Delorean Motor Company (DMC) Texas threatening to sue Delorean owners now

[dtavres]

As I've said many times in the past few years, Fake DMC's plan has been to sell the company (or in this case, license the name) - which is why they try to bully and intimidate DeLorean owners with Cease & Desist letters - because don't want any competition - or DeLorean owners - to use our car's name... and now the proof is here. The car is ACTUALLY the "Italdesign DaVinci"


Fake DMC is just selling / licensing the name on our cars to a company who's "going to" produce their electric car... here's an article from 2019... and the logo that matches Fake DMC's animated graphic... https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/pictur...va-motor-show/


So just like in 2007 when Fake DMC started their annual announcements of "New" DeLoreans being built - https://www.foxnews.com/story/texas-...-delorean-cars - now they can make more money on our car's name.


So no, NOT a "new" DeLorean - just a "new" license agreement... Let's see if Fake DMC puts any of that money toward better parts, lower prices, or customer service.

FakeDMCDavinci2.jpg

italdesign-davinci-geneva-2019-8.jpg

[Michael]

My bet is Vinfast, but that DaVinci logo looks closer.

They both look so similar.

DMCH: IDK, but somebody's gettin' sued.

https://vinfastauto.us/

[dtavres]

My bet is Vinfast, but that DaVinci logo looks closer.

Interesting... it is close... Does Vinfast have any gullwing cars?

[Helirich]

I need to see the side of that car, but I don’t like the back at all.

[Michael]

The DaVinci looks to be identical to the teaser pic that's been out for the past few months...I mean identical.

Vinfast however, has all their ducks in a row and have already announced bringing EVs to the US market. A lot of their executive members have LinkedIn profiles stating they are working for the new DeLorean project. (Again, let me state that I have been reading a lot and some of my info may have been cross contaminated with large doses of bourbon). In short all the online info points to Vinfast. All the digital pics/teasers point to DaVinci. I can't imagine they would be happy about their design being used without them having some skin on the game, then again do silhouettes of a car fall under trademark usage?

Perhaps DaVinci(or Italdesign) will be designing the car for Vinfast?

Disclaimer: Discussing this in a rational and adult manor, may be interpretated as "drama" to some people.

[Drive Stainless]

Disclaimer: Discussing this in a rational and adult manner, may be interpreted as "drama" to some people.

[BLWNAWY]

I never bought a Corvette because I found Corvette owners to be stereotypical assholes (which come to find out I've since encountered some hardcore owners who agree with me and urged me to look past that), and I never wanted to be associated with those kind of people.

Great, well-expressed comments, Robert. I personally have avoided facebook, twitter, and other social media too. Just don't need that stuff.

While probably not the right forum for me to address the above comment, I found it interesting. I have always had an eclectic interest in cars - many street rods, and for a while a '32 Ford hot rod roadster, a '54 Chevy, supercharged DeLorean, and tiny Honda Insight all at the same time. But in 2002, with a retirement income and a new good-paying job, I purchased a low mileage C5 Corvette convertible. The chance to do my 20-mile commute top down in 11 degree weather, in a car that went 160 and did 12 second ETs, was just too good to be true. I had no interest in Corvette clubs or other owners, I just did it for me. And a strange thing happened. Within 2 years the DeLorean was gone, and after 20 years the Corvette is still here. With 100k on the clock it has only been in the dealership twice, for minor stuff. It will probably be the final car I own, already promised to my 6 year old granddaughter in 12 years if I and it make it that long. Don't avoid Corvettes (C5 and up) because of "those kind of people", because as you pointed out they are here, too, and everywhere. Get one for you, and you may never look back.

As for DMCH I hope it didn't come across as me being one of the "haters". I know it was just business, but I do think this community has the right to know the history and how they affected some competitors.

I will now crawl back under my rock.

[Rich W]

I need to see the side of that car, but I don’t like the back at all.

https://www.netcarshow.com/italdesig...vinci_concept/

[dmcerik]

Rest assured it isn't anything like that at all. I can handle discussions about sometimes sensitive topics. I even know how to leave things alone and walk away when need be. But rest assured this isn't the case here for myself, and quite likely many others.

The DeLorean community is becoming more and more toxic.

Plus 1 to you DMCVegas.

I'm reading "Ready Player Two" and thought your post paired well with this excerpt from the book.


