2010 Yenko/SC Camaro

[Classic Automotive]

Tom:

Two things, to Sal's point, several years ago on this forum the statements were made "if Don did not build it, it ain't a Yenko." Those thoughts were echoed throughout this forum. Now a group on this forum decides to build a 2010 Yenko and it's agood idea. I believe that was his intitial point. Outside of this forum people perceive this website group as very "clickish". I am glad to see this type of debate, this is how it should be.

Second, to Sal's point also, Sal and I are both elected into SEMA/ARMO by our peers. We work with GM, Ford and Chrysler licensing personell and have sit down meetings with them at SEMA concerning "how to do it right and legal" Sal was simply stating, you should do this legal. According to the trademark office Yenko is owned by Classic Industries in all concerns automotive except model cars/toys. The Yenko family does not own there own name in regards to putting it on a car for commercial purposes. As paceme said earlier in this thread that I responded to, Yes you can buy a Yenko decal and put it on your Yugo and have no problems. The moment you put it on a car and sell or market the car for commercial purposes you have violated the law. IT is a simple fact the name it TRADEMARKED. So the question is are you doing it legally? Or is this going to be another fight in the industry and result in legal issues and lawsuits. The are things going on with the Yenko name out there that Sal and I know about but are not allowed to discuss. Both of us feel you owe this forum a straight answer as not to get peoples hopes up and then have them crashing down when you cannot produce the cars. I am not meaning to challenge you, just simply answer Sal's original question(s) By the way, I have been through the legal side of this, the use of Camaro, licensed with GM, sued and defended myself since all of this was introduced, has anyone else here been through the legal side of this?

[1969z280]

I think you guys should pay for a membership. Just my $.02

[sYc]

Jim, Sad to say, I am not new to the world of trademarks and such disputes and would not have endorsed such a project without doing some research. It would be nice if everything was black and white in regards to trademarks, but as I am sure you know, lots of gray areas, which is why there are attorneys who only specialize in trademark issues. You and I, and others, could argue about who really has the rights to the Yenko name until the cows come home, but would not really prove a thing. That will be for the courts to decide, if and when someone makes a legal challenge against our use of the name.

If such challenge does come to pass, IMO, the challenger may win a battle or two, but will not win the war, AKA, public opinion.

With that said, I would like to ask you a question. Have you, Salvatore or even Classic received permission from the Yenko family to use the Yenko name, or for that matter, ever bothered to even ask?

I believe very strongly that the families should have some control over the use of their names, which is why I urged Valerie Harrell to trademark the DH name, even gave her the money to do so. I gave Helen Gibb the same advice, and not long ago helped her defend her rights to the Gibb name. I could have been like others and registered the marks in my name, or the sYc’s name, but that was not the right thing to do. There are more important things in this world then trying to make a quick buck at the expense of others.

Several folks have asked about the Yenko family in all of this. I will give a short history question, then answer that.

13 years ago, as we were discussing holding the first Yenko/Supercar Reunion, the sYc asked for, then received, written permission from the Yenko estate/family to use the Yenko name, as far as I know the only entity to bother asking, and the only entity to receive such permission. At that time the sYc began using the Yenko name in various forms, well before others became interested in jumping on the Yenko bandwagon. For the past 13 years, working with members of the Yenko family, the sYc has done its best to promote the Yenko name in a positive manner, and evidently we did a pretty good job or else we would not be having this discussion.

For the past several years I have become good friends with the remaining members of the Yenko family, also, kind of the buffer between them and our hobby. Any time I am contacted about something Yenko related, or hear of something that think they need to be made aware of, I send that info their way. Two things kept popping up. One, a Yenko book, which I am proud to say will be previewed at the SCR, and two, the family endorsing the building of more Yenkos. Their answer has always been the same, no thanks. That is until now.

I am proud, and delighted, to say that I have received a positive response from within the Yenko family, one member even expressing interest in owning a “new” Yenko Camaro.

That my friend, is good enough for me!

[Kim_Howie]

Tom , I have been down this road too.

