Porsche Vs Singer

Porsche Vs Singer

Author
Discussion

Grantstown

981 posts

88 months

Thursday 4th April
quotequote all
Cheib said:
If Porsche have withdrawn it because of a legal “technicality” this quickly they must have had some appalling advice from their external lawyers….or someone missed something.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.
I agree, Porsche could easily tie them up with half baked cases. It would be bad optics for them to push a niche entity like Singer out of business though. Their product isn’t really in direct competition and could still be regarded as Porsche brand advertising.

MDL111

6,996 posts

178 months

Friday 5th April
quotequote all
Slippydiff said:
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.
Which is fair imo - Porsche is Porsche and all these reatomods are great, but no reason to invite them to official Porsche events imo
Ferrari would probably not look favourably on some liberty walk car rocking up either

vtgts300kw

599 posts

178 months

Friday 5th April
quotequote all
bobthemonkey said:
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.
This is exactly what they're pissed about. The DLS line of cars are re-designed drastically enough that in Porsche eyes, they've created new Porsche models.

Cheib

23,327 posts

176 months

Friday 5th April
quotequote all
PaulJC84 said:
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...
Porsche withdrew from that fairly quickly, Singer have had multiple engine builders.


bobthemonkey

3,847 posts

217 months

Sunday 7th April
quotequote all
So someone with a better eye for detail than me has noticed that the following has been added to the already chunky disclaimer

The Porsche® name and crest, 911® and TARGA® are trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, and any other products mentioned are the trademarks of their respective holders. Any mention of trademarked names or other marks is for purpose of reference only.



Cheib

23,327 posts

176 months

Sunday 7th April
quotequote all
vtgts300kw said:
This is exactly what they're pissed about. The DLS line of cars are re-designed drastically enough that in Porsche eyes, they've created new Porsche models.
I think that’s a fair summary with the exception of the last sentence. They’ve created new models and put a Porsche badge on them, I suspect that’s the issue….they are so different from a 964 that Porsche has a problem with their badge being on the DLS. And in the case of the Turbo doing that and copying the form of the distinctive form of 934.

Interesting times……

jamsp00n

38 posts

3 months

Monday 8th April
quotequote all
Cheib said:
vtgts300kw said:
This is exactly what they're pissed about. The DLS line of cars are re-designed drastically enough that in Porsche eyes, they've created new Porsche models.
I think that’s a fair summary with the exception of the last sentence. They’ve created new models and put a Porsche badge on them, I suspect that’s the issue….they are so different from a 964 that Porsche has a problem with their badge being on the DLS. And in the case of the Turbo doing that and copying the form of the distinctive form of 934.

Interesting times……
Agreed. The problem isn't comprehensively redesigning the car per se. Anyone is perfectly entitled to heavily re-engineer and restyle a 964 and sell it on. The problem is a commercial organisation selling it with Porsche badges and huge 'Porsche' lettering across the arse. It's one thing to restore an old car and keep the badges and lettering. It's another to comprehensively re-engineer it, turn it into quite a different product and plaster someone else's branding and badges all over it.

Personally, I suspect Porsche knew what it was doing and the suit and its rapid withdrawal was intentional, either for the optics / to shoot a warning shot across a few bows or as mentioned above to jump through the requisite legal hoops in order avoid the implied permission of having not taken any action. Or both.

I think Singer would be perfectly safe if it replaced the badges and lettering with their own. But then, that's probably not what the market wants. It could be exactly the same product save for the badges and lettering and it would probably somehow be viewed and having lost significant cachet. Which is presumably where they're on there in the first place.

Grantstown

981 posts

88 months

Monday 8th April
quotequote all
When you buy a Singer it’s still a 964 that was registered in 1989-94 isn’t it? If it was registered as a new car I would find it easier to understand Porsche’s argument.