And it isn't even red!

[Steve_Mack_CT]

It would be great fun to actually take this out of the cacoon it is obviously headed for and bring to a show, and have a little fun with the local "heavyweights"...

"uhh, pardon me, but could you please move your Mercedes Seagull out of my space, sir? You can go park with the Duesenberger over there"

Vintage Ferrari 250 GTO sells for record $35 million | Fox News

[edinmass]

Post War....... still very big $$$$ ..... I wonder if the super cars are going to push up to the prices for the great master paintings in the future. It's probably a better return than the stock market for the next 8 years. I think I would have went for 10 or 15 world class cars that total the same dollar value. We will see it at Pebble soon. At these prices, they will build reproductions of them to sell to the mega rich who "must have" such a toy.

[Matt Harwood]

Ed, I seem to recall there was a craftsman in Italy who was building exact replicas of the 250 GTO. I think he started with lesser 250 GTE cars, but the end result was a car indistinguishable from the original even by experts. They were sued by Ferrari, who won, and while they are not $35 million cars, these "fake" GTOs sell for somewhere around $200,000-300,000.

Here's an interesting article: Fake Ferraris for Fun and Profit

I think several automakers have fairly aggressive stances on protecting their property rights, including forgeries, so hyper-accurate replicas will probably not happen again. And 250 GTEs have gotten valuable enough on their own that cutting one up for a replica is financially unwise, although we all know there are plenty of guys with more money and ego than wisdom.

And in regards to this story, I really like the mint green. Red GTOs are, well, ordinary...

[edinmass]

The 1750 Alpha's are done in South America for 700K or so......they also do type 57's if memory serves me. I wasn't thinking that the company's from the 60's would jump on reproductions. But I guess your are correct, they want to protect their reputation.

[maxwell07]

It's called "crazy money". No thought involved in spending that much money- just the "I can"
factor of a very few....

[alsancle]

That 35 million may end up being better spent then many of the cars we buy here. Being successful is not a crime. Well... at least not until recently.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Actually as A.J. points out this could be a great investment as he is really buying the racing history not just the car. That said, I would follow Ed's approach if given that kind of budget. You could buy a nice assortment of cars for that total figure indeed - and actually drive some of them.

On high end replicas, I know MB takes that very seriously, just ask the poor fellow whose "too close for comfort" gullwing was siezed and destroyed by MB earlier this spring... Reminds me of RR in the 70s getting a "cease and decist" order against the clowns fitting Chevy Monte Carlos with RR front ends. I guess those guys can't take a joke...

[Rusty_OToole]

I would like to know on what basis they could seize anything if it did not have a trade mark or copywrighted name on it.

You can't patent a body design or style, or engine configuration, chassis layout etc. Patents last for only 17 years. You could make an exact copy of any product made before 1995 and there is nothing anyone could do, AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT PUT A FALSE NAME ON IT.

In other words, go ahead and make a Mercedes gullwing, Ferrari, Corvette, whatever you like as long as you don't try to pass it off as the real thing.

[Rusty_OToole]

The Monte Carlo Custom Cloud, or Monte Python as I like to think of it, got busted because Rolls Royce registered their distinctive radiator shape and "RR" badge as a trademark. I'm still not sure if the lawsuit put them out of business or that was just a ploy and they were going out of business anyway.

[West Peterson]

Obviously whatever avenue they're using to prevent the use of their old designs, holds water in a court of law.
That said, I've often wondered why Peterbuilt doesn't sue Rolls-Royce for some of its most recent products. (That's supposed to be a joke.)

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Rusty, the MB story is the real deal, google "Siezed Gullwing" and you can read several articles about it. Note that this took place in Germany, so I am not sure what the details are over there concerning trademarks, etc.

I actually saw a "Custom Cloud" in the back field of a swap meet once, and remember when one "graced" the cover of Car and Driver in the 70s. NOT a masterpiece!

