WARNING:: NR AUTO ::::: TechArt wing returned FAKE!!!
06-22-2017, 01:36 PM
#31
Rennlist Member
Bad people in all walks of life.
I had a trusted shop that in the recession hit hard times and was near BK. I supported the shop as they had worked on and knew a few cars for years.
I later learned they billed me for a motor out service and repair but never pulled the motor or did the repair.
I trusted them, at the time. So when they called and told me what was needed I authorized the work. A year later the shop closed and I ran into one of their old mechanics. He felt bad about the shop closing and owned up to the owner gig. Trying to justify what had happened and saying he wasnt any part of it but needed the job so he kept his mouth shut when i picked up the car.
I am not going to flame the shop but desperate people do desperate things all the time.
caveat emptor
I think this goes on more than we care to think about.
I had a trusted shop that in the recession hit hard times and was near BK. I supported the shop as they had worked on and knew a few cars for years.
I later learned they billed me for a motor out service and repair but never pulled the motor or did the repair.
I trusted them, at the time. So when they called and told me what was needed I authorized the work. A year later the shop closed and I ran into one of their old mechanics. He felt bad about the shop closing and owned up to the owner gig. Trying to justify what had happened and saying he wasnt any part of it but needed the job so he kept his mouth shut when i picked up the car.
I am not going to flame the shop but desperate people do desperate things all the time.
caveat emptor
I think this goes on more than we care to think about.
06-22-2017, 01:44 PM
#32
Drifting
I am assuming that Doug is referring to the OP's assertion that Neil borrowed the wing for the purpose of making knock-offs, and his statement that those knock-offs would be illegal--none of which is proven and that might open the OP up to a countersuit. It's not too late to edit your post, OP. I don't know if Techart has legally protected their design--I don't know if they can, but making a knock-off isn't necessarily illegal.
Also, it's not clear yet whether Neil or his company are the ones actually manufacturing the knock-offs. I would like to know the answer to that. If they are the ones making the copies, then, like DC911S suggested, I would guess that the OP's Techart wing was destroyed in the process of them reverse-engineering their knock-off. Either way, Neil still owes the OP a new Techart wing--no question about that.
I am not a lawyer, and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn in a long time, but I am married to a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property law. The issues here are very interesting, even to a layman (see, "layman" is a double entendre for me because my wife is an attorney and I am the layman).
It would be difficult for Techart to protect their design since it doesn't do anything that any other spoiler can do. There doesn't appear to be any innovative aspect to it that could be patent-able. So, to protect it they would have to fall back on some trade dress issue that makes it unique to them and recognizable to the public as a Techart-only item. Kind of like the golden arches on an old McDonald' restaurant. I'm not sure that's at play here either, so it seems the wing would be difficult to trademark.
After that, there are apparently still trade dress issues that would allow Techart to sue the makers of the knock-offs even if that wing is not trademarked, since Techart sells nationwide and their design is recognizable. If the knock off is a very close copy and sold as an alternative to Techart's product, it is possible that they could still sue, but it would be difficult, expensive and the copiers may not have enough assets to make it worthwhile. The best they could get might just be an order blocking the sale of the knock-off.
Also, it's not clear yet whether Neil or his company are the ones actually manufacturing the knock-offs. I would like to know the answer to that. If they are the ones making the copies, then, like DC911S suggested, I would guess that the OP's Techart wing was destroyed in the process of them reverse-engineering their knock-off. Either way, Neil still owes the OP a new Techart wing--no question about that.
I am not a lawyer, and I haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn in a long time, but I am married to a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property law. The issues here are very interesting, even to a layman (see, "layman" is a double entendre for me because my wife is an attorney and I am the layman).
It would be difficult for Techart to protect their design since it doesn't do anything that any other spoiler can do. There doesn't appear to be any innovative aspect to it that could be patent-able. So, to protect it they would have to fall back on some trade dress issue that makes it unique to them and recognizable to the public as a Techart-only item. Kind of like the golden arches on an old McDonald' restaurant. I'm not sure that's at play here either, so it seems the wing would be difficult to trademark.
After that, there are apparently still trade dress issues that would allow Techart to sue the makers of the knock-offs even if that wing is not trademarked, since Techart sells nationwide and their design is recognizable. If the knock off is a very close copy and sold as an alternative to Techart's product, it is possible that they could still sue, but it would be difficult, expensive and the copiers may not have enough assets to make it worthwhile. The best they could get might just be an order blocking the sale of the knock-off.
06-22-2017, 02:05 PM
#33
Airfoils have been around a long time but the look of the wing could be patent protected and even the design if its unique and offers greater functionality. But I digress. "Borrowing" the wing to do R&D on it to make it better, to me is a cover lie. Whether the OP knew that is between him and the alleged thief. Maybe my stay at a Crown Plaza made me smarter.
