Karma Automotive LLC sues Reimagined Automotive LLC [Archive] - DMCTalk Forum

ssdelorean

08-10-2022, 08:38 AM

Great. Just what we need. More drama in the DeLorean community. Which will will lead to more annoying comments/questions from the general public when out with the car.

https://www.law360.com/cases/62f13dd017a1b4734645da27

Electric Car Co. Says Workers Stole IP For DeLorean Project

By Katie Buehler

Law360 (August 8, 2022, 6:37 PM EDT) -- An electric car manufacturer on Monday in Texas federal court accused four former employees of swiping its trade secrets and forming a rival company in order to run off With a project that involves updating the famous DeLorean vehicle.

Karma Automotive LLC sued its former vice president of sales and customer experience and its former chief revenue officer, among others, in the Southern District of Texas. claiming they worked for about a year to form their own company, Reimagined Automotive LLC, which they used to steal a joint venture project with DeLorean Motor Co. out from under Karma Automotive.

The former employees - ex-Vice President Joost de Vries, ex-Chief Revenue Officer Alan Yuan, Troy Beetz and Neilo Harris - were all part of the Karma Automotive team tasked with developing and proposing ideas for the joint venture, referred to as Project 88, according to the lawsuit. In December 2020, the men allegedly grew tired of answering to Karma Automotive executives.

"Apparently, individual defendants grew dissatisfied with Karma's efforts to make Project 88 more detailed and viable, and instead decided to prevent Karma from being able to mqve forward with Project 88 so that they could seize the business opportunity for themselves," Karma Automotive said.

From December 2020 until February 2022, the four men allegedly worked to solicit investments for and pitch their new company, all while still being employed by Karma Automotive, according...

I'm not a paid member of this site so that is all I can find out. (I guess you can register for free at the site but I just don't have time right now).

NJP548

08-10-2022, 09:27 AM

Great. Just what we need. More drama in the DeLorean community. Which will will lead to more annoying comments/questions from the general public when out with the car.

https://www.law360.com/cases/62f13dd017a1b4734645da27

I'm not a paid member of this site so that is all I can find out. (I guess you can register for free at the site but I just don't have time right now).

This PDF was added to the Files section of the DeLorean Fanatics Facebook Group.

-Nick

81dmc

08-10-2022, 09:50 AM

:popcorn:

Mark D

08-10-2022, 10:40 AM

What a complete shit show this has turned into.

The failed "reimagined timeline" marketing campaign for the Alpha 5 was already bad enough, and now this. SMFH.

Timeless

08-10-2022, 11:10 AM

What a complete shit show this has turned into.

The failed "reimagined timeline" marketing campaign for the Alpha 5 was already bad enough, and now this. SMFH.
+2

DMC-Ron

08-11-2022, 03:59 AM

This PDF was added to the Files section of the DeLorean Fanatics Facebook Group.

-Nick

Wow! That brief is pretty crushing.

Ron

DMC-81

08-11-2022, 08:03 AM

Oh boy.:rolleyes1:

Apparently, Karma Automotive is no stranger to IP lawsuits.

In 2020, they sued Lordstown Motors over allegedly stealing infotainment tech: LINK (https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1130387_karma-sues-ev-startup-lordstown-claims-it-stole-infotainment-tech)

Also in 2020, they were sued for stealing Electric Humvee plans from VLF: LINK (https://www.carscoops.com/2020/08/karma-sued-for-allegedly-stealing-electric-humvee-plans-from-vlf/)

Looking on their company website (https://www.karmaautomotive.com/), it seems that all of Karma models / concepts are warmed over iterations of the 2012 Fisker Karma designed by Henrik Fisker: LINK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisker_Karma)

Per Wikipedia, they are a Chinese-owned company: LINK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_Automotive)

gullwingD

08-11-2022, 10:13 PM

DMC-Ron

08-12-2022, 05:10 AM

gullwingD

08-12-2022, 10:33 AM

DMC-81

08-12-2022, 06:23 PM

Sally's original lawsuit was not thrown out, she settled with Texas for an undisclosed amount of money for use of the name DeLorean. She later discovered that DMC Texas had re-directed royalty payments from Universal Studios, to DMC Texas, instead of the DeLorean estate. Sally had no idea the estate was due payments from Universal Studios because she obviously was not that close with John DeLorean. Everything was left to DeLorean's children Zachary and Kathyrn in the will. However, at the time the kids were unaware of this (long story). Sally acted in bad faith adminstering the estate. Because Sally settled the first lawsuit, the judge basically said, "too bad, you already settled." That's how DMC Texas gets to keep the ongoing supply of money from Universal Studios.

Yes, she settled with DMCH. Here was the essence of the agreement as written in the District Court decision in the dismissed second lawsuit:

"First, the Settlement Agreement is not merely retrospective. Instead, it both resolves all claims that were sought and could have been sought in the 2014 action and recognizes DMC Texas’s rights to use these marks in the future. Those rights, as explained above, include the enforcement of DMC Texas’s marks and licenses to those marks. Second, the Settlement Agreement expressly carves out specific areas in which the Estate retains its right to pursue legal action against DMC Texas—namely, any other use of the name DeLorean, any aspect of John Z. DeLorean’s life, and any depiction of his likeness. That the Universal Agreement is not mentioned in the Settlement Agreement suggests that the parties did not intend to permit the Estate to be able to sue DMC Texas for attempting to enforce its rights to the marks against other entities, including Universal. Accordingly, we find that the Settlement Agreement shields DMC Texas from suit brought by the Estate for the conduct at issue here."

Source (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/18-3333/18-3333-2019-12-05.html)

68791

DMC-81

08-12-2022, 06:32 PM

gullwingD

08-12-2022, 09:48 PM

Dana, you're missing the much bigger picture. "I was informed recently that "DeLorean Motor Company -- Texas" had taken the proceeds of the contract by informing Universal that it was the rightful owner of Mr. DeLorean's rights under the contract, I was shocked." said Mayer Morganroth, John DeLorean's longterm attorney in 2018. "I fully support the Estate's lawsuit against "DeLorean Motor Company Texas." I believe that the company has effectively stolen money that belongs to the Estate, by misrepresenting that it somehow succeeded to Mr. DeLorean's rights under the Universal contract. I certify that the forgoing statements are true. I am aware that if any of the forgoing statements are intentionally false, I am subject to punishment."

That is testimony from Mayer Morganroth. SALLY NEVER WOULD HAVE SETTLED HAD SHE KNOWN THERE WAS A UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT -- SHE DID NOT KNOW! Just because a court says something is OK does not mean it is right. People get away with murder in the court of law all the time. It all comes down to technicalities. It's great there is a parts and service company, but know when you support Texas, you are supporting a company that as Morganroth said, "essentially stole" from John DeLorean himself -- and he did not approve of.

See my reply above. I for one am glad that Delorean Motor Company is alive and well again AND that they are willing to defend their trademarks. Whatever anyone's opinion of DMCH is, any DeLorean owner should be glad that there is a group of Delorean enthusiasts willing to put their money at risk to run a dedicated Parts, Sales, Service, and Restoration business.

Malevy

08-13-2022, 11:26 AM

Wow! That brief is pretty crushing.

The government money may be in jeopardy too. If nothing else, this lawsuit may end the DMR project simply because funding will dry up. Investors don't want their money used to defend lawsuits.

https://www.expressnews.com/business/article/lawsuit-car-auto-manufacturer-Texas-17369971.php

I read that Sally Baldwins's lawsuit was dismissed:
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2018/10/15/delorean-widows-back-to-the-future-lawsuit-is-thrown-out/

I have a full history of the trademark issue here: https://malevy-dmc.blogspot.com/2022/06/who-owns-delorean-motor-company.html

DMC-81

08-13-2022, 10:21 PM

Dana, you're missing the much bigger picture. "I was informed recently that "DeLorean Motor Company -- Texas" had taken the proceeds of the contract by informing Universal that it was the rightful owner of Mr. DeLorean's rights under the contract, I was shocked." said Mayer Morganroth, John DeLorean's longterm attorney in 2018. "I fully support the Estate's lawsuit against "DeLorean Motor Company Texas." I believe that the company has effectively stolen money that belongs to the Estate, by misrepresenting that it somehow succeeded to Mr. DeLorean's rights under the Universal contract. I certify that the forgoing statements are true. I am aware that if any of the forgoing statements are intentionally false, I am subject to punishment."

That is testimony from Mayer Morganroth. SALLY NEVER WOULD HAVE SETTLED HAD SHE KNOWN THERE WAS A UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT -- SHE DID NOT KNOW! Just because a court says something is OK does not mean it is right. People get away with murder in the court of law all the time. It all comes down to technicalities. It's great there is a parts and service company, but know when you support Texas, you are supporting a company that as Morganroth said, "essentially stole" from John DeLorean himself -- and he did not approve of.

I don't think I am missing anything. The way I read it is, after the settlement, DMC got legal affirmation on what they owned the rights to, i.e. the car, brand, etc.versus Sally ( essentally John's likeness & legacy). Since the car was used in the movie, it seems like DMC asked Universal for the royalties. I see nothing underhanded here. Wouldn't John's rights in the Universal agreement be related to them using the car? Ergo, DMC now had the rights.

As for Sally, it seems like she probably needed better legal counsel. It was stated that the Universal agreement came up during the discovery for the first lawsuit. Her counsel probably should have made that an item to clarify during the settlement process if it was important.

Who knows. I was not there, so I'm deducing the whole picture based on the settlement, and the dismissal of the second suit.

