Layson's restorations get arrested at Carlisle
Moderator: Moderators
The way I see it, Chrysler could only challenge the original owner of the vehicle and even then only if there was a clause in the original contract of sale stating that the vehicle could not be modified; subsequent owners would not have signed any contract so there would not be any legally binding requirement to leave the car unmodified.
If they would try to swing it as a misrepresentation of a trademarked image then it would likely only come from copyright legalities which would be difficult to do since when these cars were sold new the brand/model numbers/names were mostly not registered at the time of the vehicle's sale (with the exception of the Roadrunner / Coyote stuff, which is a moot point apparently).
As for Plymouth being exempt, much of their paperwork was marked as 'Chrysler Corporation' so I would say any stretch of law that applies to Dodges could also be applied to Plymouth too ...
For an example of American law see HERE, then note it says 'threatening to sue' which means they probably don't have a lawyer to take on the case for real ... there's an awful lot of BS floating around about this kinda stuff
If they would try to swing it as a misrepresentation of a trademarked image then it would likely only come from copyright legalities which would be difficult to do since when these cars were sold new the brand/model numbers/names were mostly not registered at the time of the vehicle's sale (with the exception of the Roadrunner / Coyote stuff, which is a moot point apparently).
As for Plymouth being exempt, much of their paperwork was marked as 'Chrysler Corporation' so I would say any stretch of law that applies to Dodges could also be applied to Plymouth too ...
For an example of American law see HERE, then note it says 'threatening to sue' which means they probably don't have a lawyer to take on the case for real ... there's an awful lot of BS floating around about this kinda stuff
I can't wait for Chrysler to sue DLI (Dick Landy Industries) then! Litigators at 20 paces!!!
Good ol' Ronnie Sox can still RIP, bless him.
For a company in melt down with only 4 employees in "Mopar Performance"; it may have issued a position on the subject of "cloning"; but will never have the resources to back that up - pure sabre-rattling.
Good ol' Ronnie Sox can still RIP, bless him.
For a company in melt down with only 4 employees in "Mopar Performance"; it may have issued a position on the subject of "cloning"; but will never have the resources to back that up - pure sabre-rattling.
Pete Wiseman; Cambridge.
Mopar by the grace of God
Mopar by the grace of God
-
Dave-R
- Posts: 24752
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 04 11:23 pm
- Location: Dave Robson lives in Geordieland
- Contact:
This reminds me of the old "Type Approval" rubbish the Eurocrats (backed by the motor industry) tried to impose on us.
That would have stopped anyone modifying any car away from original spec..
Of course some countries do have this. Which is what Chrysler is probably thinking of.
On the subject of parts being marked.
Yes some of these reproduction parts suppliers were actually advertising that their repoductions carry "chrysler markings and part numbers just like the originals". Which is where they were crossing the line.
Yes this club got into trouble with Chrysler. I seem to remember it was in fact to do with using Chrysler logos.
That would have stopped anyone modifying any car away from original spec..
Of course some countries do have this. Which is what Chrysler is probably thinking of.
On the subject of parts being marked.
Yes some of these reproduction parts suppliers were actually advertising that their repoductions carry "chrysler markings and part numbers just like the originals". Which is where they were crossing the line.
Yes this club got into trouble with Chrysler. I seem to remember it was in fact to do with using Chrysler logos.
My point was that there is a BIG difference between stating your position on a subject (the principle) and having the ability to back it up and implement it. Chrysler cannot really do anything else than condemn "Clones" - it is not going to turn around and say "Clones are cool, carry on".Clivey wrote:Sorry Pete, I am being thick today, what was your point (the second one)?
However, the sheer logistics and cost of tracking these cars down for a small company (and they ARE small in moden global terms) for what benefit and return makes this a non-starter. They may hit some of the high profile ones in the States, but they aren't going to check every junker across the globe to see if that 318 is now a 360, c'mon guys, get real.
I think Layson's case sounds completely different, and I am sure they have done their homework before pursuing a relatively high profile arrest.
For my part, I dealt with Laysons once, and would never do so again; but this is not relevant to the case.
Pete Wiseman; Cambridge.
Mopar by the grace of God
Mopar by the grace of God
-
Anonymous
Why on earth would Chrysler be interested in what you have done, legal or otherwise, with a product it sold 30 years ago? And how exactly does it reflect badly on the corporation today if someone gets ripped off with a clone car ? The copyright issue I can see, someone trying to pass off repro parts as new mopar parts I can see, but clone owners can rest easy. The government are in charge of the laws that dictate what you can and can't do to your own car, not some venture capitalists struggling to keep a failing company afloat.
