By: Emmy Foltz
Ford has taken another recent step to protect its trademarks by suing Georgia-based Vintage Modern Inc., which previously operated under the name Vintage Broncos, in the Northern District of Georgia.[1] This case reemphasizes how prevalent zombie trademarks are and how much power vintage trends and nostalgia have on consumers.[2] A zombie trademark is a trademark that a new owner uses after the original owner has unquestionably abandoned it both legally and factually.[3] One of the most common ways a company abandons a trademark is through nonuse; if a company does not use a trademark for three consecutive years, courts will presume the company has abandoned the mark.[4] Alternatively, a trademark registrant could abandon a trademark if he or she fails to respond to an office action issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).[5] Although the USPTO does offer the opportunity for the applicant to remedy the issue in a timely fashion, zombie trademarks still remain.[6]
Vintage Modern is a company that claims no affiliation with any other car brand, including Ford, and advertises its ability to transform modern cars into classic-looking vehicles.[7] To the average consumer, the body of a Vintage Modern car looks like a Ford Bronco, with the ‘Vintage’ name sitting where Ford usually puts its logo.[8] The Vintage Modern cars, which retail for approximately $200,000 to $400,000, have their own updated features and safety measures, and its website features the slogan “The World’s Only Fully Modernized Classic with Safety Features.”[9] In the complaint from the Ford suit, Vintage Modern argues that Ford has abandoned its rights in several Bronco marks because it stopped selling the SUVs between 1996 and 2020, but Ford believes otherwise.[10] Additionally, Ford released a modernized version of their Ford Bronco a few years ago, which has repopularized the vintage car for a new generation of Ford drivers.[11] Ford is suing Vintage Modern for trademark infringement, false advertising, unfair competition, and other claims, arguing it wants to protect consumer and public safety.[12] Ford argues that Vintage’s “calculated actions implicate significant safety and false advertising concerns” that are likely to cause confusion in the marketplace between the Vintage and Ford cars, potentially harming the reputation and goodwill of Ford’s consumers.[13]
Ford also took additional steps to protect its trademarks recently; in October 2024, it stopped YouTuber TJ Hunt from producing a Mustang body kit that looked like the ultra-premium Mustang GTD.[14] Ford likely recognizes that if it does not take these actions, many users may try to infringe upon their many marks, including the recognizability of their iconic Ford Bronco design. Unfortunately, Ford likely cannot invoke the First Sale Doctrine, a defense that protects against trademark infringement in the resale market, because, first, Vintage Modern is not reselling a Ford car.[15] Further, even if Vintage were reselling a Ford car, the First Sale Doctrine may no longer be a defense if the goods are altered in a way that confuses the buyer, such as through safety measures and customizations that affect the goods’ quality or damage the reputation of the trademark owner.[16] From a marketing lens, professionals have shown that nostalgia is one of the most effective marketing techniques, and valuable trademark owners understand this power and will likely continue to fight to keep previous versions of their trademarks alive.[17]
The new Ford case is not the first time that a notable automobile producer has sued a “smaller” company for trademark infringement of their iconic designs.[18] In 1991, Ferrari sued Carl Roberts for manufacturing and selling fiberglass kits that “replicated the exterior of the exclusive Ferrari Daytona Spyder and Testarossa” cars, which Ferrari no longer sold at the time.[19] The Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of Ferrari, citing that a party need not prove customer confusion at the point of sale to sue for trademark infringement, as the overall appearance of the kit, which attempted to copy the Ferrari design, was enough to achieve secondary meaning in the market.[20]
If the court rules in favor of the major car brand Ford, as the court ruled in Ferrari, vintage brands, even those who operate in a luxury market that want to transform or promote iconic vintage designs, could face severe limitations due to their inability to afford litigation costs or the need to drastically alter their business models. If the court rules in favor of Vintage Modern, vintage resellers will have more freedom to capitalize upon consumer nostalgia.[21] The trend towards vintage will likely not slow down, so if brands like Ford want to protect a vintage trademark, the company may need to act or keep that mark alive.[22] Brands like Vintage Modern will need to differentiate themselves in the market, and even if they are inspired by another brand, they will need to signal their difference to consumers to avoid becoming entangled in the actions of powerful trademark owners.[23]
[1] See Ivan Moreno, Ford Bronco TM Suit Looks Under Hood of Vintage Market, Law360 (Mar. 14, 2025, 8:10 PM), https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/2311116/ford-bronco-tm-suit-looks-under-hood-of-vintage-market?spotlight=
[2] See id. (explaining how this case “raises questions about how far businesses can go under the law in seeking demand for notalgi[c products].”).
[3] See Jerome Gilson & Anne Gilson LaLonde, The Zombie Trademark: A Windfall and a Pitfall, 98 Trademark Rep. 1280, 1280 (2008).
[4] 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (“Nonuse for 3 consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment.”).
[5] See Reviving an Abandoned Application, U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off. (last visited Mar. 29, 2025), https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/apply/reviving-abandoned-application.
[6] See id.
[7] See Home, Vintage Mod., https://vintagemodern.co/ (last visited Mar. 29, 2025).
[8] See id.
[9] See Inventory, Vintage Mod., https://vintagemodern.co/ (last visited Mar. 29, 2025).
[10] See Complaint at 26, Ford Motor Co. v. Vintage Modern, Inc. et. al., No. 1:24-cv-4988-WMR (N.D. Ga. filed Jan. 31, 2025) [hereinafter Ford Complaint].
[11] Explore the Evolution of the Iconic Ford Bronco: A Model Timeline, Ford of Cookeville (Mar. 8, 2024), https://tinyurl.com/ydsp35nn.
[12] See Ford Complaint at 2.
[13] See Moreno, supra note 1.
[14] See Ronan Glon, Mustang GTD Lookalike Banned from SEMA at Ford’s Urging, Hagerty (Nov. 8, 2024), https://www.hagerty.com/media/news/tj-hunt-wide-body-ford-mustang-banned-from-sema/ (explaining how Hunt received an email from SEMA that Ford formally complained to the board and banned his mustang from the SEMA car show).
[15] See Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359, 367 (1924) (establishing the First Sale Doctrine regarding a dispute involving adulterated Coty toilet powder and perfume).
[16] See id; First Sale Doctrine in Trademark and Copyright Law, BonaLaw (Apr. 16, 2021), https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/first-sale-doctrine-in-trademark-and-copyright-law.
[17] See, e.g., Lauren Friedman, Why Nostalgia Marketing Works So Well with Millennials, And How Your Brand Can Benefit, Forbes (Aug. 2, 2016, 4:14 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurenfriedman/2016/08/02/why-nostalgia-marketing-works-so-well-with-millennials-and-how-your-brand-can-benefit/ (explaining how nostalgia marketing ‘strikes a[n effective] chord’ with millennials in the age of digital media); Adam Garson, The Power of Nostalgia Marketing, Garson L. (Jan. 9, 2025), https://garson-law.com/the-power-of-nostalgia-marketing/.
[18] See Ferrari S.P.A v. Roberts, 944 F.2d 1235, 1236, 1238 (6th Cir. 1991) (explaining how the kit is a “one-piece body shell molded from reinforced fiberglass” that is then “bolted to another [less expensive] automobile such as a Chevorlet Corvette or Pontiac Fiero.”).
[19] See id.
[20] See id. at 1240.
[21] See Friedman, supra note 17; Moreno, supra note 1.
[22] See Moreno, supra note 1.
[23] See id.
