P-51 - who currently owns rights?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Flyboy, I think you make some valid points about whether or not an "unathorized" use of a trademark is used in a commercial application to make money. I'd be shocked if Boeing went after private citizens or non-profits who restored or built replicas of planes an called them "P-51 Mustangs". But what if they add a seat and charge $1500 a pop for rides in their "Mustang"? Or rent their plane out to a movie company making a WW2 movie? I'm also not sure it matters that the USAAF or RAF, not North American, actually gave the plane its names "P-51" or "Mustang". That didn't stop Northrop-Grumman from making Ubisoft/IC Maddox penny up for calling a bunch of pixels the USN designation "F4F"" in their sim.
 

Actually that activity is governed by the FAA and is based on how the aircraft is built, equipment installed and where and when it is flown. Again to have some corporate lawyer trying to sick his fangs into "aircraft operations" based on a trademark is opening up another can of worms and may infringe in an area where the Feds have exclusive control.
 
There was a company in Chino building P-51 "kits" that were brand new P-51s built from the original plans. I can't recall the name off the top of my head at the moment, but they had the capability of having 2 seats. If you do a google search of "P-51 replica" you will find there are quite a few companies building replicas, calling them P-51 Mustangs.
 
I believe Flugwerk calls thier version of the the Mustang the "Palomino". It would be interesting to contact them and ask "why not Mustang?". They can only be registered as experimental in the US and parts cannot be interchanged with Limited category P-51s. The C model is a good example of recent restorations based on a data plate and a few parts.

jim
 

But can with experimental category aircraft.
 

Actually I think you missed (or wanted to miss) the point I was making. Of course only the FAA regulates the construction and use of historic replica aircraft. But the FAA probably doesn't care what I call my P-51 replica as long as it is appropriately certified as airworthyt for whatever uses I plan for it. On the other hand, Boeing, who apparently owns the name "P-51 Mustang" does have a legitimate concern that I get their approval before calling my replica a P-51 Mustang, and this does not constitute corporate laywers "sticking their fangs" into aircraft operations. The blood suckers are protecting the intellectual property rights of their clients. If I make money selling joyrides in a replica I call a "P-51 Mustang", they have every right to their cut, because just possibly Ms Maggie Maloney paid me 1000 bucks expressly because she wanted to experience a barrel roll in a "P-51 Mustang" on her 35th birthday. Either I call the thing a Palomino or Stallion or Moosetang or I pay for the rights. This is the American way. Allways has been. I don't like it but that's the way things are. It is not infringing on the FAA's role in overseeing private aviation.

To be honest, I don't understand why names assigned by the USAAF and/or RAF to a plane North American called the NA-73 can be considered corporate trademarks at all, but apparently that appears to be settled law and we are stuck with it.
 
Back in 1966 I was in flight school over at Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Academy at Opa Locka Airport in Opa Locka, Florida. I remember flying a Cessna 150 over to Sarasota (?) Florida where Cavalier had their Headquarters.

One thing for sure, I was not disappointed because parked out on the Cavalier ramp was something like 30 or 40 Mustangs! None of them still had any vestige of their old military paint jobs-all were painted in various civilian color schemes.

Well, just like it was a "Used Car Lot" I walked out among the parked Mustangs and sure enough, just like a Used Car Salesman, someone from Cavalier walked out of their building and offered to show me around.

The Mustang that caught my eye was one painted in several shades of BRIGHT PINK! The salesman (or whoever he was) invited me to go over with him and take a look at it because it had just come out of the shop from a full rebuild. He even invited me to climb up on the wing and take a look into the cockpit.

The interior of the cockpit was also painted in several shades of pink and even had some lace on the lip of the instrument panel! I was stunned. The salesman explained to me that the airplane had been purchased by a lady from Texas and they had rebuilt and repainted the airplane to her specifications. He told me that she would be flying in the next day or so to pick up that Mustang and fly it back home!

Needless to say, that "Passion Pink Mustang" pretty well destroyed the image I had in my mind that the Mustang was a MACHO, BRUTE WAR MACHINE. Heck, even a little old lady from Texas were flying that one in the 1960's!
 
Regarding the discussion on the use of the name "P-51 Mustang," I have a feeling that name has been copyrighted (by someone) in the U.S. Patent Office.

Generally, the Patent Office will allow any one or any corporation to copyright their "Brand names," "Company logos," etc. as long as no one has copyrighted the same brand name or logo previously. For example, I could not start building cars and claim that I was "Ford Motor Company" because Ford has copyrighted their name and logos long ago.

Now, certain things cannot be copyrighted, for example-anything considered to be in the "Public Domain." For example, no one can copyright the American Flag, the Great Seal of the United States, and many others because those names and logos are in the Public Domain.

I think that a good argument could be made that the terms "P-51 Mustang" is now in the Public Domain, so IF I were to build an airplane and call it a "P-51 Mustang," whoever holds the copyright on the "P-51 Mustang" name would have to sue me and WIN to prevent me from using that name.

IF I did use the name "P-51 Mustang" for an airplane I built, and I was sued, then my lawyer's argument would be that the term "P-51 Mustang" has passed into the Public Domain and that anyone can use it. That is the ONLY way I could win the law suit. If I lost the law suit, then not only could I no longer use the term "P-51 Mustang" but I would be liable for damages and also court costs.