After a few sessions with Sean, I'd realized that the best thing for my mental
health would be to abandon social media altogether. So I had. And it was
the right choice. My anger abated, and my wounded pride began to heal.
I'd finally gained enough distance from my addiction to realize some-
thing. Human beings were never meant to participate in a worldwide social
network comprised of billions of people. We were designed by evolution to
be hunter-gatherers, with the mental capacity to interact and socialize with
the other members of our tribe--a tribe made up of a few hundred other
people at most. Interacting with thousands or even millions of other peo-
ple on a daily basis was way too much for our ape-descended melons to
handle. That was why social media had been gradually driving the entire
population of the world insane since it emerged back around the turn of
the century.
I was even beginning to wonder if the invention of a worldwide social
network was actually the
"Great Filter" that theoretically caused all techno-
logical civilizations to go extinct, instead of nuclear weapons or climate
change. Maybe every time an intelligent species grew advanced enough to
invent a global computer network, they would then develop some form of
social media, which would immediately fill these beings with such an in-
tense hatred for one another that they ended up wiping themselves out
within four or five decades.
Only time would tell.


I started in this community in the mid 90's. Was very active up until some life events mid 2000's, but lurked the entire time. I see old names on here I remember from when I first started, amazed that we still own our original cars. Some of us now a member of the "Half our life of ownership" club. I'm really happy to see them on here even though I haven't seen or talked to them in over 15yrs. I've never joined any other Delorean forum, for various reasons, but mainly the platforms they are on. While I think the DMCTalk interface is way too old, it's still nice.
I also see some really disgusting people on this forum. They bring to the conversation nothing of importance, but just cheap shots and petty bickering. Mocking people for trying to be helpful. It's sad. And not the community I praised on page 165 of Stainless Steel Illusions. Maybe some of you are rolling your eyes. Telling me through the screen to stop being so dramatic, that this is just healthy debate, or I'm looking too fondly of the past. Whatever it is, the Delorean community before all your shit posting was great. It felt like a community you wanted to really get to know people in. Maybe your world has always been shit posting, so you don't know any different. Think on that.

[Malevy]

I am new to the DMC Talk. I read peopleÂ’s complaints of others and it makes me curious as to what is and is not factual. I have no reason to cast aspersions. I try to judge fairly based on history and facts to establish a baseline.

Your research starts too late, you need to go back way before 2014 to set the baseline..

I think we can all agree that DMCH did not create/invent any of the IP associated with "DeLorean" including the "DMC" logos. They all pre-date the existence of DMCH, and there are some "Dead" registrations from the original DeLorean Motor Company to confirm this is fact.

DeLorean Motor Company went in to receivership in 1982. Also fact.

IIRC, DMCH was created sometime around 1996/1997. They registered a company name in the state of Texas, then purchased the remaining parts from the KPAC warehouse in Ohio. A few years later (2001?) DMCH registered the stylized logo (which appeared on documents from DMC in the late 1970's). I have found no previous USPTO registrations for the stylized logo, which is a likely reason they were able to register it (even though it existed 25 years earlier). The block letter logo was sill in the USPTO as "Dead". KPAC never owned the name, logos, trademarks, etc. This is also all verifiable fact.

The name and artwork for DeLorean and DMC were in the public domain from 1982. No idea who owned it since DMC no longer existed. Some say JZD personally owned it, but if that is true- he failed to enforce his ownership and therefore lost his claim to it. The "Sally DeLorean" case you reference indicated that JZD had been receiving payments from Universal Studios until his death at which time DMCH told Universal they owned it, and would need to get those payments (For the life of me, I can't figure out why Universal just took their word for it, and did no basic research on it)... That is what I believe initiated the legal action of Sally VS DMCH, she wanted to know why the checks from Universal had stop coming in. While I can't claim this is all Fact, I was there when the community freely used the DeLorean name and logos without any C&D letters, or enforcement of any kind.

Because we know DMCH did not create the name/logo, a legitimate claim to it would mean they purchased it from the owner. This is the question I have been asking for 20 years, and James pretty much answered it earlier in this discussion.

Now, do you believe that it is OK to claim ownership of 25 year old art work designed by someone else that was then public domain for 20 or so years? And if you do, is it then OK to use ownership of that artwork to then claim you own the name of the company that previously created said artwork? Those are two very big leaps that I (and many others) cannot make. But, I will say- It is impressive that they got away with it.