Freedom & Freedom II Battery Toppers

[tz6p06]

Hi

My name is Dave and I am new to the forum.  I do not own a Cadillac but am part of the GM fan club.  I own a 1978 Trans Am and my friend and I designed up and had a small run of Freedom and Freedom II battery toppers made.  We are currently selling these on eBay but we give a small discount to people who purchase them through the forums.

I am not a company, I created these toppers with a friend because we wanted our cars to be as close to original as possible.  If the forum believes these would benefit your classic car community, please let me know.

Here are two YouTube video links of a short video of each of the toppers:

Freedom - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYsX9GRxXOE

Freedom II - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q301GBv4-0

I also included two pictures of the toppers.  One of the toppers is in a Trans Am and the other picture is showing both toppers that are available.  I hope everyone here likes the caps as much as I do.  We spent almost 2 years gathering as much information as possible.

Thanks
Dave

[D.Smith]

Wow!   Very impressive! 

[jsanford]

Awesome! Thank you for your efforts.

Jeremy

[D.Smith]

How much to a CLC member?   

[tz6p06]

Thank you very much for the positive feedback on the look of the toppers.  It took more effort than I thought it was going to when we first started.  It got even harder when we had to look for the tooling company to make the mold.

For forum members we are offering a 10% discount from our eBay store.  The price is $72 plus $15 for shipping.  The item is shipped priority mail through USPS.  I live in Michigan so the ship time is usually up to 3 business days to be delivered.

Again, thanks so much for the positive feedback!  If you have any questions, you can contact me at correctrepoemail addresses not permitted

Thanks
Dave

[tz6p06]

I do have a question, and hate to be a stick in the mud.

Do you need permission from GM to use the Delco name on any reproduction items like this?

I do know that GM authorizes reproduction parts by a royalty. Maybe this is not technically a part, but is this a trademark infringement?

No problem, good question.

When GM spun off Delphi to their own company, the trademark went with Delphi.  Delphi sold the battery business to JCI, a few years after becoming their own company.  The trademark was transferred from GM to Delphi and as of last year the Freedom Battery trademark is now dead according to the US trademark web site.

[Bobby B]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Quote from: gkhashem on Today at 03:26:59 PM
I do have a question, and hate to be a stick in the mud.

Do you need permission from GM to use the Delco name on any reproduction items like this?

I do know that GM authorizes reproduction parts by a royalty. Maybe this is not technically a part, but is this a trademark infringement?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Where is this post, and why would you bring something like this up?  .... I'm sure GM has better things to do then worry about a few plastic repo battery covers. 3D printers are out now.....
                                                          Bobby

[gkhashem]

Why bring it up?

It's illegal to use the trademarked or patented property of another entity for your commercial gain.

Have you ever noticed that many reproduction parts need GM permission to reproduce even if they no longer make them? They get royalties on many items.

Unless your in the black market or China.

Plus the original poster had no issues with the question and did not mind explaining why.  In fact he gave an interesting response.

But you would have to wonder about the Delco name. That name stayed with AC Delco and did not stay with Delphi (Delco Remy) for more than 10 years. GM gave Delphi only a 10 year license to use the name. So that's why Delphi does not care. But how about AC Delco?

The Freedom Battery name may not matter, but the Delco might.

[tz6p06]

We have actually been in contact with the company in California who handles the reproduction parts.  I didnt want to start any arguments here, any questions are welcome no matter what it is.

Why bring it up?

It's illegal to use the trademarked or patented property of another entity for your commercial gain.

Have you ever noticed that many reproduction parts need GM permission to reproduce even if they no longer make them? They get royalties on many items.

Unless your in the black market or China.

Plus the original poster had no issues with the question and did not mind explaining why.  In fact he gave an interesting response.

But you would have to wonder about the Delco name. That name stayed with AC Delco and did not stay with Delphi (Delco Remy) for more than 10 years. GM gave Delphi only a 10 year license to use the name. So that's why Delphi does not care. But how about AC Delco?

The Freedom Battery name may not matter, but the Delco might.

[Bobby B]

Why bring it up?
It's illegal to use the trademarked or patented property of another entity for your commercial gain.

The point of my post....If something doesn't affect you directly, personally, or cause you any form of grief...Why would you rain on someone else's parade and ask legal questions. If there's an issue with something that SOMEONE else is doing, then that's their problem, not yours. Not trying to be  a BB, but I learned at an early age to mind my own business. Keeps you out of trouble. Unless you're an attorney  ......
                                                                                       Bobby

[gkhashem]

I guess your OK with it. Your opinion is noted but that does not make it right.

Here is an example of what can happen if your not licensed. Companies will protect all infringements and cannot pick and chose as a matter of policy to protect themselves against all infringements.

An example of such a warning

Re: Unauthorized Use of General Motors Trademarks

I have been advised that you are using Chevrolet Motor Divisions Corvette logo in connection with your web site. Attached, as evidence of your use is a copy of your web pages displaying your use. I have highlighted the specific logos for easy identification and to avoid any confusion.

The Chevrolet CORVETTE logo is a registered trademark of General Motors Corporation. Only authorized dealers and trademark licensees are permitted to use this trademark. You are not authorized to use this mark in connection with your web site. Your display and use of this trademark creates the false impression that your business is endorsed or authorized by, or somehow affiliated with General Motors or Chevrolet Motor Division.

This is to advise you that your use of this General Motors trademark constitutes trademark infringement and is deceptive toward the public. I must insist that you immediately discontinue using this trademark and refrain from making any other representation which implies you are endorsed or authorized by General Motors to conduct business.