“It’s good enough for Nancy”
-
Anonymous
Well said BLUE if he was passing off re-pro parts for genuine MOPAR in MOPAR boxes fair enough but they can't do anything too an owner if they have modded there own car as a R/T , SUPER-BEE , or even a DAYTONA it will only become an offense if they try and pass it off as the genuine car. 
and that is where so many folks fall down you think how many RS ESCORT'S have been cloned over the years there is more now than FORD built back in the day same go's for TR8'S and even GT 350/500's HOW many of us have put a 3000 in a 1600/2000 Capri iv put v8's in lots but i never sold it as a PARANA V8 or a SAVAGE V6.
Last edited by Anonymous on Fri Jul 18, 08 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
never a truer word spoken
you do what you like with what you own within the laws of your country. so the clone car or using the wrong badges cos you got a bigger motor and fater torsion bars argument makes no sense
you can sell it (Buyer beware)
the new owner could take you to court if you misrepresent what you sold but it would be a private action.
trade mark trade marked packaging and selling stuff with the trademark of another company on it thats not legal and Chrylser are correct to go after these people.
think of the court case they would be hit with if those new old stock steering components that were made last week in china and boxed in 30 year old real chrysler boxes started snapping.
Fair use of logo to repesent a clubs interest is still a bit shakey but all car and bike clubs have this issue
lambretta. the clothing compmany wants you to remove the word from your scooter....well they can......
VW Kafer Type1 type 2 type 3 etc Kombi VW had a go about all that and eventually backed down
chrysler doing the same....they will learn eventually
dave
you do what you like with what you own within the laws of your country. so the clone car or using the wrong badges cos you got a bigger motor and fater torsion bars argument makes no sense
you can sell it (Buyer beware)
the new owner could take you to court if you misrepresent what you sold but it would be a private action.
trade mark trade marked packaging and selling stuff with the trademark of another company on it thats not legal and Chrylser are correct to go after these people.
think of the court case they would be hit with if those new old stock steering components that were made last week in china and boxed in 30 year old real chrysler boxes started snapping.
Fair use of logo to repesent a clubs interest is still a bit shakey but all car and bike clubs have this issue
lambretta. the clothing compmany wants you to remove the word from your scooter....well they can......
VW Kafer Type1 type 2 type 3 etc Kombi VW had a go about all that and eventually backed down
chrysler doing the same....they will learn eventually
dave
The Greater Knapweed near the Mugwort by the Buckthorn tree is dying
-
Anonymous
Blue, I think it is becoming clear that the issue of cloned cars, is not the real 'issue' here. For some reason, this whole debacle has been diverted off and described as the doomed future of cloned car builders / owners.
The question is, what have Laysons been accused of and is their any basis of truth in it. Its got nothing to do with cloning cars whatsoever.
The question is, what have Laysons been accused of and is their any basis of truth in it. Its got nothing to do with cloning cars whatsoever.
dont say a word SHHHH 
-
Rich
laysions
Lakewood, WA – Dave Layson, owner of Layson’s Restorations of
> Lakewood, Washington vehemently denies any wrongdoing in connection
> with the investigation that resulted in the searches of his properties
> in Kent and Lakewood, Washington, seizures of his inventory, and his
> arrest at the annual Chrysler at Carlisle car show in Carlisle,
> Pennsylvania.
>
> The investigation comes as the culmination of a long-running dispute
> between Layson’s and the Chrysler Corporation and is the result of
> competitor’s complaints about the market share Layson’s has been able
> to capture manufacturing long-discontinued parts for the collector car
> hobby. Competitors have long been frustrated by Layson’s ability to
> bring these parts to market, and sell them at fair prices to
> consumers.
>
> The suggestion that excess or ill-gotten profits have been generated
> is totally without merit. The costs associated with engineering,
> producing, marketing and shipping these long forgotten pieces is
> substantial. Layson’s has always sought to produce the best part at
> the lowest cost for the consumer and has done extensive legal research
> to support its position in this.
>
> Layson manufactures parts without Chrysler’s trademark Pentastar logo
> and under the law, is completely justified in so doing. Layson’s has
> always sold the parts it manufactures as “Reproductions” and has bent
> over backwards to make the distinction clear because frankly, the new
> parts are far superior to the originals.
>
> In addition, Chrysler has yet to roll-out a meaningful licensing
> program to include manufacturing standards, exclusivity agreements,
> marketing agreements or a uniform royalty structure.
>
> Because of that fact, and years of turnover and indecision at
> Chrysler, Layson’s Restorations, like many other similar vendors, has
> not opted to participate in the company’s ill-conceived and yet to be
> fully developed licensure program. As a result, Chrysler has tried to
> intimidate and coerce vendors in this industry to pay into what
> amounts to a, “Black hole” of a non-existent and yet-unformed
> licensure program.