One thing I know for sure is that there is no shortage of drama in and around the Delorean world.

gullwingD

08-13-2022, 11:03 PM

Dana, what about what occured before the lawsuit? From 2005-2015/16ish DMC Texas was taking Universal royalties unlawfully. They were using the trademark without permission. It's all immoral stuff done by bad actors. You can't say just because Sally's legal counsel sucked, everthing is morally OK, it's not. Also, DMCTX didn't get legal affirmation on anything they were doing was correct, prior to the lawsuit. They got a settlement, and an agreement by Sally not to sue them. There's more to the story, but it's not my place to tell today.

I don't think I am missing anything. The way I read it is, after the settlement, DMC got legal affirmation on what they owned the rights to, i.e. the car, brand, etc.versus Sally ( essentally John's likeness & legacy). Since the car was used in the movie, it seems like DMC asked Universal for the royalties. I see nothing underhanded here. Wouldn't John's rights in the Universal agreement be related to them using the car? Ergo, DMC now had the rights.

As for Sally, it seems like she probably needed better legal counsel. It was stated that the Universal agreement came up during the discovery for the first lawsuit. Her counsel probably should have made that an item to clarify during the settlement process if it was important.

Who knows. I was not there, so I'm deducing the whole picture based on the settlement, and the dismissal of the second suit.

One thing I know for sure is that there is no shortage of drama in and around the Delorean world.

JBaker4981

08-14-2022, 02:08 AM

:TrainWreck:

MrChocky

08-14-2022, 07:37 AM

:TrainWreck:

Pretty much. I don't really think the outcome of such a suit, or of this new car is really do the benefit of anyone in the community, no matter
which way things go.

Drive Stainless

08-14-2022, 11:29 AM

Neither is DMC Texas. Sally Baldwin (AKA DeLorean) took them to court in 2015 after they unlawfully used the DeLorean trademark between 1995-2015 when it was owned by John DeLorean. DMC Texas also re-directed royalty payments from Universal Studios to DMC Texas bank accounts when DeLorean died in 2005. Payments were due to the DeLorean estate, not DMC Texas.

What makes you think John DeLorean owned the trademark between 1995-2015? Some reports have said John purchased the trademark rights when the company went into receivership. Sure the sale of those rights may have been unpublished, but the USPTO shows no record of any assignment or renewal of those rights, and the DMC mark was canceled in 1985. Any prudent individual or company that purchases an IP asset like a patent or trademark will almost always record the assignment at the USPTO. This allows prospective licensees find the rightful owner easily and do business accordingly (e.g., Universal).

In fact, the USPTO database shows no registration was made by John DeLorean until November 15, 2000 - serial 76165416.

I cannot find any reason why John DeLorean (or his heirs) would have any rights to the trademark from 1995-2015. Again, there are no federal registrations, renewals, or examples of products or services bearing the "DMC" mark during that period I could find. Trademark rights do not continue to inure to the registrant (or assignee(s)) after abandoning use of the mark - knowingly or not. This is consistent with property law generally (e.g., adverse possession), which can, in some states, reassign title to property from owners who "sleep on their rights."

Is there any evidence that John DeLorean continued to use the mark in commerce? If so, point to those goods and services. I have not seen any evidence. The watch that was created in ~2000 is the closest good that I know of, but it did not bear the original DMC logo.

DMCH registered trademark serial 75756108 in 1999.
Seems to me DMCH could have re-registered the original "DMC" mark at that time instead of this derived mark. Why? Because no one else appears to have been using the original mark in commerce. No other registrations for that mark or any similar mark were made. No one opposed the registration of DMCH's mark in 1999. If John DeLorean (or anyone else) had been using (or thought they were using) the original "DMC" mark in commerce during that time, he/she likely would have opposed DMCH's registration because it is very similar to the original mark and a case for showing confusion in the marketplace seems likely. Universal's lawyers probably did a search for the mark at some point, found DMCH to have the only "LIVE" trademark that resembled the "DMC" mark, and proceeded to procure a license - precisely the way it's supposed to work.

Therefore, to assume DMCH wasn't within their rights to use the "DMC" mark beginning even as early as 1985, one has to assume that the rightful owners of the mark were unaware not just for months, but for decades. I don't find that likely. What I do find likely is that the mark was abandoned from 1985-1999, consistent with the USPTO's public record.

As to why DMCH settled with Sally DeLorean? I can only speculate. Legitimate reasons may exist that do not implicate that they acting wrongfully or "stole" the trademark.

DISCLAIMER: I am an intellectual property attorney and former USPTO employee. The above is not to be construed as legal advice. There is no attorney-client relationship formed by the above. The above does not represent the views or opinions of anyone else but me based on performing a cursory search.

gullwingD

08-14-2022, 08:24 PM

I would argue DeLorean’s proof of commerce would be the Universal/Amblin licensing deal which he struck in 1989, which I’ve attached to this message(PDF). Universal Pictures continued to sell products related to the DeLorean car and the “DMC” logo on the front grille, and items related to the name “DeLorean” per the contract. Checks were remitted to DeLorean until his death in 2005. While his body was still warm, DMC Texas asked Universal for royalty checks. Why John didn’t keep up with the registration with the USPTO is unknown.
It is not a requirement to register with the USPTO to own a trademark. Per the USPTO website:
-Common law rights
“If you haven’t filed for state or federal registration, your trademark protection is based solely on using your trademark in commerce within a particular geographic area. This limits your rights, as you can only enforce your trademark rights for the specific area where your trademark is used.”
Since Back to the Future items were sold worldwide, wouldn’t he have worldwide rights to his name? We know he owned the rights to his name per earlier court proceedings. He even says so in a 1987 audio recording here at 1 hour 13 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kJilxwFxOk&t=4382s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kJilxwFxOk&t=4382s)
John DeLorean was working on a new car in the 1990s, and had a business plan laid out, and the trademark DeLorean Automobile Company which he owned inside of a holding company Ephesians 6:12, which still exists today. In the 2000s, his daughter Kathryn was working with him to raise capital for the new car to be called the “D2”. They were selling watches together at the 2000 car show. He called it the D2 because he felt like DMCTX was registering trademarks out from underneath him (in 1999 as you mentioned), and he wanted to get the new car company going without starting trouble. He also registered the stylized logo from the rear bumper on the original car to shut them down. It looks like Sally defended one of the trademarks in 2011 when someone else tried to use it.
There was never a trial, only a settlement. Had there been a trial, things may have been different. Sally obviously would rather have made a quick buck rather than defend the name. Zachary and Kathryn are the direct heirs of John DeLorean, as named in his will. If Sally entered into any legal proceeding or settlement regarding the estate she would be required to notify them, which she did not. The kids also did not see any of that settlement money. Bad actors all around.
Now, it’s Karma automotive’s turn. Do we see a pattern of behavior here? I am NOT a lawyer, but I can tell if something seems immoral, and that is my argument. Legal and immoral are two different things.

What makes you think John DeLorean owned the trademark between 1995-2015? Some reports have said John purchased the trademark rights when the company went into receivership. Sure the sale of those rights may have been unpublished, but the USPTO shows no record of any assignment or renewal of those rights, and the DMC mark was canceled in 1985. Any prudent individual or company that purchases an IP asset like a patent or trademark will almost always record the assignment at the USPTO. This allows prospective licensees find the rightful owner easily and do business accordingly (e.g., Universal).

In fact, the USPTO database shows no registration was made by John DeLorean until November 15, 2000 - serial 76165416.

I cannot find any reason why John DeLorean (or his heirs) would have any rights to the trademark from 1995-2015. Again, there are no federal registrations, renewals, or examples of products or services bearing the "DMC" mark during that period I could find. Trademark rights do not continue to inure to the registrant (or assignee(s)) after abandoning use of the mark - knowingly or not. This is consistent with property law generally (e.g., adverse possession), which can, in some states, reassign title to property from owners who "sleep on their rights."

Is there any evidence that John DeLorean continued to use the mark in commerce? If so, point to those goods and services. I have not seen any evidence. The watch that was created in ~2000 is the closest good that I know of, but it did not bear the original DMC logo.

DMCH registered trademark serial 75756108 in 1999.
Seems to me DMCH could have re-registered the original "DMC" mark at that time instead of this derived mark. Why? Because no one else appears to have been using the original mark in commerce. No other registrations for that mark or any similar mark were made. No one opposed the registration of DMCH's mark in 1999. If John DeLorean (or anyone else) had been using (or thought they were using) the original "DMC" mark in commerce during that time, he/she likely would have opposed DMCH's registration because it is very similar to the original mark and a case for showing confusion in the marketplace seems likely. Universal's lawyers probably did a search for the mark at some point, found DMCH to have the only "LIVE" trademark that resembled the "DMC" mark, and proceeded to procure a license - precisely the way it's supposed to work.

Therefore, to assume DMCH wasn't within their rights to use the "DMC" mark beginning even as early as 1985, one has to assume that the rightful owners of the mark were unaware not just for months, but for decades. I don't find that likely. What I do find likely is that the mark was abandoned from 1985-1999, consistent with the USPTO's public record.

As to why DMCH settled with Sally DeLorean? I can only speculate. Legitimate reasons may exist that do not implicate that they acting wrongfully or "stole" the trademark.

DISCLAIMER: I am an intellectual property attorney and former USPTO employee. The above is not to be construed as legal advice. There is no attorney-client relationship formed by the above. The above does not represent the views or opinions of anyone else but me based on performing a cursory search.

DMC-81

08-14-2022, 09:17 PM

Dana, what about what occured before the lawsuit? From 2005-2015/16ish DMC Texas was taking Universal royalties unlawfully. They were using the trademark without permission. It's all immoral stuff done by bad actors. You can't say just because Sally's legal counsel sucked, everthing is morally OK, it's not. Also, DMCTX didn't get legal affirmation on anything they were doing was correct, prior to the lawsuit. They got a settlement, and an agreement by Sally not to sue them. There's more to the story, but it's not my place to tell today.

