Jump to content
William Maley

Dodge News: Resurrection of the Scat Pack Has Chrysler Embroiled In A Trademark Dispute

Recommended Posts

With Dodge bringing back the Scat Pack packages for a number of their models, it has also brought back a dispute that dates back to 1968.

Automotive News reports that Chrysler is being sued by Scat Enterprises Inc., for infringing on their 50-year-old 'Scat' trademark. The suit revives a dispute between the two companies that dates back to 1968.

In 1968, Dodge started using the Scat Pack name on a number of their models. That same year, Scat Enterprises, a company that makes performance parts for a number of automakers including Dodge, sent a cease-and-desist letter to make Dodge stop using the name. Three years on, Dodge would stop using the name.

Jump ahead to August 2013 when Chrysler tried to apply for the Scat Pack trademark at U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The request was denied, but the automaker went ahead and revealed the Scat Pack models at the SEMA show that year.

In the suit, Scat Enterprises is asking the court to prohibit Chrysler from using the Scat; for the automaker to deliver all of the Dodge Scat Pack marketing materials, badges and other items for destruction; and monetary damages.

The brand has remained legendary in the enthusiast community since then and consumers still associate Scat Pack™ with Chrysler's vehicles, and no other business or products. Scat Enterprises, an aftermarket supplier of crankshafts, connecting rods, and rotating assemblies marketing under the term "Scat", has never used the term "Scat Pack". Scat Enterprises' lawsuit against Chrysler over Chrysler's 2014-15 Scat Pack™ vehicles is a meritless and opportunistic attempt to hold Chrysler hostage just days before the upcoming SEMA show. Chrysler will vigorously defend itself against this attack and look to enforce its own rights in this moniker," Chrysler said in a statement.

Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

illiam Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.com or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.


View full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this Scat company has trade marked Scat Pack, then I can agree with them that they have this covered, but if all they have is Scat trademarked, then they need to wake up and move on as they had more than enough time to trademark all versions of Scat.

 

Be interesting to see what happens, but my gut tells me Chrysler will win this round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chrysler should just buy out Scat Enterprises, stat.  This trademark suit seems rather weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, their web site http://scatenterprises.com/ seems to have just recently been setup. Most links go nowhere or to a blank page. My gut tells me this is a move by the son's of the founding father to get a pay day and get out of the crank business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 41 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online