Please advise me in writing within 21 days from receipt of this letter that you will discontinue using General Motors trademarks and comply with my requests.

Sincerely,

Shaun Lacher

Trademark Infringement Manager

Attachment

Certified Mail

[Bob Hoffmann CLC#96]

The point of my post....If something doesn't affect you directly, personally, or cause you any form of grief...Why would you rain on someone else's parade and ask legal questions. If there's an issue with something that SOMEONE else is doing, then that's their problem, not yours. Not trying to be  a BB, but I learned at an early age to mind my own business. Keeps you out of trouble. Unless you're an attorney  ......
                                                                                       Bobby

Bobby,
I AGREE!!! I don't think we need Mr. Hashem or anyone else to be the self-appointed legal advisor for this board.
Bob

[Glen]

Well, yes and no.  If someone is infringing on a trade mark they may not be aware that it could get them in trouble.  A friendly question would be in order to keep them out of trouble.  After all we are all friends here, right? 

[gkhashem]

Thank you Glen, I just asked a question. It was not meant to be rude, mean or any kind of self appointed anything.

If someone is mugging someone on the street we should just keep on walking I guess, no sense in being involved. Keep your head down.

I remember the  penitential prayer, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do  The key here is what I have failed to do, you are just as culpable as the person doing the improper thing.

The original poster here politely answered my question.

I will now politely leave the comments to others here.

[Cadillac Nut]

 These are beautifully done.    And they aren't infringing on anyone's precious trademark, so why keep bickering?  He's doing you guys a service by posting these here. 

[D.Smith]

Well, yes and no.  If someone is infringing on a trade mark they may not be aware that it could get them in trouble.  A friendly question would be in order to keep them out of trouble.  After all we are all friends here, right?

Oooo I know so very well!    A dealer I worked with was having floor mats made with their dealership name stamped on the heal pad.  So a free set of mats given out to a new/used car buyer became an advertising item.     Well, a visiting GM rep saw them and turned us in and we got a nasty letter from the licensing dept for having the car brand name on the mat.    So even though it was the dealerships name, ie:   "John Does Cadillac of Anytown"  they said no way.    Unless a huge licensing fee was paid.      I wrote to them and asked how this was different from buying decals for the cars trunk with the dealers name?  They said it was "merchandising" and violated the copyright license.   Can't fight corporate so we gave in. 

In this case if just a few are being made for friends and club members I don't see it being an issue.      But once you go public with an Ebay ad you might attract attention to the GM logo police.       

You'd be shocked to see that GM has copyrighted all the old names.     So before you guys get all defensive with MYOB comments, George was trying to give you a heads up to be careful.        Bloodsucking lawyers have nothing better to do than justify their billing to corporate. 

I love the covers by the way.    I sent links to all my friends who own cars they may be appropriate for.     I hope you can continue to provide them for car guys even if it means keeping a low profile thru club forums like these.   

[jsanford]

I got my topper from Dave. Great quality!

Regardless of whether he is going to get a cease and desist letter from GM Legal in the future, the topper is available now and you can still get one now. If you buy one of these toppers GM is not going to chase you down, let Dave worry about GM.

Caveat: the topper was made to fit a Group 78 battery, which is dimensionally bigger than what was originally in 1980 and up Cadillacs.

Jeremy

[Barry M Wheeler #2189]

Years and years ago (maybe about 50) I noted that the next calendar year matched the dates and days for 1941. It was way before the internet so I don't even know where I got the information. I had just obtained a small 1941 catalog and thought that it might be cool to make a calendar using the art for each Series from the catalog. I also had an old Cars and Parts that showed the whole lineup, so with the friendly "grin" front view and the open cars, I'd have enough pictures for a whole year. This was way before cheap color copying showed up so I was planning to use buff colored paper and sepia toned ink for a classy look.

I had a Kinko type copy place print everything up, borrowed a cutter for the spine rings and assembled everything. I placed an ad in the S/S and sold a fair amount of them. I confess that I was aware that some intern had most likely renewed the copyright on that catalog for GM, and lost some sleep now and then for a couple of years, wondering if I'd be taken to task for my small commercial venture.

I also remember taking some catalog material to Kinkos some time after that for a S/S article and had to sign a paper affirming that I was not going to use the material for any project that would benefit me financially, or they could/would not make the copies.

Of course nowadays, with cheap color printing, you can copy things to your hearts content. Just don't try to sell the stuff.

[Glen]

If my memory serves me correctly, many years ago there was a lot of manufacturers producing many automotive parts no longer made by the original manufactures.  The parts were made to be as close to original as possible for obvious reasons.  They included original logos and part numbers.  Visually indistinguishable from original. 
I don’t recall hearing what triggered it but suddenly all three manufacturers descended on these little manufacturers for copyright infringement shutting them down.  But think of something like a pitman arm that breaks and the lawsuit that follows. Because the part had the logos etc. the big manufacturer was the one being sued.  But analysis of the broken part showed it was a counterfeit. Hence the raid on the “counterfeiters”. 
The ensuing reaction from the old car hobby from the loss of the parts sources convinced the big manufactures to allow the little guys to continue to make the reproduction parts under license if they made them according to the original specs.  That’s actually a good thing for us. 

Another side to this issue is something called “adverse possession”.  The most common form of this is someone using a portion of land for a set amount of time (I’ve heard something like seven years) without paying rent or opposition from the property owner.  That person can then take legal ownership of the land. So, if someone uses a logo for a long time without the owner objecting can they then get legal use of that logo? 
Things corporate lawyers are paid to worry about.  So consider that when thinking about the big manufactures and their efforts to control the use of their logos etc.   

[Jon S]

I made this topper 3 years ago myself: