Packard Forum Index » General

"I own one of these and get many compliments when I drive it.
On the ownership of the Packard name, The Packard Club claims to own it, the guy in Arizona who was going to build a new Packard claimed he owned it, not I see someone says Bayliff owns it.

In my opinion it is in the public domain by now so nobody owns it an everybody can use it. Nobody has sued anybody and won but there has been a lot of noise. Time will tell."



Bayliff purchased the name and sold it to Gullickson years later with the condition that Bayliff can use it whenever he wants to build a new "creation". The Packard name is not in the public domain. Gullickson paid big bucks to purchase it.

I have spoken with Bud Bayliff on a couple of occassions.

Linc400, I'm not sure that's the correct or complete story about the trademarks, though there was a lot of stuff flying back and forth in the day - it's what I was referring to in my response to the Gullickson situation when I said "better left unsaid". There were many Packard trademarks, not just the word Packard or Packard Motor Car Company. PAC is quite specific about which ones they own, as was Gullickson about which ones he owned.

PAC shows by photograph in their quarterly publication the ones they claim to own, and have licensed them at no cost to various uses included PackardInfo.com.

I wonder who Gullickson paid to get the name? Studebaker-Packard became Studebaker-Worthington became Worthington Industries. It was a NJ Corp. In about 1974 we had a lawyer do a search and he found nothing. We then incorporated "Packard Industries" in NJ.

I think Gullickson's claim that he paid "big bucks" is worthy of verification.

Fred: What would surprise me would be that S-W or Worthington even bothered to maintain the trademarks. It's difficult to think they would have considered them high-value corporate assets.

I'll bet you remember the "Scotch" tape trademark case were ultimately 3M lost the rights to the trademark because they failed to agressively enforce those rights against competitors.

Quote:

How come? I think the "Gullickson" Packard was a worthy effort. At least it is not a gussied up version of another make. Although I've never seen it closeup, I think the photos show a tasteful design, with what seems to be a nod to Tucker on the side treatments.

I think there might be some confusion here with the Tucker engine, which was an aircraft design used in helicopters. The V-12 in the "Gullickson" car is based on a GM block, IIRC. I don't know for sure, except that it has an automotive heritage.

Quote:

I agree pursing that might clear up some of the controversy.

"In the eye of the beholder" certainly applies to re-bop cars, which never carry the same cachet as the factory originals. Sorry if I offended you, Fred. Maybe some color photos or in-person views would show it in a better light.


(BTW 3M lost the "Scotch" Trademark rights to the brand name (different from a company name) because they let it lapse into the public domain. "Aggressive enforcement" was not necessary-- just correctly specifying in all uses that "Scotch" was a "brand" of adhesive tape was required to retain the rights to exclusive usage on their products. Of course, it's still a valuable brand for them. Who wants to go up against deep-pockets 3M?

Kleenex, Aspirin, and some other notables have fallen into this "generic" category. Sometimes being too successful, and not watching the store, can become a painful experience.)

My comment about things "best left unsaid" was referring to the trademark business, not the engine. Sorry for the confusion. There is no secret about the source of the Gullickson engine, I believe it was even stated in some of his promotional material - I just forget it for the moment but it's a matter of public record, dig and you'll find it -I believe it was built by Falcon (maker of engines for French Dassault jet fighters) or something like that. I'm certain it did NOT have an automotive heritage. If I have time in the next few days I'll get the info. It was not in any way connected with the Tucker engine which was a helicopter engine converted to liquid cooling.

I don't think the Gullickson was a bad-looking car considering the general styling of the era in which it was conceived and built.

As to loosing a trademark, I think you might check with a trademark attorney - if you allow others to infringe your trademark (as 3M apparently did) and do not take action to protect it, you risk loosing your trademark protection and THEN it falls into the public domain. It fell into the public domain because 3M failed to take the steps against infringers.

Nobody has offended me by saying they don't like the Bayliff model based on the Caddy Brougham, but my car started leaking a clear salty fluid form the headlights las week. There are others based on small Buicks etc that I think are not as nice (I'm being polite). But someone bought them new, so to each his own.

Based on our attorney's search in the '70's, I believe Worthington dropped the Packard trademark. So just who did Gullickson pay big bucks to?? Without any proof, just a feeling, he didn't pay anybody anything because nobody owned it. He sent letters to us with big threats of legal action and did nothing.

His car looked like a '73 Pontiac Grand Am 4 door. The entire project was unfeasible from day 1, to get the V12 federally certified would cost many many millions.

To see a fantastically designed revival car, google the "Corvette 789" www.n2amotors.com

Then there's this "Bugatti"!

Well, I was close (but no cigar). The source of the engine in Gullickson's creation wasn't Falcon but Ryan-Falconer, and it was initially designed for marine & aviation use but apparently found some favor with the hot rod crowd.

According to the following article from Forbes Magazine, Gullickson bought the trademark rights from Bayliff which agrees with Linc400's earlier comment. Price apparently was $50,000.

forbes.com/global/2000/0207/0303060a.html

Quote:

Thanks for your response, Owen. I think reflects almost exactly what I said. The mostimportant factor is to use the trademark correctly, particularly using it as a NOUN in promotions instead of an adjective. "Buy some Kleenex brand tissues today" rather than just "Buy some Kleenex today." Then, if another manufacturer starts using it to describe their product, you've got a case to take to court. If you let improper use by others go on too long and the public in general starts to recognize any paper facial tissue as "Kleenex," it's time to get out your Kleenx, 'cause you'll lose. (Also the proper "TM" or "R" symbol must be used, the process to get a TM transformed into an "R" is way too much information.)

If you think I've got this wrong, feel free to think differently!

I think this might add a bit to the discussion of the Packard name, and what its legal status may be now. But remember, it's not really a brand name, but a manufacturers name, which is a differnt kind of animal.