First, I agree with what Matt said above and, even IF they were using the trademark "illegally", the parties settled the first lawsuit for an undisclosed amount. Sally's counsel had the responsibility to care for that. Period.

So, in alignment with Matt's explanation, there was nothing immoral about it IMO. I respect John DeLorean for all the positive things he did, but it would be irresponsible to dismiss the decisions he made that caused the DeLorean Motor Company to fail. DMCH was a major part of the brand's survival and resurgence ever since they took risks to buy the parts and build the business in Texas. They were also a big part of me deciding to buy a DeLorean because there was a multi-location parts and service company supporting the car.

In my time in this community, I have found the DMC people to be anything but immoral, from Stephen down to their technicians. They strive every day to provide services to us, the car owners, and many times despite the negativity.

People complain about lack of parts being reproduced, but they don't think about the drag on the business that things like this, or defending the brand against "Ty DeLorean" have.

Again there is no shortage of drama in the community, and for some it carries a hard cost.

Malevy

08-14-2022, 10:34 PM

First, I agree with what Matt said above and, even IF they were using the trademark "illegally", the parties settled the first lawsuit for an undisclosed amount. Sally's counsel had the responsibility to care for that. Period.

Based on what I have found, DMCH did not disclose the full scope of what they were doing with the name/trademark to Sally. The biggest example being the Universal BTTF licensing deal with JZD from 1989 that DMCH somehow "took over". I agree, Sally's legal representation probably failed her, but that does not make it morally correct for either party.

but it would be irresponsible to dismiss the decisions he made that caused the DeLorean Motor Company to fail.

DeLorean Motor Company did not "fail", they were essentially shut down by the British government for political reasons.

FDMCH was a major part of the brand's survival and resurgence ever since they took risks to buy the parts and build the business in Texas. They were also a big part of me deciding to buy a DeLorean because there was a multi-location parts and service company supporting the car.

While all of that may be true, they could have accomplished the same thing without using the "DeLorean Motor Company" name. Something they did (IMO) for the purpose of causing confusion to the general public, so people thought they were the original company. How is that not immoral?

For the record, those of us who owned DMC-12 automobiles prior to 1995 had no problem getting parts and service for our cars. All that changed when DMCH bought the parts was a major jump in prices on the NOS parts. Many current owners are also able to keep their cars running without any help from DMCH.

*THE* major reason for the brand survival is Back to the Future. Anyone currently making money in the DMC-12 business owes it all to Back to the Future, all the while DMCH collecting JZD's money from Universal Studios. Ironic!

BTW, why are we so far OT? This thread was about the Karma lawsuit.

gullwingD

08-14-2022, 10:58 PM

Dana, it is clearly laid out in the Universal agreement who should get the money, see my previous message with the attachment. DMC Texas only gets royalties from Universal because of a screw up within a lawsuit, not because a judge said that it was OK, only that Sally said she wouldn't sue about it (unknowingly). It doesn't mean it's MORALLY RIGHT that the DeLorean heirs now do not see those Universal royalties. DMC Texas is only successful because of Back to the Future, and the car that John DeLorean created. I'm sure much of their income comes from those licensing deals related to Back to the Future, a deal that JZD brokered for his family, not Stephen Wynne. Those left over parts that Wynne bought would always exist with or without him. The car can be serviced anywhere, it's just a car. Dana, you are entitled to your opinion, even though it may be wrong.

First, I agree with what Matt said above and, even IF they were using the trademark "illegally", the parties settled the first lawsuit for an undisclosed amount. Sally's counsel had the responsibility to care for that. Period.

So, in alignment with Matt's explanation, there was nothing immoral about it IMO. I respect John DeLorean for all the positive things he did, but it would be irresponsible to dismiss the decisions he made that caused the DeLorean Motor Company to fail. DMCH was a major part of the brand's survival and resurgence ever since they took risks to buy the parts and build the business in Texas. They were also a big part of me deciding to buy a DeLorean because there was a multi-location parts and service company supporting the car.

In my time in this community, I have found the DMC people to be anything but immoral, from Stephen down to their technicians. They strive every day to provide services to us, the car owners, and many times despite the negativity.

People complain about lack of parts being reproduced, but they don't think about the drag on the business that things like this, or defending the brand against "Ty DeLorean" have.

Again there is no shortage of drama in the community, and for some it carries a hard cost.

Drive Stainless

08-14-2022, 11:28 PM

I would argue DeLoreanÂ’s proof of commerce would be the Universal/Amblin licensing deal which he struck in 1989, which IÂ’ve attached to this message(PDF). Universal Pictures continued to sell products related to the DeLorean car and the Â“DMCÂ” logo on the front grille, and items related to the name Â“DeLoreanÂ” per the contract. Checks were remitted to DeLorean until his death in 2005. While his body was still warm, DMC Texas asked Universal for royalty checks. Why John didnÂ’t keep up with the registration with the USPTO is unknown.
Since Back to the Future items were sold worldwide, wouldnÂ’t he have worldwide rights to his name?

Thanks for posting the contract. Section 4 is where I believe there may be an issue. Again, the DMC trademark was canceled 3-1/2 years prior to this contract. Could John make the representation in 1989 that he was the "sole owner of the rights?" What "use in commerce" existed prior to then? Certainly not licensing because section 4 expressly represents that those rights have not been "granted, licensed, or otherwise transferred to any other person." Did John have a good excuse to not use the mark? Maybe. We may never know. I'll tell you what I would have done - if I had made this agreement in 1989, I would have been filing an "Intent To Use" for the DMC mark that very same day to ensure that those checks from Amblin & Universal keep rolling in.

As to worldwide rights to the mark based on worldwide sales of BTTF - no. Laws vary from country to country. A country can choose to have no trademark laws or weak enforcement of those laws such that any "rights" are merely illusory.

gullwingD

08-15-2022, 12:13 AM

Mayer Morganroth set it up, I'm sure he knew what he was doing, you're grasping at straws.
https://www.morganrothlaw.com/mayer-morganroth.php

Thanks for posting the contract. Section 4 is where I believe there may be an issue. Again, the DMC trademark was canceled 3-1/2 years prior to this contract. Could John make the representation in 1989 that he was the "sole owner of the rights?" What "use in commerce" existed prior to then? Certainly not licensing because section 4 expressly represents that those rights have not been "granted, licensed, or otherwise transferred to any other person." Did John have a good excuse to not use the mark? Maybe. We may never know. I'll tell you what I would have done - if I had made this agreement in 1989, I would have been filing an "Intent To Use" for the DMC mark that very same day to ensure that those checks from Amblin & Universal keep rolling in.

As to worldwide rights to the mark based on worldwide sales of BTTF - no. Laws vary from country to country. A country can choose to have no trademark laws or weak enforcement of those laws such that any "rights" are merely illusory.

Helirich

08-15-2022, 10:46 AM

Does anybody else find it odd that a car company would get royalties? I mean, they are getting free press. I believe Austin Martin pays dearly to keep its cars in Bond movies.

SonnyV

08-15-2022, 11:51 AM

Does anybody else find it odd that a car company would get royalties? I mean, they are getting free press. I believe Austin Martin pays dearly to keep its cars in Bond movies.

It made sense at the time; when BTTF was being filmed and released, the logo was still active. As such, compensation for using the car would have been due. I would imagine that it is a precursor to the Universal agreement we know of now.

Let's set aside the discussion about the ethical issues of DMCH using the DeLorean name and logo or the debatably illegal practice of withholding the Universal contract from Sally; the latter Morganroth should have been aware of unless JZD brokered the deal without their involvement. It is a fact that in the Universal contract states that future proceeds are to go to the heirs of JZD; namely Zach and Kat. That was John's stated intent and, by that metric alone, DMCH is stealing what John intended to provide for his family.

David T

08-15-2022, 02:57 PM

All of this debate is interesting but until someone spends the money on legal fees to argue this in a court of law, none of this is going to change anything.

This reminds me of the client who tells a lawyer about his case. The lawyer responds, "Your case has merit, how much justice can you afford"? This can be a very expensive legal battle and in the end how much is there to fight over? In the meantime as a practical matter, anything that keeps DMCH financially healthy is a good thing for the Delorean community. It assures us of a continuity of precious parts. Did JZD's kids get the short end of the stick? Maybe so but the bottom line is if JZD really cared about them he would have better prepared things. I can't blame Sally for cashing in for a quick buck and not worrying about her step-children but she could have been better represented by counsel in hindsight. In the end the lawyers always win no matter who wins or loses.

SonnyV

08-15-2022, 04:13 PM

gullwingD

08-15-2022, 08:20 PM

Yeah I can't understand any of the positives of DMCH really... those NOS parts would always be around. When DMCH came into existence the cost of NOS parts went up. Regarding "flipping" cars... Lately, the franchise locations have been bidding on cars against each other, and fight over cars from private sellers which has increased prices for everyone looking to buy. They even bid against every day buyers in the DeLorean community at major auctions so they can sell for more! They are making 25-30 percent or more on cars.

DMCH has been a blight on the DeLorean community. 20 years of lies about new cars capped with this scandal, a history of cease and desist letters, fighting DeLorean's heirs, and flipping cars is not a blessing. A group with integrity could have managed and sold the parts without all the added garbage of their lies and pretending to be DMC.

BladeBronson

08-15-2022, 08:31 PM

DMCH has been a blight on the DeLorean community.

Oh come on! I think they've made some mistakes in the last 25 years and given your username, there's one in particular that we both agree was a shit move. But a blight? Ordering parts from DMC is a straight-up pleasure. The website is easy to use, the parts diagrams are excellent, the products are shipped fast and packaged well.

dmcman73

08-15-2022, 09:03 PM

Yeah I can't understand any of the positives of DMCH really... those NOS parts would always be around. When DMCH came into existence the cost of NOS parts went up. Regarding "flipping" cars... Lately, the franchise locations have been bidding on cars against each other, and fight over cars from private sellers which has increased prices for everyone looking to buy. They even bid against every day buyers in the DeLorean community at major auctions so they can sell for more! They are making 25-30 percent or more on cars.

