[NickdaBrick]

This kind of reminds me of what happened to my cousin Marco. He had an old towershaft Ducati 250 single. One day he told me he wanted to sell it, but he was afraid it wouldn't be worth anything because it had 72,000 miles on it. I told him, "Marco, if you take it to Pasquale at the Ducati dealership and slip him 20 dollars, he'll roll back the odometer for you and then you can get a good price for it." One week later, I saw Marco riding down the road on the same old Ducati. "Hey Marco," I said, "I thought you were going to sell that old thing." "Why should I sell it?" he said. "It's only got 4,000 miles on it."

 

[aminalmutha]

Sounds like someone convinced her that she could make a bunch more money suing Ducati rather than settling with them. Sounds really suspicous since the bike has been out for over a year with no qualms until now. I hope Ducati wins because I can't stand gold diggers, and this sure sounds like one.

 

[baldmtn]

You are about lost aren't you? And seriously misinformed. She has been upset about this from the beginning. Ducati blew her off and didn't even call her before releasing the bike to ask. Imagine what Jordan would do if this happened to him (Hailwood is about that big in Euorpe).

Get the facts straight before spouting out.

 

[aminalmutha]

I don't begrudge anyone of their money, but if the Hailwoods have anywhere near the amount of dough Jordan does, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. And, according to this article, it says she didn't say anything until April of this year. It also said that Ducati tried to resolve the situation to avoid going to court. Got any to back up your 'straight facts'? You may be right, but how am I supposed to believe you over this and other articles I've read? Try not to get your panties in a bunch.

 

[starvingstudent]

That's a good one...I'll remember it.

 

[tbuse]

Since this suit was brought in the US, Ducati will probably lose. They used someone else's name to sell their product without permission. Well known people "own" the right to use their names and likenesses. This property right extends to the person's heirs. Ducati obviously used Hailwood's name to sell the bike. According to stories published elsewhere (including MCN), Mrs. Hailwood has objected since she first heard about it. Ducati supposedly ignored her. If this goes to court in the US, and the facts are shown to be as alleged by Mrs. Hailwood, Ducati will het hosed, and they should be.

 

[banda]

It's not necessarily about the money. It's also about the control of the name.


The Hailwood family absolutely owns the rights to the use of Mike's name. That means that they have the ultimate say in how that name is used for commercial purposes.


As any patent attorney knows, a trademark must be defended every time it is used without permission. If the Hailwood family didn't defend against this unauthorized use of Mike's name, then they would have no claim against anyone else who used his name. The eventual result would be that if someone wanted to sell Mike Hailwood toilet plungers, or an inflatable Mike Hailwood sex doll, the Hailwood family would be powerless to stop it because they didn't defend the trademark when Ducati used it without authorization.


Mike's widow really has no choice but to take this action against Ducati. Ducati's use of Mike's name is a type of theft, and should not be tolerated.

 

[das]

Does anybody else think that this sort of "if you don't defend it now, you can't defend it later" thinking is completely stupid?



That may be how the system works today, but it seems like somebody ought to be trying to change that.



It's like saying that because I once allowed my best friend to ride my bike without filing legal papers defining this as a specifically approved event, I'm now legally obligated to allow anyone to ride it at any time.



The more I learn about legal issues around trademarks, patents, copyrights and such, the more appalled I become.

 

[jmeyn]

A more publicity savvy company might pay the widow Hailwood somewhat and induce her to help promote the bike to the adoring public. Too late, huh?

 

[das]

Does anybody know what, exactly, Mrs. Hailwood's objections were?

 

[Eric]

www.motorcyclenews.com had a report on her claims, including the statement she released. Among other problems she had was that Ducati didn't contact her before producing the bike and that she wishes to maintain control of her husband's name (see the above post on why this suit would be important). It is also probably important to her that the case be in the US as the US probably has the strongest intellectual property protection in the world. And yes, your name counts.

 

[4653]

Yeah, and they also used a slogan featuring Mike's name that she thought was rather tasteless, inappropriate and tacky. I can't say I disagree with her assessment, either..

