68283006/pors...


Edited by bobthemonkey on Sunday 31st March 15:11

epom

11,635 posts

162 months

Sunday 31st March
quotequote all
Warning shots maybe… just letting them know who the real boss is ?

Slippydiff

14,899 posts

224 months

Sunday 31st March
quotequote all
Does that mean it was settled out of court ? Or Porsche thought better of creating a storm in a teacup ?

It wasn’t just Singer that weren’t at the Rennsport Reunion, Guntherwerks etc weren’t either.

The reason given was it was a celebration of Porsche’s Motorsport achievements through the years, not a show for all and sundry.

bobthemonkey

3,847 posts

217 months

Sunday 31st March
quotequote all
Slippydiff said:
Does that mean it was settled out of court ? Or Porsche thought better of creating a storm in a teacup ?
Could be either, but would go with option 1. Accessing US court records is a faf!


Edited by bobthemonkey on Sunday 31st March 16:23

P1983

Original Poster:

11 posts

2 months

Sunday 31st March
quotequote all
Ah that was a flash in the pan then- definitely warning shots to Singer to keep them in their place methinks. Wonder why they targeted Singer in particular though and why now?

Agreed on accessing court docs!

Cheib

23,328 posts

176 months

Sunday 31st March
quotequote all
bobthemonkey said:
Slippydiff said:
Does that mean it was settled out of court ? Or Porsche thought better of creating a storm in a teacup ?
Could be either, but would go with option 1. Accessing US court records is a faf!


Edited by bobthemonkey on Sunday 31st March 16:23
I’d say there were conversations before this filing which didn’t go the way Porsche wanted…so they filed and Singer then decided that the legal fees and time commitment for management (Singer won’t have the full time resources that Porsche will) meant it was better to settle.

bobthemonkey

3,847 posts

217 months

Sunday 31st March
quotequote all
Cheib said:
I’d say there were conversations before this filing which didn’t go the way Porsche wanted…so they filed and Singer then decided that the legal fees and time commitment for management (Singer won’t have the full time resources that Porsche will) meant it was better to settle.
IANAL, but enforcement of IP claims, especially in the States can be strange in that you have to been seen to peruse all breaches, regardless of who made the breach, lest you be seen to give implied permission (even to a third party).

This mean the previous policy of Porsche basically turning a blind eye with a nod and a wink to Singer and other people they tacitly approve of, but without formal permission, could be seen to be a problem, especially by a risk adverse lawyer.

Slippydiff

14,899 posts

224 months

Sunday 31st March
quotequote all
bobthemonkey said:
IANAL, but enforcement of IP claims, especially in the States can be strange in that you have to been seen to peruse all breaches, regardless of who made the breach, lest you be seen to give implied permission (even to a third party).

This mean the previous policy of Porsche basically turning a blind eye with a nod and a wink to Singer and other people they tacitly approve of, but without formal permission, could be seen to be a problem, especially by a risk adverse lawyer.
I wasn’t aware there was any other sort in the States … scratchchin

Cheib

23,328 posts

176 months

Sunday 31st March
quotequote all
bobthemonkey said:
Cheib said:
I’d say there were conversations before this filing which didn’t go the way Porsche wanted…so they filed and Singer then decided that the legal fees and time commitment for management (Singer won’t have the full time resources that Porsche will) meant it was better to settle.
IANAL, but enforcement of IP claims, especially in the States can be strange in that you have to been seen to peruse all breaches, regardless of who made the breach, lest you be seen to give implied permission (even to a third party).

This mean the previous policy of Porsche basically turning a blind eye with a nod and a wink to Singer and other people they tacitly approve of, but without formal permission, could be seen to be a problem, especially by a risk adverse lawyer.
If Porsche have withdrawn it because of a legal “technicality” this quickly they must have had some appalling advice from their external lawyers….or someone missed something. Singer were not in great financial shape before the last round of external investment…my guess if there was no appetite for the legal battle.

The US is like anywhere else…a smaller entity has to have an absolutely rock solid legal case to take on litigation. Porsche wouldn’t even notice the costs and it wouldn’t take up any senior management time other than the odd internal update. This would become hugely time consuming for Singer.

GTRene

16,762 posts

225 months

Sunday 31st March
quotequote all
I believe that Porsche is also going into restore/upgrade older Porsche's?
not sure but something like that I thought.

Maybe its because soon EU says no more or just a few petrol cars... so they make an extra Market?

Or... they want to buy into Singer, like they did with Manthey and maybe RUF or so, also not sure hehe


ChrisW.

6,372 posts

256 months

Monday 1st April
quotequote all
Porsche are already restoring legacy models ... there was a yellow 2.7RS in OPC Leeds with a price tag of over £1m ... supposedly the only one. Strangely, the ride height looked too high but ??

To me we are talking about brand values. If Singer 964's and Canepa 959's sell for more than an original car is worth, does that take away from the Porsche brand value ?

Or are Porsche looking to do the same with a Porsche Classic Special Wishes resto' series ? Do THEY want to take control of this for themselves?

And if they did, how would they brand it ?




On the other hand, if one consider the innovation that all these companies including the likes of Tuthill and others have brought to the brand, mightn't P be shooting themselves in the foot ??

Maybe it's all in the name. A Singer is a Singer ... a Canepa a Canepa and a Tuthill a Tuthill ... etc.


Edited by ChrisW. on Monday 1st April 15:32

bobthemonkey

3,847 posts

217 months

Monday 1st April
quotequote all
Names, and how they are used will be part of it.

The other part which I suspect may be causing Singer more headaches than others is that they are starting to do more ‘derivative works’ that use Porsche IP as a base, but have Singer designed amendments to create something new. This is substantially different not to be a Porsche design but which Singer are then are arguably badging as a Porsche.

As an example, a normal 911 restored by Singer is fine (Porsche already have done wide arches etc) but Singer creating a (substantially) new design but letting it be sold as a Porsche (something like the ACS from a little while ago, or the new elements for the DLS Turbo) may be crossing the line.

Tuthill, Canepa, Theon and the like aren’t creating nearly as much ‘new’ visual design.

PRO5T

4,041 posts

26 months

Monday 1st April
quotequote all
I think with it being settled so quickly it was a case of having to be seen to do something or else Singer cold be used in another claim as evidence Porsche didn't protect their IP.

I know the plastic side protectors on the Safari thing that had P O R S C H E embossed in them ruffled some feathers.

ChrisW.

6,372 posts

256 months

Monday 1st April
quotequote all
That makes sense ...

myhandle

1,197 posts

175 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
Porsche have something like “the distinctive shape of Porsche cars is a copyright” written on various of their merchandise and have done for decades. I remember they sent a legal letter or similar to Arash Farboud over his Farboud GT 20 plus years ago as it looks similar to a 1998 911 GT1 with different headlights.

I guess Porsche have a long-standing relationship with Ruf, and they don’t with the newer / non-German companies.

PaulJC84

928 posts

218 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
Strange as I thought Porsche had started getting closer to Singer. There was chat about an engine deal and Andreas was posting positive things about singer.

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/retro/singers-eng...