In the end, they are a business that exists to make money. If there are people out there willing to pay the prices that they charge, then there is a market and that's who they will cater to.

And let's be real, there have been a number of "private" people that have purchased cars and flipped them for so much more money, this isn't anything new except it's a business that's doing it.

SonnyV

08-16-2022, 09:44 AM

Oh come on! I think they've made some mistakes in the last 25 years and given your username, there's one in particular that we both agree was a shit move. But a blight? Ordering parts from DMC is a straight-up pleasure. The website is easy to use, the parts diagrams are excellent, the products are shipped fast and packaged well.

I got involved with these cars in 2004; eventually buying one in 2006. There was a shift with DMCH when John passed. It started with the "new build" program. That was the first of DMCH growing into the entity they are today. It was criticized then and it spiraled into the "They're building new cars in Houston" lie that has been more obnoxious than cocaine jokes. It's also when they shifted from parts/service centers to a company that focused on "Officially Licensed" products; collaboration with clothing brands, watches, money from Hot Wheels, the BTTF royalties, etc.

No other car parts vendor goes after owners clubs for using the logo for the cars or people reproducing period accessories/improved parts; namely all the side stripe sets that have been threatened with litigation. GM is less litigious of people selling things with the Pontiac or Chevy logo and that hasn't hurt their identity.

Yes; they made parts available and accessible to most, but that has been more of a supporting role in their efforts to gain media attention from any outlet naïve enough to run the re-hash of how they're building new cars and would have were it not for whatever convenient excuse they could find. They've tried to make DeLorean into a lifestyle brand and relied on the captive pool of owners to fund their nonsense. One could also argue about the nepotism; Cameron being put in charge of DMC California and on the board at DMC Reimagined, but that's minor.

DPI and DeLorean Go have shown that there is a demand for quality new products instead of dusty and dirty components; DPIs commitment to offering parts in stainless is impressive and Go has shipping and processing speed that is astounding. DMCH continues to sell 40-year-old engines that have not seen service since before Dunmurry closed. Being beholden to DMCH for bespoke parts doesn't redeem them.

DMC-81

08-17-2022, 03:22 PM

DeLorean Motor Company did not "fail", they were essentially shut down by the British government for political reasons.

Marc, you are entitled to your opinion, but that is a stretch. The company did fail for reasons well documented. I'm not even going to debate this.

As for DMCH, I know you found and exposed the whole Sonny V thing, (Am I correct?) so I get that you are likely slanted against the company. That's your prerogative. It probably doesn't matter that James apologized here either.

I have a different experience and opinion based on many transactions and conversations with the people of the company. I have bought from all vendors so my experience is not narrow, but varied. None of the vendors are without flaw.

I don't think that the DeLorean Motor Company name was chosen to create confusion in the community. Under the DMCH era, the community has progressed from buying parts from Consolidated, to a multi location dealership business, and to potentially restarting DeLorean as an OE vehicle manufacturer. If successful, the Alpha 5 will likely go to an exclusive few, but I like the Delorean SUV as a potential future vehicle.

I get that many think they cried wolf too many times with the new car attempts, but success is rarely achieved on the first try. We will see what is revealed this week at Pebble Beach.

Malevy

08-17-2022, 04:22 PM

but the bottom line is if JZD really cared about them he would have better prepared things. I can't blame Sally for cashing in for a quick buck and not worrying about her step-children but she could have been better represented by counsel in hindsight. In the end the lawyers always win no matter who wins or loses.

David, you have zero information on this topic and are are making incorrect statements.

Marc, you are entitled to your opinion, but that is a stretch. The company did fail for reasons well documented. I'm not even going to debate this.

Don't debate it, because the facts are on my side. http://deloreancarshow.com/jzd/Complete%20Letter.pdf

As for DMCH, I know you found and exposed the whole Sonny V thing, (Am I correct?) so I get that you are likely slanted against the company. That's your prerogative. It probably doesn't matter that James apologized here either.

I have a different experience and opinion based on many transactions and conversations with the people of the company. I have bought from all vendors so my experience is not narrow, but varied. None of the vendors are without flaw.

I don't think that the DeLorean Motor Company name was chosen to create confusion in the community. Under the DMCH era, the community has progressed from buying parts from Consolidated, to a multi location dealership business, and to potentially restarting DeLorean as an OE vehicle manufacturer. If successful, the Alpha 5 will likely go to an exclusive few, but I like the Delorean SUV as a potential future vehicle.

I get that many think they cried wolf too many times with the new car attempts, but success is rarely achieved on the first try. We will see what is revealed this week at Pebble Beach.

Why are you assuming I have a problem with James, or DMCH in general? Quite the opposite. I have known them for 25 years now, shared many meals and drinks with them. Yes, I "exposed" the SonnyV situation but I call out bad behavior when I see it, even for close friends and family. Maybe why I have so few friends! LOL!

Your comments on defending DMCH and their choice or reasons for using the "DeLorean Motor Company" name is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but history and evidence presents many facts that contradict your opinion. Everything that DMCH has done could have been done under a different company name.

What will be revealed at Pebble Beach will be a model, just like every other car company does to generate interest. In light of the Karma lawsuit (that IS the topic at hand!), the likelihood of DMC success is shrinking along with the next generation of awful jokes DMC-12 owners will be assaulted with at car shows.

DMC-81

08-17-2022, 04:32 PM

81dmc

08-17-2022, 05:19 PM

I agree. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but people who respond negatively (to DMCH or otherwise) while hiding behind an obscure screen name and little other information about themselves detracts from their impact, especially with a low post count. Who are these people and what is their agenda?

I at least respect Marc as he gives his name on his posts.

There is a very real fear about losing access to parts, some of which are very unique NOS parts only available from DMCH. Now, DMCH as a business has a right to NOT sell to a person or entity, just as DeLorean One once did.

I don’t know about others, but if I were to argue against them, why would I want to put my name and info out there. It’s like asking to be blacklisted. It might sound hypocritical to bite the hand that feeds you, but people have a right to be concerned. If it wasn’t for our cars and continued support, DMCH would have likely collapsed before. The cars would continue, but not easily that’s for certain.

My real take on this “DeLorean Reimagined” stuff.

I’m assuming DMCH is trying this partnered new car thing because just selling NOS and some repro parts to a shrinking group of owners/enthusiasts isn’t exactly a great way to secure the future in business. Add in two good competitors (DPI and DGo), and I can see why this decision could have been made.

However, it ultimately seems like they are going towards a path of inevitable failure. The low volume production idea seemed very promising, but that simply disappeared to be replaced by this “reimagined” idea.

All in all, lawsuits, high pricetag, low interest, and even a fake history don’t look good for the brand and ultimately the investors behind it. Unfortunately, if DMCH fails, the ones who will have a difficult time are us owners. Hopefully, it doesn’t come to that.

Personally, I just wish they would stop the ridiculous C&D stuff. Hurts the community.

DMC-81

08-17-2022, 08:44 PM

David, you have zero information on this topic and are are making incorrect statements.

Don't debate it, because the facts are on my side. http://deloreancarshow.com/jzd/Complete%20Letter.pdf

Why are you assuming I have a problem with James, or DMCH in general? Quite the opposite. I have known them for 25 years now, shared many meals and drinks with them. Yes, I "exposed" the SonnyV situation but I call out bad behavior when I see it, even for close friends and family. Maybe why I have so few friends! LOL!

Your comments on defending DMCH and their choice or reasons for using the "DeLorean Motor Company" name is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but history and evidence presents many facts that contradict your opinion. Everything that DMCH has done could have been done under a different company name.

What will be revealed at Pebble Beach will be a model, just like every other car company does to generate interest. In light of the Karma lawsuit (that IS the topic at hand!), the likelihood of DMC success is shrinking along with the next generation of awful jokes DMC-12 owners will be assaulted with at car shows.

Marc, the "facts" you present are a 26 page letter from John DeLorean from 2000 which points the finger at everyone but himself. He even trashes Weitzman, the lawyer who saved his skin. Sadly, I did not read anything that was proof in his favor . Did you even read this letter?

Hilariously, in it he absolutely skewers Mayer Morganroth as a liar and a fraudulent ambulance chaser ( John's words, point 22 and 25 in the letter). This is the same person that "GullwingD" quoted as his evidence against DMCH in the Universal royalty issue in post 13.

If you are close with James or anyone else at DMCH, I would hate to see how you treat your enemies. Lol.

I know what will be revealed at Pebble Beach. I saw renders of it in April and I know when and where it was built.

gullwingD

08-17-2022, 09:23 PM

Dana, Morganroth was DeLorean's mortal enemy towards the end of his life. Morganroth was constantly trying to collect money he claimed DeLorean owed him. Of course Morganroth was going to say DMCH was stealing from DeLorean, Morganroth wanted to collect that money he was owed from a contract he wrote! That doesn't negate the truth that in fact, DMCH has "effectively stolen money from the estate." DMCH took money from the DeLorean estate through a bunch of legal screw ups and loop holes. I'm not posting anything that's not true. If I'm giving false information I would welcome any kind of response here from DMCH. Just because what happened may have been legal, does not mean it's morally OK. On top of all this, Sally was a grifter, and none of the DeLorean rights were handed over by anyone who was listed in John DeLorean's will as rightful heirs.

Marc, the "facts" you present are a 26 page letter from John DeLorean from 2000 which points the finger at everyone but himself. He even trashes Weitzman, the lawyer who saved his skin. Sadly, I did not read anything that was proof in his favor . Did you even read this letter?

