The biggest issue with this is when a company or individual takes a design from someone or a company that has trademarked that design and they begin to sell replicas and profit from that trademarked design. It is interesting that many people will think; oh it is no big deal, but when you have engineers and designers that have spent countless hours developing, testing, and tooling, along with the financial investment of creating that product, brand etc. If most of you spent your own money on developing that design you all would be pleased to have the courts judge in your favor that any replicas of your product are to be destroyed! BRABUS dealt with this when we introduced the BRABUS Monoblock 6 back in 2001, that wheel was knocked off and copied by so many different wheel companies that it killed the wheel, and now more than 10yrs later all those copy companies are gone and customers call us trying to match replacements or get warranty on the paint finish, then you discover they have a copy and they get mad at us like it is our fault that they bought fake product. To protect a brand and it's product this is why it is important to secure and preserve the originals!

 

Replica's suck period. Every swinging dick with a superformance Cobra etc thinks they have a gold mine on their hands.

 

everyone is making good points, but back when the beetle was introduced a number of companies took the chassis and built a new shell. As far as I'm aware VW never made an issue with them using their chassis. and in auto racing back in the bad a number of companies used the shells of various prototype racecars that people wanted to see on the street and so these companies recreated them to be driven on the street. So then how is that any diffrent?

@ Powerhouse, you say replicas suck yet theres a company down under (SL-C by Rapier Automotive)that produces a "kitcar" and it has taken a number of track records and out raced track driven mustangs and various others. So Kitcars and replicas can be just as good as any sports car if not better, with the right parts and knowledge.

 

If the original mfg does not approve another company's project based off of one of its designs then it's not ok. PERIOD. Doesn't matter to what standards the replica is built to.
The time, talent money used to make a forgery should be spent building a original design vehicle. IMO all of these are disgraces due to fraud. http://motors.shop.ebay.com/i.html?_...506.m270.l1313

 

So, how do we feel about this car: https://teamspeed.com/forums/porsche...4-carrera.html

Or this one: https://teamspeed.com/forums/porsche...ger-911-a.html

I've already said how I feel about the Superformance GT40. I guess I'm just wondering why I (and many others) can appreciate replicars like the above ones I listed, and still have such disdain for cheap knock offs. My thinking is that those cars (above) are 'tribute' cars, but the replicas are trying to pretend they're authentic, or (as in Greg's ebay listing) blatantly poor wannabes.

Maybe Greg's comments are spot on and that's really the test, if the original manufacturer doesn't approve, neither should we. So, how does Porsche feel about the Singer and Gullwing America?

 

And how about the vemon GT, awesome car to begin with, but how does Lotus feel about them using the body of the Exile (or Elise) but calling it something completely diffrent. Ok it not a replica, but still....

 

Just to explain a little deeper, to me the cobra CSX continuation series since they are Shelby approved don't bother me. Superformance doesn't have ford or Shelby approval that I know of( correct me if I'm wrong). Although they are amazing quality cars they are still not legit in my mind. I'm not sure if Hennessy received lotus approval to use their cars as donor cars. Rebodies such as 250 gto tributes, p4/5c,various old Porsches are where the gray area really is. They are not approved by the factory, but is a ferrari pretending to be another ferrari not still a Ferrari? Lol