Ford Rears Bronco Head Against Vintage Modern for Trademark Infringement, False Advertising, and Unfair Competition

Ford Motor Company is pursuing legal action against Vintage Modern, Inc. (previously known as Vintage Broncos LLC and Vintage Broncos, Inc.), a Georgia-based company that retrofits new models of Ford Broncos to make them look like the iconic first-generation SUVs produced from 1966 to 1977. Ford initially sent Vintage Modern a cease-and-desist letter in June 2024, detailing its concerns over the use of the Bronco marks and demanding the company cease production and sale of the vehicles that “trade off of or cause confusion with or counterfeit Ford’s trademarks and trade dress.” The parties exchanged communications but were unable to reach a resolution. Ford then filed suit in a Georgia federal court in October 2024, alleging false advertising, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, dilution, unfair competition, counterfeiting, and related claims to protect customer and public safety.

Vintage Modern is in the business of creating “reverse” resto-mods. Instead of the more common restoration-modification that involves transforming a classic car into something modern, the company takes Broncos produced in the last five years and makes them look old, replacing the modern body panels with retro-styled ones to mimic the classic look of the original Broncos. These rebuilt vehicles maintain modern features like anti-lock brakes, air conditioning, rearview cameras, and smartphone integration, along with modern powertrain options such as a 5.0-liter V-8, 2.3-liter EcoBoost, or even an electric drivetrain. Prices for these “modern classics” can start at $169,000.

The Claims and Defenses

In its amended complaint, Ford criticized Vintage Modern for what it described as a “calculated plan to knock off Ford’s intellectual property and to mislead consumers about the safety of Vintage’s vehicles, which are materially altered versions of Ford’s authentic vehicles. Vintage’s calculated actions implicate significant safety and false advertising concerns, are likely to cause confusion in the marketplace, and unreasonably place Ford’s goodwill in the hands of a third party.”

In response, Vintage Modern argued Ford abandoned its rights to several Bronco trademarks because it stopped producing and selling the vehicles for an extended period of time, from at least the mid-1990s until 2020. Vintage Modern also argued Ford abandoned its rights in the Bronco trade dress (the exterior design or “shape” of the body panels), because it has not used the specific trade dress since 1977.

Ford is arguing that by copying the trade dress and labeling the Broncos “vintage,” the company is obtaining a commercial benefit from use of intellectual property they do not own and have not licensed and is unfairly profiting off decades of goodwill Ford has built in the Bronco brand. In a media statement regarding the case, Ford said “we have an obligation to take all appropriate steps to stop those who ride on the coattails of Ford’s significant investment and reputation.”

While the first sale doctrine can provide protection for trademark infringement claims in the resale market, it is not a bullet proof defense. If goods are altered in a way where the buyer does not know or understand what modifications have been made, particularly in a way that damages the goods’ quality or the reputation of the trademark owner, the first sale doctrine may not serve as a valid defense. This is particularly the case where an iconic, historic brand has lingering goodwill in product designs that have not been actively produced in decades. In these cases, the risk of consumer confusion is higher than it otherwise might be for lesser-known brands.

Placing a disclaimer on a restored product may not serve as a valid defense to trademark infringement. In a case from 1999, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said extensive repairs and changes made to famous Rolex watches transformed the watches from their original state, and the original Rolex trademark could not be used in connection with the reconditioned watch, even with the addition of a disclaimer and the placement of an independent mark. Vintage Modern includes a disclaimer on the bottom of its website that reads: “Vintage Modern has no sponsorship, association, approval, or endorsement from any motor company including Ford Motor Company. The names Ford® and Bronco® are trademarks of Ford Motor Company, and any other trademarks mentioned belong to their respective owners. References to these trademarked names or marks are solely for identification purposes. Vintage Modern vehicles should never be referred to or described as a “Vintage Ford Bronco,” “Ford Bronco,” “Vintage Modern Ford Bronco,” or “Ford Vintage Modern Bronco.” It remains to be seen if or how the court will consider this disclaimer in the course of its ultimate decision in the case.

A Horse of the Same Color

Ford’s actions highlight a growing trend in major brands pursuing legal recourse against customizers who use historic marks to produce and sell unauthorized goods. From car manufacturers to shoe designers to universities, manufacturers and owners of historic designs are cracking down on aftermarket modifications that replicate iconic designs. Recently, Ford successfully stopped a YouTube content creator and vehicle modifier from producing a Mustang body kit that mimicked the Mustang GTD supercar. As recent as 2024, Porsche has taken legal action against companies like Singer Vehicle Design for creating “new” versions of its classic Turbo models without authorization. Beyond the automotive industry, Nike sued “The Shoe Surgeon” for selling unauthorized, customized sneakers, and Pennsylvania State University won a case against a company that produced and sold clothing and other items that incorporated old-school logos.

The outcome of this case will likely have significant implications for the automotive aftermarket, customization, and restoration industry, potentially setting a precedent for how far aftermarket companies can go with alterations to modern vehicles to mimic historic designs, while not infringing the trademark and trade dress of these iconic brands.

For assistance, reach out to your AFS contact or a member of the Trademark group.