Hilariously, in it he absolutely skewers Mayer Morganroth as a liar and a fraudulent ambulance chaser ( John's words, point 22 and 25 in the letter). This is the same person that "GullwingD" quoted as his evidence against DMCH in the Universal royalty issue in post 13.

If you are close with James or anyone else at DMCH, I would hate to see how you treat your enemies. Lol.

I know what will be revealed at Pebble Beach. I saw renders of it in April and I know when and where it was built.

DMC-81

08-17-2022, 09:32 PM

There is a very real fear about losing access to parts, some of which are very unique NOS parts only available from DMCH. Now, DMCH as a business has a right to NOT sell to a person or entity, just as DeLorean One once did.

I don’t know about others, but if I were to argue against them, why would I want to put my name and info out there. It’s like asking to be blacklisted. It might sound hypocritical to bite the hand that feeds you, but people have a right to be concerned. If it wasn’t for our cars and continued support, DMCH would have likely collapsed before. The cars would continue, but not easily that’s for certain.

My real take on this “DeLorean Reimagined” stuff.

I’m assuming DMCH is trying this partnered new car thing because just selling NOS and some repro parts to a shrinking group of owners/enthusiasts isn’t exactly a great way to secure the future in business. Add in two good competitors (DPI and DGo), and I can see why this decision could have been made.

However, it ultimately seems like they are going towards a path of inevitable failure. The low volume production idea seemed very promising, but that simply disappeared to be replaced by this “reimagined” idea.

All in all, lawsuits, high pricetag, low interest, and even a fake history don’t look good for the brand and ultimately the investors behind it. Unfortunately, if DMCH fails, the ones who will have a difficult time are us owners. Hopefully, it doesn’t come to that.

Personally, I just wish they would stop the ridiculous C&D stuff. Hurts the community.

I have a very good idea of who these unnamed posters are, and why they are not signing their name, but I'll leave it at that. That's their choice.

As a company, I understand that you have to defend your brand, and that means C&D. Every major company does it, no matter what the people in this thread says. The people in the community who are making the most noise about it have a story behind it that they are not telling. My position is: Let's hear the other side of the story and we can make up our own mind, otherwise their posts are the same drivel the people scroll through on social media.

I chatted with Stephen and Joost about behind the scenes details of the new car saga, and the decisions that were made were sensible to me given the circumstances. I hope they succeed. I know that to an owner, it can be a bit tiresome. I'll tell you, I would rather hear from someone excitedly talking about the prospect of a new car, rather than cocaine jokes. One points to a positive future, and the other drags up the past.

Back on the topic of Karma, it remains to be seen what will happen, but I find it interesting that a Chinese-owned company would take issue with IP theft. Wow, that's ironic!

Malevy

08-17-2022, 09:43 PM

If you are close with James or anyone else at DMCH, I would hate to see how you treat your enemies. Lol.

Ah, so all of your friends are people who you agree with 100% of the time on all topics? Not sure if that is a good thing or not.

I have no enemies, at least from my point of view.

DMC-81

08-17-2022, 09:46 PM

Dana, Morganroth was DeLorean's mortal enemy towards the end of his life. Morganroth was constantly trying to collect money he claimed DeLorean owed him. Of course Morganroth was going to say DMCH was stealing from DeLorean, Morganroth wanted to collect that money he was owed from a contract he wrote! That doesn't negate the truth that in fact, DMCH has "effectively stolen money from the estate." DMCH took money from the DeLorean estate through a bunch of legal screw ups and loop holes. I'm not posting anything that's not true. If I'm giving false information I would welcome any kind of response here from DMCH. Just because what happened may have been legal, does not mean it's morally OK. On top of all this, Sally was a grifter, and none of the DeLorean rights were handed over by anyone who was listed in John DeLorean's will as rightful heirs.

Exactly, but that detail was not said in your post 13, which changes the perspective. So essentially what your saying is that Morganroth is ambulance chasing the royalties, hoping to steal it from a grifter?

All this talk about morality. Lol. Like I said, there's no shortage of drama in the DeLorean community.

DMC-81

08-17-2022, 10:01 PM

Ah, so all of your friends are people who you agree with 100% of the time on all topics? Not sure if that is a good thing or not.

I have no enemies, at least from my point of view.

No, that's not the case. At all, and I wasn't insinuating that you had enemies. However, I don't disparage friends, especially online. If I disagree with them, I talk to them in person.

gullwingD

08-17-2022, 10:16 PM

I'll give you 3 guesses, go ahead...

I have a very good idea of who these unnamed posters are, and why they are not signing their name, but I'll leave it at that. That's their choice.

gullwingD

08-17-2022, 10:23 PM

Morganroth certainly had/has his own agenda, however what he said was true. The contract was between John DeLorean, and his heirs, not DMC Texas. Anyone reading it can see that, it's in black and white literally. Morganroth didn't care who he was taking the money from. Eventually whatever he could claim did or has been exhausted, and that money would have gone to Zachary and Kathryn.

Exactly, but that detail was not said in your post 13, which changes the perspective. So essentially what your saying is that Morganroth is ambulance chasing the royalties, hoping to steal it from a grifter?

All this talk about morality. Lol. Like I said, there's no shortage of drama in the DeLorean community.

gullwingD

08-17-2022, 10:27 PM

We've already done that, didn't work.

If I disagree with them, I talk to them in person.

Malevy

08-17-2022, 11:20 PM

No, that's not the case. At all, and I wasn't insinuating that you had enemies. However, I don't disparage friends, especially online. If I disagree with them, I talk to them in person.

Well, I could comment on this too- but then you would be accusing me of insinuating that you said I disparage my friends (or anyone).

You are from Florida, so I assume you are part of the DMC-FL fan club? Ask my friend Tony about the car I gave him first crack at a few weeks back.

Why are you making this personal anyway? You don't know me, and you clearly know nothing about me. You also clearly have very little knowledge about the history we have been discussing. I on the other hand lived it, and have documents that you do not even know exist. You can go back 25 years and see me making the same points I am today.

MrChocky

08-18-2022, 07:21 AM

My car runs.

DMC-81

08-18-2022, 06:13 PM

Well, I could comment on this too- but then you would be accusing me of insinuating that you said I disparage my friends (or anyone).

You are from Florida, so I assume you are part of the DMC-FL fan club? Ask my friend Tony about the car I gave him first crack at a few weeks back.

Why are you making this personal anyway? You don't know me, and you clearly know nothing about me. You also clearly have very little knowledge about the history we have been discussing. I on the other hand lived it, and have documents that you do not even know exist. You can go back 25 years and see me making the same points I am today.

Yes, I am from Florida. You can see some of my posts in the Florida club section. I bought my car from DMC Florida in 2013. I'm not in the "fan club", rather I respect DMC based on years of customer experience with them.

I'm not making this personal either. I'm responding to yours and other's off topic comments in this thread. Period.

Like you who calls out perceived wrongs, I can't stand by watching people disparage a vendor that I know and trust. These days, some are doing this under obscure screen names, and I happen to know some are aligned with DMC's competition and therefore have an ulterior motive. That is cowardly.

Also, I have more knowledge than you assume, including the DML which I have read.

Malevy

08-18-2022, 09:03 PM

Yes, I am from Florida. You can see some of my posts in the Florida club section. I bought my car from DMC Florida in 2013. I'm not in the "fan club", rather I respect DMC based on years of customer experience with them.

I'm not making this personal either. I'm responding to yours and other's off topic comments in this thread. Period.

Like you who calls out perceived wrongs, I can't stand by watching people disparage a vendor that I know and trust. These days, some are doing this under obscure screen names, and I happen to know some are aligned with DMC's competition and therefore have an ulterior motive. That is cowardly.

Also, I have more knowledge than you assume, including the DML which I have read.

If we were having a discussion about quality of customer experience, then it would make sense for you to defend them with your experiences, but that is not the case. We are discussing issues related to intellectual property. Do you have any experience with DMCH, or DMCFL that relates to intellectual property? Why do you defend all aspects of DMCH/DMCFL without knowledge of the specific topic we are discussing? To me, that sounds like a fan boy mindset. Not meant to be insulting, just calling it like I see it. Consider the possibility that your positive experience dealing with DMCFL has zero impact on the unrelated IP discussion, for that matter I see Tony as a franchise owner and not really part of the IP discussion. Even if you are signing your posts with you real name, that does not change the possibility of a bit of transference going on as you seem to be aligned with DMCFL and therefore (may) have an ulterior motive.

Again, I don't understand why so many people have issues separating unrelated topics. The DMCH guys could solve peace in the middle east, and I will still call them out on what they have done with respect to the DeLorean intellectual property.

Burger King whopper is great! But, I really don't like their french fires... So, am a fan of BK? or am I "likely slanted against the company"?

The DML is a great source for information, including some of the history (I find it hard to believe you have read all of it), but there is more information that has not been made public. If/When it is, I think it will make the situation more clear BUT I doubt it will change any minds but will hopefully correct the history. It is like Trump supporters watching the January 6 hearing and changing their minds, it will never happen. Too many people have a problem admitting they are (or, were) wrong.

DMC-81

08-19-2022, 03:42 AM

If we were having a discussion about quality of customer experience, then it would make sense for you to defend them with your experiences, but that is not the case. We are discussing issues related to intellectual property. Do you have any experience with DMCH, or DMCFL that relates to intellectual property? Why do you defend all aspects of DMCH/DMCFL without knowledge of the specific topic we are discussing? To me, that sounds like a fan boy mindset. Not meant to be insulting, just calling it like I see it. Consider the possibility that your positive experience dealing with DMCFL has zero impact on the unrelated IP discussion, for that matter I see Tony as a franchise owner and not really part of the IP discussion. Even if you are signing your posts with you real name, that does not change the possibility of a bit of transference going on as you seem to be aligned with DMCFL and therefore (may) have an ulterior motive.