[Classic Automotive]

[ QUOTE ]
Jim, Sad to say, I am not new to the world of trademarks and such disputes and would not have endorsed such a project without doing some research. It would be nice if everything was black and white in regards to trademarks, but as I am sure you know, lots of gray areas, which is why there are attorneys who only specialize in trademark issues. You and I, and others, could argue about who really has the rights to the Yenko name until the cows come home, but would not really prove a thing. That will be for the courts to decide, if and when someone makes a legal challenge against our use of the name. If such challenge does come to pass, IMO, the challenger may win a battle or two, but will not win the war, AKA, public opinion. If such challenge does come to pass, IMO, the challenger may win a battle or two, but will not win the war, AKA, public opinion.

With that said, I would like to ask you a question. Have you, Salvatore or even Classic received permission from the Yenko family to use the Yenko name, or for that matter, ever bothered to even ask?

I believe very strongly that the families should have some control over the use of their names, which is why I urged Valerie Harrell to trademark the DH name, even gave her the money to do so. I gave Helen Gibb the same advice, and not long ago helped her defend her rights to the Gibb name. I could have been like others and registered the marks in my name, or the sYc’s name, but that was not the right thing to do. There are more important things in this world then trying to make a quick buck at the expense of others.

Several folks have asked about the Yenko family in all of this. I will give a short history question, then answer that.

13 years ago, as we were discussing holding the first Yenko/Supercar Reunion, the sYc received written permission from the Yenko estate/family to use the Yenko name, as far as I know the only entity to bother asking, and the only entity to receive such permission. At that time the sYc began using the Yenko name in various forms, well before others became interested in jumping on the Yenko bandwagon. For the past 13 years, working with members of the Yenko family, the sYc has done its best to promote the Yenko name in a positive manner, and evidently we did a pretty good job or else we would not be having this discussion.

For the past several years I have become good friends with the remaining members of the Yenko family, also, kind of the buffer between them and our hobby. Any time I am contacted about something Yenko related, or hear of something that think they need to be made aware of, I send that info their way. Two things kept popping up. One, a Yenko book, which I am proud to say will be previewed at the SCR, and two, the family endorsing the building of more Yenkos. Their answer has always been the same, no thanks. That is until now.

I am proud, and delighted, to say that I have received a positive response from within the Yenko family, one member even expressing interest in owning a “new” Yenko Camaro.

That my friend, is good enough for me!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tom:

Yes, I have spoken with Lynn several times and to that end she has never said no. When you and I discussed this before and you went to the Yenko family you never responded to me as to what the family said, or at least I have no response from you. As you stated all of this will be for the courts to decide. Is the Yenko family aware of the potientail legal issues? Are they aware how t he name is trademarked? I will make a statement though that I believe is on point. My last name is Barber, think if my family would have licensed the name or trademarked it in some way...look at all the "Barber shops" out there today. Simply because I have the last name of Barber does not mean I can give anyone permission to use it. Again to Sal's point of legality.

I thank you for answering the question directly, I applaud you for that. Good luck with you project and I hope the lawyers don't end up making more money!

Jim

[AMC]

Tom,
Thanks, thats what I was looking for. I appreciate that info. Good luck with your 2010 project!

[Les Quam]

Jim,
No one is required to run down and obtain the federal trademark rights to their family name so they can use it or to prevent others from using it. Don Yenko didn't need a federal trademark or copyright license to slap his name on the side of the cars he sold. Nor did he need a federal trademark or copyright license to prevent others from using his name back in the day. When Don Yenko operated his business he had some form of business entity possibly an "S" or "C" corporation or perhaps a sole propreitorship? He would have filed documents with the state to operate his business that generates rights that precede yours. The Yenko estate has state rights to the Yenko name and logo back from the days the dealership was operating that clearly precede your rights. The fact they haven't yet tried to stop you from using their name in court is meaningless.

Thousands of quick buck artists every year obtain trademark rights to names until the families decide to take legal action and rectify the situation. My name is not a trademark and if you were using it to sell products I wouldn't need to trademark my name or challenge your trademark if you obtained one to stop you from using it there are other easier, quicker and less costly methods.

If I was advising the remaining Yenko family I would strongly encourage them to litigate and contest your use of their name and go after any profits you have made. The rights to a name or process are not won by a race to the trademark office.