 

[banda]

It's much simpler than that. A trademark is like any other piece of property. Once you have given your property away, it is no longer yours. You have no right to control what is done with it.

If you give your motorcycle to your friend, it's gone. You can't stop that friend from giving the bike to someone else, because it's not your property to control. You can't get that property back without the permission of its new owner.

In both cases, a thief isn't actually a thief until the rightful property owner exercises his right to his property. In the case of a stolen bike, you either get the cops to go retrieve your bike, or you go get it back yourself. If you don't do either, then the bike might as well belong to the person who took it from you because you have not exercised your right to your property.

In the case of a trademark theft, you file a suit. If you don't file a suit, the trademark infringer becomes the controller of the trademark. They get to decide how the trademark (property) is used and who else they will give it to.

No suit = no control of the trademark. Just like no police report + no effort to retrieve your stolen bike = no more motorcycle for you.

 

[das]

How is Ducati's use of Mike Hailwood's name to market a motorcycle equivalent to Ducati taking ownership of all uses of his name?



To my layman's mind, those don't seem equivalent at all.



There's got to be some distinction between giving/taking and lending/borrowing.



I'm also a bit confused by your unreported-bike-theft = ownership analogy. If someone steals my bike, they cannot legally give it to someone else, even if I don't report it stolen, because they don't have the title.



I thought that was the point in having a copyright or trademark, or patent ... you essentially have the title. What am I missing here?

 

[056]

Gullible Mutha...

"According to this article"?!? Good God, man, it's a CORPORATE PRESS RELEASE!!! Pauline Hailwood has a very different story: http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/detail?sectionID=50677&=93179

Did you get your facts about the Exxon Valdez spill from the Exxon website, as well?

 

[banda]

How is Ducati's use of Mike Hailwood's name to market a motorcycle equivalent to Ducati taking ownership of all uses of his name?

They would essentially be the owners of his name if they were using it without any opposition. They certainly acted as if they owned it by using it without his family's permission. That behavior would likely continue for as long as Mike's family let them get away with it. The question about the title is a good one. The title for the motorcycle is an instrument by which you can prove your ownership of the bike. There's no equivalent for the ownership of Mike's name. The proof that Mike's widow would have to provide is the precedent that she has set in licensing Mike's name. The only way to set a precedent for the ownership Mike's name is to vigorously defend her right to the use of his name.

Think about it this way: The moment you or I start using Duacti's name or trademarks to make money for ourselves, Ducati will slap us with trademark infringement suits. You should expect that. They have spent billions of lira and decades of time turning the name Ducati into something of value. For you to make a quick buck by using that name would be a type of theft. They'd be all over your "assets."

Likewise, Mike Hailwood spent a lifetime creating a valuable name for himself. When he died, that valuable name, like every other possession of his, became the property of his heirs. Ducati should no more be able to use that valuable name without permission than they should be allowed to move into Mike's house, drive his car and wear his slippers.

 

[hola]

ownership

banda has it down Regarding title, well here it goes....

As mentioned, if you DO NOT reclaim, or basically claim your property YOU HAVE LOST IT. That simple. Yes, the bike too !!!!

How, you may ask? Good question. I thought you would never ask.

If you never made ANY claim for your stolen bike, the theif can easily obtain an temp title. Since the bike does not show up as stolen, no problemo.

Once the theif, knowing you are NOT going to make any claims, will file the legal requirements to get in touch with you, and if you will counter his claim. If not (by either silence or accepting the claim etc.), at a state prescribed time, the bike by order of the judge, will give the bike to the theif and now the theif has a LEGAL title to the bike. No claim, no bike !!

Interesting how many things in life work just the same, doesnt it?

 

[Hobbsie]

Re: Gullible Mutha...

Try:

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/detail?sectionID=50677&=93179

 

[Hobbsie]

Re: Gullible Mutha...

Hey, it chopped out part of the link. Supposed to have

"&" in front of "93170"

 

[Hobbsie]

Or it might raise a hew & cry to gain publicity, like this.