Again, I don't understand why so many people have issues separating unrelated topics. The DMCH guys could solve peace in the middle east, and I will still call them out on what they have done with respect to the DeLorean intellectual property.

Burger King whopper is great! But, I really don't like their french fires... So, am a fan of BK? or am I "likely slanted against the company"?

The DML is a great source for information, including some of the history (I find it hard to believe you have read all of it), but there is more information that has not been made public. If/When it is, I think it will make the situation more clear BUT I doubt it will change any minds but will hopefully correct the history. It is like Trump supporters watching the January 6 hearing and changing their minds, it will never happen. Too many people have a problem admitting they are (or, were) wrong.

Marc,
I am not conflating topics. My responses to the IP topic stand on their own. Yes, I do have experience with DMC on IP. They have registered trademarks and are running a business using them, so I ask permission for any use of them in the club.

It has nothing to do with fandom. Thats your accusation. I already explained the why a couple times, and I have been transparent. I don't care if you don't like my responses.

Look, you do you as they say, and we can agree to disagree. I'm not here to change your mind or make it personal.

Ron

08-19-2022, 07:45 AM

I have a very good idea of who these unnamed posters are, and why they are not signing their name, but I'll leave it at that. That's their choice.;
I'll give you 3 guesses, go ahead...
(See my avatar).

My car runs.
Sounds like...Steve Rice?

================

To all- While I don't see where anyone has really crossed "the line", it seems like a lot of toes are lining up on it.
Please keep things 'impersonal'...

Thanks!

MrChocky

08-19-2022, 08:44 AM

Sounds like...Steve Rice?

Perhaps; but don't forget, IWACD.

Malevy

08-23-2022, 09:49 AM

Thanks for inspiring my latest blog entry.

https://malevy-dmc.blogspot.com/2022/08/who-owns-name-delorean.html

Rich

08-23-2022, 02:50 PM

Malevy

08-23-2022, 08:53 PM

Additional to these positive comments I'm impressed with DMCH's commitment to reproducing formerly-NLA parts for the owner community.
Just a few such examples:

Which of those examples required that they use the name "DeLorean Motor Company"??

Drive Stainless

08-24-2022, 10:31 AM

Which of those examples required that they use the name "DeLorean Motor Company"??

None. But if they don't use the name for their business, another entity will, and that entity may have a competitive advantage by using that name and all of the nostalgic 80s feels that come with it. The name is advantageous because it makes it easier for consumers to find DeLorean parts and services. Marketplace efficiency is improved by DMCH's use of this name versus using the name, such as, "The Marc Levy Motorboating Company" to find DeLorean parts and services.

The law supports the proposition that one shouldn't be able to use a name in the marketplace that will cause confusion as to the source of goods or services with other marketplace participants. Marc Levy Motor Company selling mopeds shouldn't be able to participate in the marketplace with Marc Levy Motors selling mopeds. Reasonable?

You don't seem confused that DMCH is the original DMC. Is anyone confused? The story how Wynne bought Kapac's inventory is widespread. But even if it wasn't, there is no other DeLorean Motor Company participating in the marketplace. There is only one. So for this additional reason, there is no confusion as to the source of goods or services.

Should Volvo be allowed to use the name Volvo, even though Volvo is really Geely, which was really Ford before that? These are completely different entities, as here, where DMCH and the original DMC are also completely different entities. Same name, though.

ssdelorean

08-24-2022, 11:05 AM

A related article originally from San Antonio Express News:
https://www.expressnews.com/sa-inc/article/Taylor-DeLorean-legacy-17393564.php

Text below for when above link does not work.

Taylor: The competition over the DeLorean’s legacy heats up

August was a big month for the DeLorean car company’s legacy. Aug. 18 was a particularly big day on both ends of the country. On the West Coast, San Antonio-based DeLorean Motors Reimagined hosted a public launch of its Alpha5 concept car at the 70th Annual Pebble Beach Concours d’Elegance auto show.

Also that day, in New Hampshire, Kathryn DeLorean, daughter of original founder John Z. DeLorean, proposed a separate and unaffiliated addition to the DeLorean lore. She is behind the DeLorean Legacy Project, an educational engineering center with plans to build a signature tribute car, the Model JZD, initially designed in 2020.

The former is a for-profit business, while the latter is a historical tribute and nonprofit educational project. Both are attempts to define what this car brand meant in the past and will mean in the future. What is DeLorean’s legacy?

Ever since its prominent role in the iconic Michael J. Fox-led “Back to the Future” movie franchise, the DeLorean brand has operated in a space between the past and future. Any DeLorean-related project must reckon with the seemingly incongruent notion that a car bearing that name is a 40-year-old throwback marketing itself as a blast into the future.

The DeLorean of our imagination embodies this paradox — a retro-futuristic manifestation.

The folks at DeLorean Motors Reimagined know this. The “5” in Alpha5, the prototype they debuted last week at Pebble Beach, builds on a fictitious history that the company devised of having imagined prior models — Alphas 2, 3 and 4 — in prior decades. It’s a cool made-up retconned legacy.

Their signature tagline — “The Future Was Never Promised” — to me sounds somewhat apologetic, as if anticipating and responding to a disappointed fan who objects to their vision of the future for DeLorean.

Unfortunately, or maybe inevitably, it’s proving hard to satisfy hardcore fans who want both retro and futuristic styling. So far, it’s gone over about as well as did Hayden Christiansen’s portrayal of Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars prequels.

Delorean Motors Reimagined’s Instagram page contains relentless complaints and accusations about the Alpha5: that it’s not a real DeLorean, that it clearly reused a 2019 design for a concept car called the DaVinci, that it looks like a Tesla, and that it doesn’t honor the DeLorean’s design legacy. To satisfy your own schadenfreude, visit their social media.

At odds over IP

The most immediate challenge to Delorean Motors Reimagined’s business goals hit it a week before Pebble Beach. Southern California-based electric carmaker Karma Automotive sued the San Antonio company and its top executives, accusing them of stealing intellectual property and breaching nondisclosure agreements they signed as Karma employees in 2021. To have a future, they will need to address this past in court.

As one dives deeper into the obsessions of DeLorean fans online, questions of intellectual property rights and legitimacy get even more convoluted. By the time it publicly launched in 2022, DeLorean Motors Reimagined had become part of a joint venture with Delorean Motor Company of Texas, based in Humble. That company, led by Stephen Wynne, years ago staked its claim as the successor to John DeLorean’s bankrupted firm by buying DeLorean car parts and then acquiring rights to the name, logo and design through litigation.

Sally Baldwin DeLorean, John DeLorean’s fourth wife at the time of his death in 2005 and administrator of his estate, sued DeLorean Motor Company in 2014 alleging improper use of intellectual property and again in 2018. A settlement in 2018 — for an undisclosed amount — left DeLorean Motor Company in a strong position to claim rights to the DeLorean name, brand, imagery and logo, which it has shared as part of its joint venture with DeLorean Motors Reimagined.

The daughter and designer

Kathryn DeLorean, who believes her father’s widow cheated her out of proceeds from John DeLorean’s estate, has embarked on her own attempt to establish a DeLorean legacy by working with a fan-friendly designer.

In November and December 2020, freelance automobile designer Angel Guerra of Spain launched a COVID-era fantasy idea: A 2021 DeLorean tribute to the car’s 40th anniversary.

Guerra’s designs caught fire among DeLorean online superfans. As Guerra tells it, he shared his vision with Delorean Motor Company, as well as business plans for building a prototype within a year. When DeLorean Motor Company declined to pursue the idea, Guerra returned to his regular job working on European auto designs.

So Guerra was surprised to hear a few months later that the Humble-based company was pursuing a new futuristic electric car joint venture with DeLorean Motors Reimagined. Guerra said to me about the venture, formed a few months after he pitched to Wynne: “what a coincidence.”

Guerra subsequently joined forces with Kathryn DeLorean to offer a different chapter to the vehicle’s legacy. They hope students of design and engineering will learn from building his concept car, the Model JZD.

Guerra and Kathryn DeLorean have noted that the DeLorean Legacy Project is not affiliated with the two Texas companies bearing the DeLorean name — an acknowledgment that the joint venture has the rights to the relevant trademarks and is trying to build a new electric car company.

In launching her legacy project, Kathryn DeLorean stresses that she’s not competing commercially with the fledgling automakers: “I am a DeLorean. I’m making engineers, not engines.”

But while they won’t be competing in the automobile market, they seem to be squaring off in the marketplace of ideas to determine which will become part of the DeLorean’s legacy. Time and those who are emotionally invested in that legacy will tell whether either prevails.

Malevy

08-24-2022, 05:43 PM

None. But if they don't use the name for their business, another entity will, and that entity may have a competitive advantage by using that name and all of the nostalgic 80s feels that come with it. The name is advantageous because it makes it easier for consumers to find DeLorean parts and services. Marketplace efficiency is improved by DMCH's use of this name versus using the name, such as, "The Marc Levy Motorboating Company" to find DeLorean parts and services.

Owners had no problem finding parts and services prior to 1995. DeLoreanOne, DeLorean Motor Center both are clearly DeLorean vendors, but not trying to look like the original company. How the heck has PJ Grady survived all these years (an original dealer!) without the word "DeLorean" in their company name?

Marketplace efficiency is improved by use of the name BECAUSE most people think they are the same company from 1981. What other possible reason would there be?

The law supports the proposition that one shouldn't be able to use a name in the marketplace that will cause confusion as to the source of goods or services with other marketplace participants. Marc Levy Motor Company selling mopeds shouldn't be able to participate in the marketplace with Marc Levy Motors selling mopeds. Reasonable?

As I said already, it does cause confusion. No idea how in 1995 they got away with registering a company name that already existed simply by adding "Texas" to the end of it.

