Porsche Vs Singer - Page 2 - Porsche General - PistonHeads UK

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?

Here's the YouTube clip https://youtu.be/jbLdytFMBDA?feature=shared

[Image-only or quote-only post; no author-written text.]

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.

Warning shots maybe… just letting them know who the real boss is ?

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

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

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 …

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.

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

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

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.

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.

That makes sense ...

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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……

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.

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.