  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      The tweet that has become Elon Musk's version of Pandora's Box has brought forth a lawsuit from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Today, the SEC accused Musk of securities fraud when he tweeted that he had the funding secured to take Tesla private back in August.
      "Musk knew or was reckless in not knowing that each of these statements was false and/or misleading because he did not have an adequate basis in fact for his assertions," the SEC wrote in a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court today. 
      "Musk's false and misleading public statements and omissions caused significant confusion and disruption in the market for Tesla's stock and resulting harm to investors."
      In the complaint, the SEC says the $420 share price was "based on a 20% premium over that day's closing share price because he thought 20% was a 'standard premium' in going-private transactions." 
      At the time, that price would have been $419. The complaint goes on to say "Musk stated that he rounded the price up to $420 because he had recently learned about the number's significance in marijuana culture and thought his girlfriend 'would find it funny, which admittedly is not a great reason to pick a price.'"
      The SEC is requesting Musk "be prohibited from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act."
      This whole mess began on August 7th with Musk tweeting this,
      This surprised a number of people and brought forth questions as to who would provide the large amount of funding needed for this. About a week later, Musk revealed that Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) could provide the necessary funding. This was based on discussions with the fund within the past couple of years. But Musk would pull the plug on this a few weeks after announcing it.
      "Although the majority of shareholders I spoke to said they would remain with Tesla if we went private, the sentiment, in a nutshell, was ‘please don’t do this,” Musk wrote in a blog post.
      According to Bloomberg, the SEC was already investigating Tesla for various issues including projection into car sales before Musk made the tweet that brought forth a number of problems. 
      “This unjustified action by the SEC leaves me deeply saddened and disappointed. I have always taken action in the best interests of truth, transparency and investors. Integrity is the most important value in my life and the facts will show I never compromised this in any way,” said Musk in a statement.
      "Neither celebrity status nor a reputation as a technological innovator provide an exemption from the federal securities laws," Stephanie Avakian, co-director of the SEC's Enforcement Division said during a press conference.
      Source: Bloomberg (Subscription Required), Roadshow, SEC (Link to the complaint)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      The tweet that has become Elon Musk's version of Pandora's Box has brought forth a lawsuit from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Today, the SEC accused Musk of securities fraud when he tweeted that he had the funding secured to take Tesla private back in August.
      "Musk knew or was reckless in not knowing that each of these statements was false and/or misleading because he did not have an adequate basis in fact for his assertions," the SEC wrote in a complaint filed in Manhattan federal court today. 
      "Musk's false and misleading public statements and omissions caused significant confusion and disruption in the market for Tesla's stock and resulting harm to investors."
      In the complaint, the SEC says the $420 share price was "based on a 20% premium over that day's closing share price because he thought 20% was a 'standard premium' in going-private transactions." 
      At the time, that price would have been $419. The complaint goes on to say "Musk stated that he rounded the price up to $420 because he had recently learned about the number's significance in marijuana culture and thought his girlfriend 'would find it funny, which admittedly is not a great reason to pick a price.'"
      The SEC is requesting Musk "be prohibited from acting as an officer or director of any issuer that has a class of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 of the Exchange Act."
      This whole mess began on August 7th with Musk tweeting this,
      This surprised a number of people and brought forth questions as to who would provide the large amount of funding needed for this. About a week later, Musk revealed that Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) could provide the necessary funding. This was based on discussions with the fund within the past couple of years. But Musk would pull the plug on this a few weeks after announcing it.
      "Although the majority of shareholders I spoke to said they would remain with Tesla if we went private, the sentiment, in a nutshell, was ‘please don’t do this,” Musk wrote in a blog post.
      According to Bloomberg, the SEC was already investigating Tesla for various issues including projection into car sales before Musk made the tweet that brought forth a number of problems. 
      “This unjustified action by the SEC leaves me deeply saddened and disappointed. I have always taken action in the best interests of truth, transparency and investors. Integrity is the most important value in my life and the facts will show I never compromised this in any way,” said Musk in a statement.
      "Neither celebrity status nor a reputation as a technological innovator provide an exemption from the federal securities laws," Stephanie Avakian, co-director of the SEC's Enforcement Division said during a press conference.
      Source: Bloomberg (Subscription Required), Roadshow, SEC (Link to the complaint)
    • By William Maley
      The past month has been quite strenuous on the relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California. Back in April, EPA chief Scott Pruitt announced they would be rolling back the fuel-efficiency regulations set towards the end of President Obama's tenure. The EPA also announced that it was considering revoking California's waiver to set their own emission standards. A few days later, we reported that the officials from the White House, California, and automakers were trying to work out a possible emissions deal to prevent a legal fight. It seems those talks went nowhere as California along with sixteen other states and the District of Columbia have filed suit challenging the rollback.
      On Tuesday, the collation led by California filed a suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the rollback. This group makes up 40 percent of the U.S. auto market.
      "The states joining today's lawsuit represent 140 million people who simply want cleaner and more efficient cars. This phalanx of states will defend the nation's clean car standards to boost gas mileage and curb toxic air pollution," said California Governor Jerry Brown in a statement.
      The suit alleges that the EPA decision to roll back the regulation lacked any scientific reason. The EPA is also accused of failing to follow its own regulations and violating the Clean Air Act.
      “This is California saying: You really want war? We’ll give you war. It’s a signal to the administration that they’re not going to get away with anything in this space,” said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign to the New York Times.
      According to Reuters, the Department of Transportation has a draft proposal of the changes that is expected to be released to the public later this month. The draft would freeze emission requirements for vehicles at 2020 levels through 2026. The draft also asserts that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 bars California from imposing their own rules, even with the waiver. This proposal has already earned the ire of the public and various members of the U.S. Senate. One Senator, Tom Carper, D-Delaware obtained a copy of the proposal and sent a scathing letter to Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao and Pruitt. 
      “Such a proposal, if finalized, would harm U.S. national and economic security, undermine efforts to combat global warming pollution, create regulatory and manufacturing uncertainty for the automobile industry and unnecessary litigation, increase the amount of gasoline consumers would have to buy, and runs counter to statements that both of you have made to Members of Congress,” wrote Carper.
      There is a lot riding on this suit as it could possibly cause the U.S. to have two different emission regulations and automakers having to meet both of them.
      "Enough is enough. We're not looking to pick a fight with the Trump administration, but when the stakes are this high for our families' health and our economic prosperity, we have a responsibility to do what is necessary to defend them,"  said Xavier Becerra, California state attorney general. 
      Yesterday, the White House announced that it will be meeting with leaders of the major automakers next week. The meeting will be talking about the planned changes to the fuel efficiency rules. It is expected that automakers will be trying to push the Trump administration and California to agree to a national standard.
      Source: New York Times, Roadshow, Reuters, (2), U.S. Senate (Carper's Letter)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      The past month has been quite strenuous on the relationship between the Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California. Back in April, EPA chief Scott Pruitt announced they would be rolling back the fuel-efficiency regulations set towards the end of President Obama's tenure. The EPA also announced that it was considering revoking California's waiver to set their own emission standards. A few days later, we reported that the officials from the White House, California, and automakers were trying to work out a possible emissions deal to prevent a legal fight. It seems those talks went nowhere as California along with sixteen other states and the District of Columbia have filed suit challenging the rollback.
      On Tuesday, the collation led by California filed a suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia challenging the rollback. This group makes up 40 percent of the U.S. auto market.
      "The states joining today's lawsuit represent 140 million people who simply want cleaner and more efficient cars. This phalanx of states will defend the nation's clean car standards to boost gas mileage and curb toxic air pollution," said California Governor Jerry Brown in a statement.
      The suit alleges that the EPA decision to roll back the regulation lacked any scientific reason. The EPA is also accused of failing to follow its own regulations and violating the Clean Air Act.
      “This is California saying: You really want war? We’ll give you war. It’s a signal to the administration that they’re not going to get away with anything in this space,” said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign to the New York Times.
      According to Reuters, the Department of Transportation has a draft proposal of the changes that is expected to be released to the public later this month. The draft would freeze emission requirements for vehicles at 2020 levels through 2026. The draft also asserts that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 bars California from imposing their own rules, even with the waiver. This proposal has already earned the ire of the public and various members of the U.S. Senate. One Senator, Tom Carper, D-Delaware obtained a copy of the proposal and sent a scathing letter to Transportation Secretary Elaine L. Chao and Pruitt. 
      “Such a proposal, if finalized, would harm U.S. national and economic security, undermine efforts to combat global warming pollution, create regulatory and manufacturing uncertainty for the automobile industry and unnecessary litigation, increase the amount of gasoline consumers would have to buy, and runs counter to statements that both of you have made to Members of Congress,” wrote Carper.
      There is a lot riding on this suit as it could possibly cause the U.S. to have two different emission regulations and automakers having to meet both of them.
      "Enough is enough. We're not looking to pick a fight with the Trump administration, but when the stakes are this high for our families' health and our economic prosperity, we have a responsibility to do what is necessary to defend them,"  said Xavier Becerra, California state attorney general. 
      Yesterday, the White House announced that it will be meeting with leaders of the major automakers next week. The meeting will be talking about the planned changes to the fuel efficiency rules. It is expected that automakers will be trying to push the Trump administration and California to agree to a national standard.
      Source: New York Times, Roadshow, Reuters, (2), U.S. Senate (Carper's Letter)
    • By William Maley
      FCA US Reports June 2018 Sales
      FCA reports best June retail sales in 14 years Jeep® brand reports its best month of June sales ever, up 19 percent Ram Truck brand posts best June sales ever, up 6 percent Jeep Cherokee reports best month of sales ever, up 89 percent July 3, 2018 , Auburn Hills, Mich. - FCA US LLC today reported June 2018 sales of 202,264 vehicles, an 8 percent increase compared with sales in June 2017 of 187,348 vehicles.
       