You don't seem confused that DMCH is the original DMC. Is anyone confused? The story how Wynne bought Kapac's inventory is widespread. But even if it wasn't, there is no other DeLorean Motor Company participating in the marketplace. There is only one. So for this additional reason, there is no confusion as to the source of goods or services.

I disagree. I am not confused because I lived through it. Most people are confused, and do not know the history of how the current DMCH came to be. You can read all about it in my blog.
https://malevy-dmc.blogspot.com/

Should Volvo be allowed to use the name Volvo, even though Volvo is really Geely, which was really Ford before that? These are completely different entities, as here, where DMCH and the original DMC are also completely different entities. Same name, though.

Not familiar with the Volvo story, but did some new entity just show up one day and say "I am Volvo now"? Or was there a transaction such that the name was transferred to a new entity?

DMC-81

08-26-2022, 03:20 AM

Owners had no problem finding parts and services prior to 1995. DeLoreanOne, DeLorean Motor Center both are clearly DeLorean vendors, but not trying to look like the original company. How the heck has PJ Grady survived all these years (an original dealer!) without the word "DeLorean" in their company name?

Marketplace efficiency is improved by use of the name BECAUSE most people think they are the same company from 1981. What other possible reason would there be?

As I said already, it does cause confusion. No idea how in 1995 they got away with registering a company name that already existed simply by adding "Texas" to the end of it.

I disagree. I am not confused because I lived through it. Most people are confused, and do not know the history of how the current DMCH came to be. You can read all about it in my blog.

Not familiar with the Volvo story, but did some new entity just show up one day and say "I am Volvo now"? Or was there a transaction such that the name was transferred to a new entity?

Marc,

In all my experience in the community, even with new owners, no one is confused about DMC. That's utterly ridiculous. You may want to stop promoting this mantra, because is starting to sound purposefully defamatory/ libelous.

Following the logic and writing style of your "blog"...What's in a name? :

Does the family have a claim against DeLorean (Performance) Industries for using the DeLorean name?

On clarity in the marketplace: Why did Josh Bengston change the name of his business from "McFly Motorsports" to the current name which has DeLorean as the first word?

Speaking of confusion, the only confusion that I heard from the community is with Josh naming his performance levels "Spec 1,2,3" versus DMC's Stage 1,2,3. The opinion is that it is just a rip off of DMC's naming convention. Maybe that was the goal?

I totally agree with what Matt said above, and I'll remind you that he is an IP attorney. What is your qualification again?

Malevy

08-26-2022, 09:57 AM

Marc,
In all my experience in the community, even with new owners, no one is confused about DMC. That's utterly ridiculous. You may want to stop promoting this mantra, because is starting to sound purposefully defamatory/ libelous.

all of your experience? We talking months, maybe years? because I measure my time in decades. If you think "no one is confused" you are either lying or don't read any of the articles of the past 20 years outside of the community.

For something to be libelous, it has to be untrue.

Does the family have a claim against DeLorean (Performance) Industries for using the DeLorean name?

I have not given it any thought.

On clarity in the marketplace: Why did Josh Bengston change the name of his business from "McFly Motorsports" to the current name which has DeLorean as the first word?

Speaking of confusion, the only confusion that I heard from the community is with Josh naming his performance levels "Spec 1,2,3" versus DMC's Stage 1,2,3. The opinion is that it is just a rip off of DMC's naming convention. Maybe that was the goal?

No idea why Bengston changed his business name, ask him? I don't deny that having the name "DeLorean" helps to better identify what the business does, but I have never seen an article even implying that DPI has any connection to the company started by John DeLorean.

Bengston, Steger, Peterson, Bernstein, Lore, or anyone else who has used "DeLorean" in their company name did not call themselves "DeLorean Motor Company", and never claimed ownership of the intellectual property they did not buy or create. None of them collected royalties from Universal Studios, Nike, Target, Microsoft, etc. They for sure did not sell the name to a new company for the purpose of making a new car! The comparison is (at best) grasping at straws.

Spec 1,2,3 or even Stage 1,2,3 etc. have been around a very long time, and used by many automotive performance shops. Or, are you claiming DMCH invented that terminology now? Maybe they should have registered it with the USPTO. If anything, Bengston using "Spec" vs "Stage" results in DIFFERENTIATING his products from DMCH. He could have just as easily used the same terminology, but that would have been confusing.

I totally agree with what Matt said above, and I'll remind you that he is an IP attorney. What is your qualification again?

Sorry, I don't know who Matt is.

DMC-81

08-26-2022, 07:48 PM

all of your experience? We talking months, maybe years? because I measure my time in decades. If you think "no one is confused" you are either lying or don't read any of the articles of the past 20 years outside of the community.

Marc, it is years in the community and decades as a car guy. I suspect I'm older than you think. So, I repeat, NO ONE is confused. As a car owner, car show attendee and entrant, member and now leader of the Florida club, I have talked to thousands of casual onlookers, enthusiasts, car owners, and Club members. No one asks if DMC is the original company. In fact, the vast majority of people know the original company failed long ago. That fact is ingrained in the story of the car. Even if someone is not sure, one doesn't require decades of experience to quickly ask / search to figure out the difference in the old and new DMC company. You said above "before 1995" referencing the start of the new DMC company. Guess what, that was 27 years ago. That is near the age of the new generation of owners (most of who don't even use this forum). I think your tenue in the community has colored your perception of reality. If the internet famous Florida Man gets it, maybe you should let this mantra go.

Sorry, I don't know who Matt is.

Maybe you should learn who you are debating IP law with.

Malevy

08-26-2022, 09:02 PM

Marc, it is years in the community and decades as a car guy. I suspect I'm older than you think. So, I repeat, NO ONE is confused. As a car owner, car show attendee and entrant, member and now leader of the Florida club, I have talked to thousands of casual onlookers, enthusiasts, car owners, and Club members. No one asks if DMC is the original company. In fact, the vast majority of people know the original company failed long ago. That fact is ingrained in the story of the car. Even if someone is not sure, one doesn't require decades of experience to quickly ask / search to figure out the difference in the old and new DMC company. You said above "before 1995" referencing the start of the new DMC company. Guess what, that was 27 years ago. That is near the age of the new generation of owners (most of who don't even use this forum). I think your tenue in the community has colored your perception of reality. If the internet famous Florida Man gets it, maybe you should let this mantra go.

Maybe you should learn who you are debating IP law with.

You are entitled to your inaccurate opinion.

I have not been debating IP law with anyone, so I don't know WTF you are talking about.

If Matt is "Drive Stainless", then his disagreement with me is the same as yours. Clearly he also thinks there is no confusion.

Go read the articles, watch the videos, etc. Even most of the stuff WRT the Alpha 5 is being written as "DeLorean is Back", along with other headlines implying they are the same company.

How many more times should we repeat ourselves?

gullwingD

08-27-2022, 12:18 AM

Plenty of people are confused. I've been hearing the confusion for 27 years. The countless TV news stories repeating wrong facts like they (DMCTX) purchased the rights to the name, which they never did. And from regular people who don't follow DeLoreans every day, they think it's the same company. All you need to know is they took Universal Pictures royalties from the estate of John DeLorean while his body was still warm, way before any settlement with fraudulent Sally Baldwin, who entered into a settlement in which she never had the rights to do. All you need to know is John DeLorean despised them. All true. It's an issue of morality.

Marc, it is years in the community and decades as a car guy. I suspect I'm older than you think. So, I repeat, NO ONE is confused. As a car owner, car show attendee and entrant, member and now leader of the Florida club, I have talked to thousands of casual onlookers, enthusiasts, car owners, and Club members. No one asks if DMC is the original company. In fact, the vast majority of people know the original company failed long ago. That fact is ingrained in the story of the car. Even if someone is not sure, one doesn't require decades of experience to quickly ask / search to figure out the difference in the old and new DMC company. You said above "before 1995" referencing the start of the new DMC company. Guess what, that was 27 years ago. That is near the age of the new generation of owners (most of who don't even use this forum). I think your tenue in the community has colored your perception of reality. If the internet famous Florida Man gets it, maybe you should let this mantra go.

Maybe you should learn who you are debating IP law with.

AugustneverEnds

08-27-2022, 08:05 AM

In my experience all DeLorean owners know that DMCH is NOT the DeLorean Motor Company that built and marketed their car in 1981-2. The general public however much more of a mixed bag. How many of us have heard a version of "Oh DeLorean is in Texas now making new cars!" Like I said actual DMC-12 owners and DeLorean aficionados know this is inaccurate but it's less obvious to casual observers. Does it matter? To me, no, not really, you get used to hearing it and correcting people. Of course, my livelihood and identity are not intertwined with that misconception.

DMC-81

08-27-2022, 01:19 PM

You are entitled to your inaccurate opinion.

I have not been debating IP law with anyone, so I don't know WTF you are talking about.

If Matt is "Drive Stainless", then his disagreement with me is the same as yours. Clearly he also thinks there is no confusion.

Go read the articles, watch the videos, etc. Even most of the stuff WRT the Alpha 5 is being written as "DeLorean is Back", along with other headlines implying they are the same company.

How many more times should we repeat ourselves?

Marc, you can't claim ignorance on the things that you wrote in this thread. Of course you were debating IP law, go back and review it.

Look, I think you and GullwingD are wrapped around the axle on these topics. You all have your opinion. I have mine, based on my experience. I don't know what the vibe is where you live, but I stand by my assessment on what it is like here. I really don't care what you all think and I'm not trying to change your opinion.

Here's a thought: perhaps you are perpetuating this ridiculous claim in your circle. Perhaps Joe Q public was confused years and years ago, but they are not confused anymore.

If you are so bothered by all this, (and it seems like you have been holding a grudge for many years), why don't you sell your cars and move on?

