GM Chases A Buck Carroll Shelby-Style

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

Over the weekend I penned a screed calling baby boomers to task for embracing retro style over the the values that made the revolutionary cars of their era so revolutionary [editor’s note: there’s nothing like having a carburetor on your 35 year-old motorcycle magically fix itself to inspire faith in old, simple machinery]. The new New Beetle was square in my crosshairs over the weekend, but it’s hardly the only example of boomer retro-madness. Another favorite for nostalgic boomers are the legendary muscle cars that marked the high-water point for Detroit thunder, and this feverish demand combined with limited original runs have run the prices of famous muscle cars into the Barrett-Jackson stratosphere. It’s also inspired a legion of knock-off and replica manufacturers, who see huge money to be made by aligning supply with demand. They, in turn, have inspired a number of huge lawsuits from the original creators of the limited-edition legends. Carroll Shelby’s prolific legal battles against creators of Cobra replicas have given him the reputation of being a guy who never met a buck he didn’t like, and now GM has joined the Shelby legacy, suing Mongoose Motorsports for daring to produced replicas of the 1963 Corvette Grand Sport roadster.

The Detroit News reports that

GM is suing for trademark infringement, claiming the iconic brand has been irreparably harmed by the ersatz sports cars, which the automaker says copy the Corvette’s design — curve for curve.

Of course, this is a bit misleading. GM isn’t concerned that replicas of the ’63 Grand Sport hurt the value of the Corvette name… after all, Duntov Motors is officially licensed to produce “authentic” 1963 Grand Sports. The problem is that Mongoose’s $90k replicas severely undercut the ridiculous $189k charged by Duntov for a “real replica,” of which four are built each year.Nor is the problem that Mongoose builds cars that look, feel, perform like the original. After all, it’s not as if Mongoose has acquired the original GM tooling to create an exact replica. Indeed, Mongoose admits that:Improvements are made continually on both the Grand Sport and GTP to further improve performance on the track and street. The GS frame, designed by Altair engineering, one of the largest aircraft-engineering firms in the country replicates the original GS design, utilizes the suspension from 88-96 Corvettes, with fully adjustable front and rear coil over shocks.But GM says the copy is too close for comfort. “This is not an homage,” says GM’s Tom Wilkenson. “If we don’t enforce this, we can lose control of our various trademarks.” This despite Mongoose’s clear disclaimer that:All manufacturers names, symbols and descriptions used in this website are used for the purposes of identification only. It is neither inferred nor implied that any item offered by Mongoose Motorsports is a product of, authorized by or in any way connected with any vehicle manufactured by General Motors. The Trademarks Corvette, Stingray, Chevrolet, GM and the Corvette emblems are Trademarks of General Motors CorporationRegardless, Mongoose does sell a Corvette Grand Sport emblem for about $100, which almost certainly violates GM’s trademarks. But the car? As Carroll Shelby’s recently-failed lawsuit against Cobra kit maker Factory Five seems to prove, there’s only so much intellectual property to a limited-edition race car that can be protected. You can stop people from using the name and official livery, but at a certain point, kit cars and replicas are a fact of life that money-grubbing patent holders have to learn to live with.Besides, the question of brand damage is an important one. Does it actually hurt the Corvette name to have a tier of unlicensed replicas that sell 1963 racing technology for $90k instead of $190k? Or does it, just possibly, expand the brand, giving (somewhat) regular folks a chance to drive a legendary car when they retire without winning the lottery? After all, a vast array of Cobra replicas hasn’t stopped the originals from bringing in obscene auction prices.Besides, GM isn’t in the collector car value-protection business, it’s in the car selling business. And what’s better for the brand, allowing (relatively) affordable replicas of legendary Corvettes to serve as free advertisement for the brand, or to be in the news for attempting to keep ’63 GS replicas to four units per year of production? By all means, force Mongoose to license official badging (or keep it out of their hands), but don’t punish them for building the Corvette brand by democratizing the boomer nostalgia that GM otherwise can not seem to make work for them.
Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 14 comments
  • Porschespeed Porschespeed on Mar 22, 2010

    See Ferrari S.P.A. ESERCIZIO Fabriche Automobili E Corse v. Carl ROBERTS, d/b/a Roberts Motor Company (http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F2/944/1235/) which is the appeal of Ferrari SpA Esercizio Fabbriche Automobili E Corse v. McBurnie Coachcraft Inc. While Ferrari was able to get a cease and desist, they really stretched the letter and spirit of the Lanham act to do it. Read the dissenting opinion, it'd be the ruling Ferrari would get today, and likely the one GM will get as well. Notice they don't bother trying to sue kitmakers anymore? Sure, the white shoe law firm will send a C&D letter, and that'll will scare people who don't want to spend the money to fight the big corp. Now, if Mongoose sends it out the door in full livery, there might be a way to stretch Lanham. If they sold it to somebody and told them it really *was* Gran Sport, then GM has a case.

  • Nick Nick on Mar 22, 2010

    Edward...a tip for you: don't ever pick up a copy of the duPont Registry. It's replete with ghastly homages to Corvettes and other cars of that ilk. They are, almost without exception, eyesores.

  • Mikey My late wife loved Mustangs ..We alway rented one while travelling . GM blood vetoed me purchasing one . 3 years after retirement bought an 08 rag top, followed by a 15 EB Hard top, In 18 i bought a low low mileage 05 GT rag with a stick.. The car had not been properly stored. That led to rodent issues !! Electrical nightmare. Lots of bucks !! The stick wasn't kind to my aging knees.. The 05 went to a long term dedicated Mustang guy. He loves it .. Today my garage tenant is a sweet 19 Camaro RS rag 6yl Auto. I just might take it out of hibernation this weekend. The Mustang will always hold a place in my heart.. Kudos to Ford for keeping it alive . I refuse to refer to the fake one by that storied name .
  • Ajla On the Mach-E, I still don't like it but my understanding is that it helps allow Ford to continue offering a V8 in the Mustang and F-150. Considering Dodge and Ram jumped off a cliff into 6-cylinder land there's probably some credibility to that story.
  • Ajla If I was Ford I would just troll Stellantis at all times.
  • Ronin It's one thing to stay tried and true to loyal past customers; you'll ensure a stream of revenue from your installed base- maybe every several years or so.It's another to attract net-new customers, who are dazzled by so many other attractive offerings that have more cargo capacity than that high-floored 4-Runner bed, and are not so scrunched in scrunchy front seats.Like with the FJ Cruiser: don't bother to update it, thereby saving money while explaining customers like it that way, all the way into oblivion. Not recognizing some customers like to actually have right rear visibility in their SUVs.
  • MaintenanceCosts It's not a Benz or a Jag / it's a 5-0 with a rag /And I don't wanna brag / but I could never be stag
Next