      Overall sales were bolstered by both the Jeep® and Ram Truck brands, which reported significant increases for the month. FCA retail sales came in at 155,208, marking the best June sales since 2004 when sales reached 155,663 vehicles. Fleet accounted for 23 percent of total sales, a 1 percent decline from the previous year.
       
      Jeep Brand
      Jeep brand notched its best month of June sales ever with 86,989 vehicles sold compared with 73,153 in June 2017. Driving the results were the Cherokee, Compass and Wrangler nameplates. Cherokee and Compass sales nearly doubled, with Cherokee reporting 22,433 vehicle sales compared with 11,895 in June 2017. Compass sales were 15,142 compared with 8,311 in June 2017. Wrangler sales increased to 23,110 vehicles compared with 18,839 in June 2017.
       
      Ram Truck Brand
      Ram Truck brand scored a variety of records as sales increased 6 percent to 51,729 vehicles, making it the best June sales ever. Ram brand retail sales also had their best June ever, rising 4 percent to 36,750. Driving the increase was Light-Duty pickup truck retail sales, which rose 11 percent to 24,036 vehicles. Total sales of the Ram ProMaster van nearly doubled to 6,996 vehicles.  
       
      Chrysler Brand
      Chrysler brand total sales declined 32 percent in June to 13,484 vehicles compared with June of the previous year.
       
      Dodge Brand
      Dodge brand total sales rose 9 percent to 46,387 as Charger sales rose 4 percent to 6,640 vehicles compared with 6,379 vehicles in June 2017.    
       
      FIAT Brand
      Sales of Fiat declined 36 percent to 1,426 vehicles. 
       
      Alfa Romeo Brand
      Alfa Romeo brand sales of 2,249 vehicles were up significantly compared with the same month a year ago. Stelvio led the brand with 1,231 vehicle sales, followed by Giulia at 979 vehicles. 

  • My Clubs

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×