Some names such as Barber are generic in nature and can't be licensed except to the extent they pertain to a specific person or entity. I can sell items such as "Barber" products as long as the products wouldn't lead people to believe they were genuine "Jim Barber" camaro products relating to you. If I owned a Chevy dealership and was building and selling Quam supercamaro's in Nevada just because I haven't obtained a federal trademark or copyright to "Quam supercamaro's" doesn't mean you can run down and obtain the trade mark rights and deceive people into thinking you are the creator of the "Quam supercamaro"


Trademarks, tradenames, patent law and copyright law are one of the most complex area's of law that even most lawyers have a tough time understanding. This post is but a simple discussion of a complex subject.

[Classic Automotive]

[ QUOTE ]
Jim,
No one is required to run down and obtain the federal trademark rights to their family name so they can use it or to prevent others from using it. Don Yenko didn't need a federal trademark or copyright license to slap his name on the side of the cars he sold. Nor did he need a federal trademark or copyright license to prevent others from using his name back in the day. When Don Yenko operated his business he had some form of business entity possibly an "S" or "C" corporation or perhaps a sole propreitorship? He would have filed documents with the state to operate his business that generates rights that precede yours. The Yenko estate has state rights to the Yenko name and logo back from the days the dealership was operating that clearly precede your rights. The fact they haven't yet tried to stop you from using their name in court is meaningless.

Thousands of quick buck artists every year obtain trademark rights to names until the families decide to take legal action and rectify the situation. My name is not a trademark and if you were using it to sell products I wouldn't need to trademark my name or challenge your trademark if you obtained one to stop you from using it there are other easier, quicker and less costly methods.

If I was advising the remaining Yenko family I would strongly encourage them to litigate and contest your use of their name and go after any profits you have made. The rights to a name or process are not won by a race to the trademark office.

Some names such as Barber are generic in nature and can't be licensed except to the extent they pertain to a specific person or entity. I can sell items such as "Barber" products as long as the products wouldn't lead people to believe they were genuine "Jim Barber" camaro products relating to you. If I owned a Chevy dealership and was building and selling Quam supercamaro's in Nevada just because I haven't obtained a federal trademark or copyright to "Quam supercamaro's" doesn't mean you can run down and obtain the trade mark rights and deceive people into thinking you are the creator of the "Quam supercamaro"


Trademarks, tradenames, patent law and copyright law are one of the most complex area's of law that even most lawyers have a tough time understanding. This post is but a simple discussion of a complex subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confused....I don not have the name trademarked. See Tom's post below

[Les Quam]

I have no idea who has what name trade marked and I mean no one any disrespect but let me clarify my opinion and elaborate briefly.

When Don Yenko died he had property as all of will have when we pass. Some of Don Yenko's I imagine was real estate? Some was personal property like cars and personal effects. Some was probably contractual rights with Chevy etc? Some was in my opinion most clearly whats known as an intellectual property right also commonly known as a brand name he had created. When Don Yenko was killed ALL his property of every nature would have passed to his heirs through a trust if he had one or through a will or finally if no will or trust existed through the courts who would have divided up his property for him.

Don Yenko's heirs would have inherited all his property rights including the somewhat intangible intellectual property right of his Yenko brand name he had created, unless of course Don Yenko had before his death created a trust or will and assigned those rights to someone else? Assuming that is not the case one of Don Yenko's heirs right now today owns the imtellectual property rights to his brand name relating to his cars. Whether the heirs understand or know they own those property rights I have no idea?? Simply because the Yenko heirs have apparently not chosen to trade mark and protect their property rights does not mean they have lost or waived their rights to the property.

If someone else has in the meantime obtained some form of trade mark using the Yenko name that in my opinion does not in any way preclude the Yenko heirs from enforcing their property rights at a later date. I am aware of no statute of limitations?

In other words any of us can build new 5th generation camaros and call them Yenko's and sell them until the Yenko heirs decide to put a stop to it. Kind of like trespassing on someone's land, you can stay there until the owner throws you off. All of which is just my opinion.

As we all know if you find a lawyer and dangle some money in front of him he will go to court and file some paper for you and keep doing that until you run out of money.

[sYc]

[ QUOTE ]


You are confused....I don not have the name trademarked. See Tom's post below

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why are you and AMC here, and so against what we are trying to do? Wouldn't we all be better served if whoever is in charge of Classic was the one to present their case?