>
> Parts that carry the Pentastar logo seized from Layson’s were all
> purchased from “licensed” vendors, and are not so called “Forged auto
> parts” as the mis-informed authorities acting at Chrysler’s behest
> allege.
>
> Layson has records and purchase orders to document the acquisition of
> these parts and is confident that a more careful investigation will
> prove these facts. While Layson’s does not subscribe to Chrysler’s
> claim of licensure, other mis-informed vendors have been intimidated
> into doing so, and subsequently have produced parts bearing the
> trademark Pentastar. Again, any of those parts in Layson’s possession
> were legally purchased from those vendors and the documents exist to
> prove it.
>
> Layson’s believes that the Chrysler Corporation wrote a criminal
> complaint that constituted a, “Wish list” of sorts. Chrysler was then
> able to persuade investigators in tiny North Middleton, PA to carry
> their water, which in turn lead to a request for assistance from the
> Lakewood, WA Police Department.
>
> The searches, seizures and resulting loss of business have been
> entirely excessive. The serious verbiage contained in the charges,
> excessive bail, and the use of clearly excessive criminal charges are
> outrageous.
>
> The questioning of employees, the seizure of personal property and
> the blind speculation about, “Exploding” investigations by Lakewood
> law enforcement officials who have no background in this case or
> trademark law are way, way out of line, are libelous on their face and
> have already caused Layson’s Restorations serious and substantial
> damages in the marketplace.
>
> Efforts to recover the company’s reputation, inventory and lost
> revenues will be vigorous.
here is Laysons statement
> Lakewood, Washington vehemently denies any wrongdoing in connection
> with the investigation that resulted in the searches of his properties
> in Kent and Lakewood, Washington, seizures of his inventory, and his
> arrest at the annual Chrysler at Carlisle car show in Carlisle,
> Pennsylvania.
>
> The investigation comes as the culmination of a long-running dispute
> between Layson’s and the Chrysler Corporation and is the result of
> competitor’s complaints about the market share Layson’s has been able
> to capture manufacturing long-discontinued parts for the collector car
> hobby. Competitors have long been frustrated by Layson’s ability to
> bring these parts to market, and sell them at fair prices to
> consumers.
>
> The suggestion that excess or ill-gotten profits have been generated
> is totally without merit. The costs associated with engineering,
> producing, marketing and shipping these long forgotten pieces is
> substantial. Layson’s has always sought to produce the best part at
> the lowest cost for the consumer and has done extensive legal research
> to support its position in this.
>
> Layson manufactures parts without Chrysler’s trademark Pentastar logo
> and under the law, is completely justified in so doing. Layson’s has
> always sold the parts it manufactures as “Reproductions” and has bent
> over backwards to make the distinction clear because frankly, the new
> parts are far superior to the originals.
>
> In addition, Chrysler has yet to roll-out a meaningful licensing
> program to include manufacturing standards, exclusivity agreements,
> marketing agreements or a uniform royalty structure.
>
> Because of that fact, and years of turnover and indecision at
> Chrysler, Layson’s Restorations, like many other similar vendors, has
> not opted to participate in the company’s ill-conceived and yet to be
> fully developed licensure program. As a result, Chrysler has tried to
> intimidate and coerce vendors in this industry to pay into what
> amounts to a, “Black hole” of a non-existent and yet-unformed
> licensure program.
>
> Parts that carry the Pentastar logo seized from Layson’s were all
> purchased from “licensed” vendors, and are not so called “Forged auto
> parts” as the mis-informed authorities acting at Chrysler’s behest
> allege.
>
> Layson has records and purchase orders to document the acquisition of
> these parts and is confident that a more careful investigation will
> prove these facts. While Layson’s does not subscribe to Chrysler’s
> claim of licensure, other mis-informed vendors have been intimidated
> into doing so, and subsequently have produced parts bearing the
> trademark Pentastar. Again, any of those parts in Layson’s possession
> were legally purchased from those vendors and the documents exist to
> prove it.
>
> Layson’s believes that the Chrysler Corporation wrote a criminal
> complaint that constituted a, “Wish list” of sorts. Chrysler was then
> able to persuade investigators in tiny North Middleton, PA to carry
> their water, which in turn lead to a request for assistance from the
> Lakewood, WA Police Department.
>
> The searches, seizures and resulting loss of business have been
> entirely excessive. The serious verbiage contained in the charges,
> excessive bail, and the use of clearly excessive criminal charges are
> outrageous.
>
> The questioning of employees, the seizure of personal property and
> the blind speculation about, “Exploding” investigations by Lakewood
> law enforcement officials who have no background in this case or
> trademark law are way, way out of line, are libelous on their face and
> have already caused Layson’s Restorations serious and substantial
> damages in the marketplace.
>
> Efforts to recover the company’s reputation, inventory and lost
> revenues will be vigorous.
here is Laysons statement