I AM NOT a lawyer but years ago I was involved in a copyright lawsuit which my attorneys won, so a practicing attorney would know much more than I do about the copyright laws.

As for the actual technology used to build the Mustang. Most patents are good for a period of 14 years unless extended. I doubt that there is anything in the technology employed in the Mustangs built in the 1940's that is still under patent protection.

As for FAA Rules and Regulations-that is entirely another matter. Of course, anyone that builds a P-51 in the United States must follow the rules and regulations laid down by the FAA.
 
Aren't P-51 and 'Mustang" the USAAF allocations, not North American's?
If so, the names, at least would fall into the public domain.

As for the design, I think Boeing would have a hard time trying to procesute if they did own any form of patent. Given that there have been so many replicas and work done without anyone's consent, and subsequent legal proceedings, I would argue that it is fair to claim that any rights have been abandoned.

This is why Apple are so hot on protecting their patents. Once you ignore one copy, it is hard to protect your design against future copies.

To make things harder, copyright and patent law varies from country to country, and aviation being a very international industry, there are always ways around it.
 
It was stated above that the Me-262 replicas finished up in Washington at Paine Field are modern airplanes underneath.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Stormbird Me-262 replicas are faithful replicas, build to susch exact Messerschmitt standards that the Messerschmitt issued the Stormbirds replicas consecutive serial numbers from the end of teh me-262 actual production runs. EVERYTHING was stock Messerschmitt except for the turbojets, which were J-85's, limited to the stock thrust settings and placarded at stock airspeeds. ONLY the jet engines and some modern avionics were other than WWII standard.

I toured the Sptormbird operation just before the first one was delivered and was told by the people these facts at that time, and I SAW the interior of the me-262 through inspection hatches. It was the same as the reference drawings, down to rivet placement, wooden gear doors, and many wood parts (including the cannons!).
 

While it is true that they reversed engineered an original they are far from exact and the airworthy machine that Collings owns has been reworked to bring it to today's airworthy standards. All the systems were "americanized" by Stormbirds. It has been at Sanders almost 4 years. It was a monumental effort by Sanders that is only now coming to fruition. They have done an awesome job overhauling the original product.
Sanders Aeronautics - Restoration - Collings Foundation's Messerschmitt Me 262 B-1C "White 1"

these are photos I shot a couple years ago


some of the parts had to be remanufactured

slats made to fit the pockets

cockpit modernized for safety


As to the original topic I remember reading somewhere that Art Teeters owns the P-51 Type Certificate.

Jim
 
Well maybe one of those replica ME-262's will provide an answer to the question: WAS THE ME-262 WAS THE FIRST SUPERSONIC FIGHTER?

There are some reports from World War II that on several occasions, a ME-262 went into a dive at full power and the pilots of nearby aircraft heard a loud "BOOM" as the ME-262 flew away at a high rate of speed!
 
Southron said:
As for FAA Rules and Regulations-that is entirely another matter. Of course, anyone that builds a P-51 in the United States must follow the rules and regulations laid down by the FAA.
Click to expand...
If I was to restore a P-51 from a "data plate" or have to re-create a data plate I think I would be protected under CFR Title 14 should "someone" not like the idea that my aircraft carried a P-51 designation, that's the point here. The Feds are basically telling you what the aircraft is. After an airworthiness certificate is issued all bets are off IMO

jim said:
While it is true that they reversed engineered an original they are far from exact and the airworthy machine that Collings owns has been reworked to bring it to today's airworthy standards.
Click to expand...
Now now Jim, this plane can never be "airworthy," it doesn't carry a TCDS, I see "EXPERIMENTAL" as clear as day on the cockpit sill

The 262 WAS NOT the first supersonic fighter and did not go supersonic IMO although there were reports of this happening. Hans Guido Mutke was the man who claimed he went supersonic and although he described almost the exact conditions one would experience during supersonic flight, one needed to know air density and temperature to really determine if this happened. The 262 did not have an "area rule" fuselage and with the location of the engines would have created additional drag that probably made trans or supersonic flight impossible. Additionally i think the aircraft would have shook itself apart first.
 
if you want to know who owns the rights and under what is it designated...ask the developers of any video game that uses that ac. before they can add it to their list of ac in a game they have to get permission and/or pay to use them. just learned this on another site ( game ) where the use of the P 47 was in question. someone owns the rights and is entitled to make $$$ off of the design or use....whether they do or not...or why is at their discretion.
 

I got to tour the Legend Flyers facility and sit in the planes while they were being built. The Me-262s were built under licence from Messerschmitt, have serial numbers provided in sequence by Messerschmitt, and are thus "remanufacures". The airframes are made from the original designs and specifications, plus the dis-assembly of an original, with some safety improvements. The J-58 engines are encased in a shell cast from the Jumos, and that shell is mounted in the nacelles.

See Me 262 PROJECT HISTORY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

J
Ki-84 vs P-51 engagemants 1945
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
CHen10
B
P-51 fuselage fuel tank
11 12 13
Replies
259
Views
14K
Reluctant Poster
R
M
P-61 Performance
Replies
12
Views
822
MIflyer
M
P-51 6 x .50 ammo increase to 400 rpg complications?
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
drgondog
V
P-51Ds over Normandy June 1944
Replies
1
Views
653
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Menu
Log in
Register