[Rusty_OToole]

I still don't see how they get away with it. Supposedly they trademarked the body. What does that mean? Is any gullwing car in violation? Will they crush every Delorean? What about the 1955 Corvette? It looks a lot like a gullwing if you squint a little. Or a 1951 Lincoln? It has the same general shape and the distinctive windspits over the front wheels. Wait a minute, the Lincoln came before the Mercedes. Does that mean Lincoln can make Mercedes crush all their gullwings as obvious cheap knockoffs of the Lincoln Cosmo?

[Matt Harwood]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think some of the distinction is intent. If the replica is trading off the original's reputation, then there's probably a legal basis for a cease-and-desist. I don't think gullwing doors, per se, are a Mercedes trademark, but if I start building cars that are so close to the original that the average person might be confused (and am therefore trading on the original's recognition and reputation) they probably have a basis for suing me. You can't trademark a shape, but there are established legal precedents that say one entity can't profit from the intellectual property of another. It's the same reason you have to sit through those FBI warnings every time you watch a DVD and why the guys selling Relex watches on the streets of New York are always on the move to avoid the police. I can't transcribe and sell the works of Hemmingway (with expired copyrights) in my own handwriting and claim that I wrote them, even though I technically did.

As is the case with some of these "replicas" the intent most certainly WAS to deceive and defraud. Any owner of intellectual property should rigorously defend their property rights to prevent squatters from diluting its value, whether real or imagined. It may even be a tenet of trademark law that you have to protect it rigorously to prevent it from falling into common usage and therefore no longer enforceable as a trademark.

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to be the foundation of the legalities of such things.

[Rusty_OToole]

So what? In the fifties there must have been 100 different cars copied off the Ferrari Barchetta. Examples include the Austin Healey, AC Ace and Cobra, MGA, Corvette, and dozens of one offs and specials.

I always thought it was impossible to patent a body design because it was not a new idea or not obvious to one skilled in the art. Now they have dodged around that by trademarking.

To me, if they copy the looks of a 1952 Mercedes, but equip it with modern engine and chassis, and do not put the name or logo of Mercedes on the car, there is no chance anyone will be deceived.

This too has been done hundreds of times with replicas of Porsche speedsters, Bugatti and Mercedes roadsters, 32 and 34 Fords, not to mention thousands of Model Ts done in fibreglas. This is so obvious even to those who know nothing about cars, that owners of genuine Cobras and Fords get annoyed at the number of people that assume it is a kit car.

I think the Mercedes people have gone too far and I am surprised any court would back them up to the extent of stealing someone's car and crushing it.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Rusty, I have not followed it as closely but I know Ford has clamped down on trademark issues in recent years, forcing Model A (and I assume others) suppliers to abondon the very convenient practice of using actual Ford part numbers in their catalogs. I think the attitude is "if we give an inch, somoene may try to take a mile"..

I understand this was driven by the MB Heritage Center, and while they may be over the top here, they do a good job of making OEM parts available for many models going all the way back to the 50s, maybe that had something to do with it? On Cobras I believe Shelby tried to squash a lot of that stuff with little success - I am sure someone here knows that story better but that is my understanding.

[Rusty_OToole]

I can understand Ford or anybody else cracking down on the use of the Ford name and logo for 2 reasons.

1) If they do not defend the name they will lose it and it will become generic. This has already happened with names like cellophane and nearly happened to Jeep.

2) They could be held liable for defective parts that are counterfeit but have their name on them.

Neither argument applies to a body shape that is long out of production and was obviously not made by them.

[Killerbunny]

$35 million is a lot for this car (my opinion)

[1937hd45]

Thanks for the story link Steve, lovely car, my secomd favorite Ferrari, first is the sponson fendered Testa Rosa. Sorry to see the exWillianson Type 57SC get bumped off the "Most Expensive" list. I remember rolling it off a Passport truck in 1971 when it got there at $65,000. Sixty five large will get you a fairly nice 1932 Ford today. Bob

[Steve_Mack_CT]

Yep, times do change indeed. As long as there are folks willing to pony up these kind of dollars for important cars, I think the rest of us don't need to loose too much sleep about the hobby dying off...