06-22-2017, 02:20 PM
#34
Drifting
It's my understanding that to get a patent, something about the function of the wing would have to be unique. I'm not sure spoilers have changed much since the days of Jim Hall and Dan Gurney. And I don't see anything on Techart's website that touts their wing as having any unique innovations that make their wings better than the competition. If they had a patent on their wings, I'm sure they would use it as a competitive advantage.
OTOH, a cosmetic design can be trademarked, and that's what is at issue here. I am curious if Techart has any legal protection on its cosmetic design. Rear wings are ubiquitous, which makes legally protecting the design of your rear wing much more difficult.
OTOH, a cosmetic design can be trademarked, and that's what is at issue here. I am curious if Techart has any legal protection on its cosmetic design. Rear wings are ubiquitous, which makes legally protecting the design of your rear wing much more difficult.
06-22-2017, 02:49 PM
#36
Well the OP infers thats its a copy, a really cheap kludge of one at that. I just wanted to use the word kludge today for some reason. I could have used a cluster you know what. I'll digress again, I doubt Techart would go after a nefarious group making onesey-twosey copies of their designs....but if they make a lot of them and market them aggressively, then they might.
06-22-2017, 03:10 PM
#37
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Destin, Nashville, In a 458 Challenge
Posts: 5,128
Received 904 Likes
on
532 Posts
Well the OP infers thats its a copy, a really cheap kludge of one at that. I just wanted to use the word kludge today for some reason. I could have used a cluster you know what. I'll digress again, I doubt Techart would go after a nefarious group making onesey-twosey copies of their designs....but if they make a lot of them and market them aggressively, then they might.
Right now, there is only proof of one fake that was not sold and of unknown origin as far affirmative proof as to who made it. Is NR listing them on their website or selling them on ebay or online somewhere?
06-22-2017, 03:31 PM
#38
Rennlist Member
My firm does a butt-load (not as cool as kludge, but wanted to use phrase) of intellectual property as half out litigaiton is entertainment industry. My guess is they would send a cease and desist letter if they had evidence that a protectible right was being violated and take it from there depending upon what is discovered . . . or they may do nothing. Lol, chances are got that one . . . do something or do nothing.
Right now, there is only proof of one fake that was not sold and of unknown origin as far affirmative proof as to who made it. Is NR listing them on their website or selling them on ebay or online somewhere?
Right now, there is only proof of one fake that was not sold and of unknown origin as far affirmative proof as to who made it. Is NR listing them on their website or selling them on ebay or online somewhere?
We simply have a story from the OP's memory using his recollection of events with some pictures. No suppositions beyond he didn't like or appreciate the way he was dealt with by Neil.
It does make for lively internet chatter though - of which I seem to be guilty of contributing as well.
06-22-2017, 03:48 PM
#39
Nordschleife Master
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Destin, Nashville, In a 458 Challenge
Posts: 5,128
Received 904 Likes
on
532 Posts
Right ... can't see any damages to TechArt or NR at this point (possibly the OP suffered as the value of the "fake" may be less than the original). Ethical behavior is called into question, but it's a relative bar as well.
We simply have a story from the OP's memory using his recollection of events with some pictures. No suppositions beyond he didn't like or appreciate the way he was dealt with by Neil.
It does make for lively internet chatter though - of which I seem to be guilty of contributing as well.
We simply have a story from the OP's memory using his recollection of events with some pictures. No suppositions beyond he didn't like or appreciate the way he was dealt with by Neil.
It does make for lively internet chatter though - of which I seem to be guilty of contributing as well.
06-22-2017, 04:25 PM
#43
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Why can't we just get back our TechArt wing and be done...
06-22-2017, 04:30 PM
#44
Look they even say it's a Techart wing.....
http://nrauto.com/product/porsche-99...gine-lid-wing/
Notice they say Techart wing.....not Techart style wing.....so IF you bought this and got the trash wing the OP got sent to him and not the real thing....thats fraud in advertising.....tisk tisk.....
http://nrauto.com/product/porsche-99...gine-lid-wing/
Notice they say Techart wing.....not Techart style wing.....so IF you bought this and got the trash wing the OP got sent to him and not the real thing....thats fraud in advertising.....tisk tisk.....
06-22-2017, 04:41 PM
#45
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
My firm does a butt-load (not as cool as kludge, but wanted to use phrase) of intellectual property as half out litigaiton is entertainment industry. My guess is they would send a cease and desist letter if they had evidence that a protectible right was being violated and take it from there depending upon what is discovered . . . or they may do nothing. Lol, chances are got that one . . . do something or do nothing.
Right now, there is only proof of one fake that was not sold and of unknown origin as far affirmative proof as to who made it. Is NR listing them on their website or selling them on ebay or online somewhere?
Right now, there is only proof of one fake that was not sold and of unknown origin as far affirmative proof as to who made it. Is NR listing them on their website or selling them on ebay or online somewhere?