I know this: I am grateful to have a multi- location dedicated sales, parts, and service company, run by great people, supporting my 40+ year old classic car. A company that also has the lions share of the documents and tools from the shuttered factory.

Again: You do you, and good luck with that.

Malevy

08-29-2022, 11:38 AM

Marc, you can't claim ignorance on the things that you wrote in this thread. Of course you were debating IP law, go back and review it.

Great debate tactic, make it look like I said something I never said. So much more common since 2016.

Look, I think you and GullwingD are wrapped around the axle on these topics. You all have your opinion. I have mine, based on my experience. I don't know what the vibe is where you live, but I stand by my assessment on what it is like here. I really don't care what you all think and I'm not trying to change your opinion.

Yet, you continue to argue. I'll keep going (as time permits), it only helps my SEO! Plus I found a few reporters plagiarizing my blog (ironic).

Here's a thought: perhaps you are perpetuating this ridiculous claim in your circle. Perhaps Joe Q public was confused years and years ago, but they are not confused anymore.

Incorrect. Even articles this weekend continue to make statements that make no differentiation.

If you are so bothered by all this, (and it seems like you have been holding a grudge for many years), why don't you sell your cars and move on?

Are you making an offer? Bring cash.

I know this: I am grateful to have a multi- location dedicated sales, parts, and service company, run by great people, supporting my 40+ year old classic car. A company that also has the lions share of the documents and tools from the shuttered factory.

Which has nothing to do with them choosing to take the name of a defunct company, along with claiming ownership of their trademarks.

The fact that DMCH registered the artwork created by JZD's company is all the proof you need that it was their INTENT to cause confusion. Of course, DMCH just settled instead of going to court where they would have likely lost.

Quit being a lemming fan boy, Tony will still fix your car. Or, are you on their payroll now? It would make sense, since someone has to counter the "bad advice from people online" ;) . Makes me feel a bit better that my words are having an impact, thanks for that!

Again: You do you, and good luck with that.

As I have my entire life.. and since 1993 in the DeLorean community.

BladeBronson

08-29-2022, 01:14 PM

Please start a new thread where you sue each other.

DMC-81

08-31-2022, 10:32 PM

Great debate tactic, make it look like I said something I never said. So much more common since 2016.

Thank you, and that's exactly what you did ( i.e. claiming you didn't debate IP law with anyone (post #63), which you did in post #59 with Matt). That sure did look like a debate. By the way, what happened in 2016? I'm not following.

Incorrect. Even articles this weekend continue to make statements that make no differentiation.

Marc, please include a link to even one of the articles last weekend that states or even suggests that the new DMC is the same company as the original one that famously failed in 1982.

Here are the first three for the Alpha 5 that popped up in my search. No confusion, no false connection to the original company. But all three make it clear there is a difference:

"The DeLorean company failed before the blockbuster, three-movie "Back to the Future" franchise first began in 1985."
From:
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/434397

"The current DeLorean brand has three concepts now, including two that made debuts during Monterey Car Week."
From: https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/news/delorean-alpha-and-omega-concepts-in-beta-for-now-but-promising/ar-AA10TbI3

"We started with the DMC-24 from 1982," Porta explained, referencing a series of sketches created by ItalDesign as a possible second car for the DeLorean brand if it had continued. In fact, ItalDesign created an entire lineage of "what if" cars that imagine what DeLoreans after the DMC-12 would have looked like if the company would have survived.
From: https://www.autoblog.com/2022/08/20/delorean-alpha5-reveal-monterey-car-week/

Here's the first one from the search for DeLorean Motor Company:

"Surely it should at least somewhat resemble the DMC-12 that starred in the movies, but the car company went bankrupt before the first film even debuted."
From: https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enthusiasts/deloreans-new-car-looks-nothing-like-the-one-you-remember-heres-why/ar-AA11f9KI

These are just a few articles that popped up. I could continue, but I think you get the picture.

Quit being a lemming fan boy,

Sticks and stones Marc, and as you said:
Why are you making this personal anyway?.

Malevy

09-01-2022, 11:02 AM

I am not posting links to help their SEO- but I just checked again, and there are many (even a majority) of google results with headlines like "DeLorean is back". Very few articles go in to the detail about how the current company has no connection what so ever to the original.

The average person on the street has no idea the history behind all of this. This can be easily tested, but I don't think you are all that interested in the reality of the matter.

All of the actions taken over the past 20 years, and even more so this year, are designed to capitalize on the "confusion". Hopefully one day a judge will decide on it. The legal documents available from the past 20+ years make the case, I don't think one shred of new evidence or testimony will be needed. DELOREAN IS SOMEONES NAME, and the fact that it is being used (especially on a car!) is an implied endorsement.

David T

09-01-2022, 11:14 AM

When I go to car shows and talk to people who only know about the Delorean in general terms, the majority of them conflate DMC with DMCH. DMCH, whether they admit it or not, present themselves as the successor to DMC and unless you look closely it works. For all practical purposes it works, not legally but for the most part, that doesn't matter. In fact, most don't even know DMCH by name, they know it as the continuation of DMC or "that company in Texas". That documentary on the History channel really cemented that perception in the minds of the general public whether it was intended to do that or not. The general public also knows that DMC (or DMCH) is coming out with a new Delorean. They don't know the details but they hear it on the news. DMCH has been doing a great job generating publicity and keeping the Delorean brand in the public eye at a minimal cost.

ssdelorean

09-01-2022, 01:06 PM

DMCH has been doing a great job generating publicity and keeping the Delorean brand in the public eye at a minimal cost.

James went to school for marketing and has done a good job at that for DMCH over the years.

ssdelorean

12-30-2022, 12:36 PM

A friend sent me this article from a few days ago on businesswire's site (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20221221005103/en/DeLorean-Motors-Reimagined-Responds-to-Karma-Automotive-Federal-Lawsuit).

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20221221005103/en/DeLorean-Motors-Reimagined-Responds-to-Karma-Automotive-Federal-Lawsuit

--------------------------------------

DeLorean Motors Reimagined Responds to Karma Automotive Federal Lawsuit
December 21, 2022 11:22 AM Eastern Standard Time

SAN ANTONIO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The federal lawsuit brought by Karma Automotive (Karma) against DeLorean Motors Reimagined (DMR) and select former employees of Karma has finally reached the stage where we can publicly respond to the misguided allegations.

The motives behind the suit against DMR, a newly formed venture, are deeply puzzling. DMR just launched its DeLorean Alpha5 concept vehicle at the 2022 Concours d?Elegance at Pebble Beach. DMR designed the Alpha5 from the ground up with its partner ItalDesign-Giugiaro (IDG), a wholly owned subsidiary of Audi, part of the Volkswagen Group. The timing of the suit appears intended to create the maximum amount of media coverage, coinciding as it did with the 2022 Concours d?Elegance and the launch of the Alpha5. DMR and the Alpha5 have nothing to do with the Project 88 project that forms the basis of Karma?s allegations.

The complaint is rife with selective quotes and characterizations of communications that portray a reality that never existed, while ignoring the key involvement and decisions of senior management at Karma and the parent company, Wanxiang Group Corporation (Wanxiang).

DMR hoped that the motions to dismiss filed by DMR and the other defendants would have spurred Karma to conduct due diligence into the merits of its claims. Those motions were supported by documentation that included a signed letter by Karma?s then-CEO enabling the individual defendants to explore opportunities to further the electrification project of the 1980?s DMC-12 (known within Karma as Project 88). Instead, Karma chose to continue this lawsuit after our initial response, purporting to question the authenticity of the evidence provided, even though that evidence has been available to it on its email servers since January 2021. Wanxiang was fully aware of this project since July 2020 through their liaison, Frank/Linyun Qi, currently Karma?s VP Corporate Development and Governance.

There are two main allegations in this lawsuit:

DMR and the individual defendants stole Karma?s trade secrets (intellectual property or IP); and
The individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Karma.

Regarding the IP allegations, Karma has failed to identify which part of the Alpha5 concept vehicle uses any of Karma?s alleged IP or which technologies our design partner IDG used that violate Karma?s alleged IP. The Alpha5 concept vehicle is a ground-up, 100% new design. It does not use any Karma IP.

Regarding the fiduciary duty complaints, the facts have already proven that Karma?s then-active C-suite executives, formalized in the approval letter executed by the former CEO, had decided not to make any equity investment into Project 88. While those executives are no longer at Karma ? and current Karma CEO Jeff Wawrzyniak was not then part of the executive leadership team ? that does not change the express written approval allowing the individual defendants to pursue the Project 88 opportunity.

Project 88 was intended as an opportunity for Karma to demonstrate that it could handle the engineering, design, and manufacturing required to produce a battery electric vehicle. But Karma was unable to fund or supply the required technology to pursue the project at that time. Indeed, DeLorean Motor Company, LLC ? the owner of the rights to the DMC-12 vehicle that forms the concept behind Project 88 ? has offered to allow Karma to pursue the Project 88 project. It simply has nothing to do with DMR or the Alpha5.

In summary, the individual parties are saddened by the lawsuit on a personal level as they dedicated many years of their lives trying to make Karma successful, in many cases going well outside the realm of their individual responsibilities.

On a professional level, our company is prepared to defend itself with the facts of what really happened in 2020 and 2021. We are looking forward to letting Karma?s current management understand that filing baseless complaints against innovative electric vehicle manufacturers will not help Karma build a successful B2B business, which appears to be Karma?s new direction.
Contacts

Stephanie Chavira
[email protected]
--------------------------------------

This line has me confused:
DMR designed the Alpha5 from the ground up with its partner ItalDesign-Giugiaro...

I thought the Alpha5 was a re-design of the 2019 DaVinci concept?
https://www.italdesign.it/project/davinci/

Was DMCH working with Italdesign before 2019? Or is this just more "reimagining"?