.

the car junkie daily magazine.

.

Dodge’s Trademark Woes: “Hellcat” and “Scat Pack” Are Being Challenged In Court


Dodge’s Trademark Woes: “Hellcat” and “Scat Pack” Are Being Challenged In Court

Of all the things FCA really needs right now, two trademark battles over it’s more successful vehicles was certainly not it. Unfortunately, right now that’s exactly what they have on their hands, as two different companies are going after FCA for the “Hellcat” and the “Scat Pack” rights. Given that both lawsuits are taking aim at Dodge’s cash cow models (Charger and Challenger), the timing is just perfectly wrong. Here’s how the battle breaks down:

srt hellcat

“Hellcat”, FCA’s semi-adopted and generally accepted name for the sociopathic 707-hp Charger and Challenger, is being challenged in court by Classic Car Studio of Brentwood, Missouri. FCA adopted the “Hellcat” name to the cars after the engine’s developmental code name went viral. Classic Car Studio received a 90-day extension of the normal opposition timeframe after requesting the allowance for time to “investigate the claim and to confer with legal help”, per their attorney. The issue stems from a vehicle that they are building for a customer in Belarus that they are calling the “Hellcat Camaro”.  Classic Car Studios has until January 15, 2015 to provide reasons for opposition to FCA having the “Hellcat” trademark.

963856_10152034461164224_817237524_o

On the other side of the coin, “Scat Pack”, Dodge’s go-to name for their performance group of vehicles, has re-ignited the company’s battle with Scat Enterprises, who build cranks, connecting rods and other engine components. During 1968-71, Chrysler and Scat Enterprises had a back-and-forth over the name, with Chrysler dropping the Scat Pack in 1971, reportedly after receiving a cease-and-desist letter from Scat Enterprises. When Dodge showed Scat Pack vehicles at the 2013 SEMA show, Scat Enterprises went straight to court and sued, with the claim that “Defendant’s (Chrysler LLC, per court documents) resumed prominent use of Scat and Scat Pack will likely cause members of the trade, customers and others to mistakenly believe that defendants owns [those] marks and that plaintiff (Scat Enterprises) is infringing upon defendant’s rights.” Meanwhile, a statement was released from FCA (then Chrysler): “Dodge made Scat Pack what it is today. In 1968, Chrysler re-envisioned its Dodge Charger R/T, Coronet R/T, and Dart GTS vehicles by offering high-performance, redesigned versions under the Scat Pack moniker. Marketplace interest was immediate and enthusiastic, making the Dodge Scat Pack hugely successful from 1968 to 1971. The brand has remained legendary in the enthusiast community since then and consumers still associate Scat Pack with Chrysler’s vehicles, and no other business or products. Scat Enterprises, an aftermarket supplier of crankshafts, connecting rods, and rotating assemblies marketing under the term “Scat”, has never used the term “Scat Pack”. Scat Enterprises’ lawsuit against Chrysler over Chrysler’s 2014-15 Scat Pack vehicles is a meritless and opportunistic attempt to hold Chrysler hostage just days before the upcoming SEMA show. Chrysler will vigorously defend itself against this attack and look to enforce its own rights in this moniker.”

(Source: Allpar)


  • Share This
  • Pinterest
  • 0

17 thoughts on “Dodge’s Trademark Woes: “Hellcat” and “Scat Pack” Are Being Challenged In Court

  1. Gary Smrtic

    Damned shame. Foolish, too, if you ask me, and I know no one did.
    “Suburban” was a name first used by Plymouth in the mid fifties too. I don’t know if GM bought the rights to that, or what. Any obscure automotive historians here want to shed some light on that?

  2. Rod Behring

    Buick should be suing them both… Since 1944 haha. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

  3. greenjunk

    anyone who is familiar with business law knows that it is the law that a company must seek litigation and a judgement over every case of possible trademark infringement with meaningful or not. Not doing so would jepordize possible future cases. That is actually the law.

  4. Cyclone03

    I think Scat Enterprises will come out on top over the “Scat Pack” useage,
    IIRC they had Scat Pak’s before Chrysler Co. Back in the ’60’s. They made a lot of speed parts for VW’s in Chatsworth Ca.

  5. BeaverMartin

    That’s it I’m suing the Oregon State Beavers, Beaver Cleaver, and the Hustler “Beaver Hunt.” Maybe I can make enough in settlements to buy a new carburetor or at least an air freshener or something, this crap is ridiculous.

  6. ANGRYJOE

    Bunch of cry baby bitches. Because I always confuse Scat and Mopars Scatpack….and some schmuck is buildign a one off called hellcat camaro and they feel they need to sue….lord almighty it makes me want to smack the crap out of someone….

  7. John G.

    Challenger was a Studebaker model name before Dodge so perhaps Studebaker should sue but then again they are out of business …. What ever happened to Studebaker’s government bail out?

    1. mooseface

      I think the bailout was called “jump ship for AMC while the getting is good”.
      At least, that’s what most of Studbreaker’s engineers did.

  8. Steven Fitzgerald

    As it turns out, the current trademark dispute between Scat Enterprises and Chrysler/Dodge is actually the THIRD time that Scat Enterprises has defended its brand name and trademark from a major carmaker over the past 40-45 years, NOT the second time: Chrysler/Dodge 1968-1971, Subaru 1976-1977 and Chrysler/Dodge 2013-present. Does anyone remember the Subaru Brat, which was launched in the US in 1978? Well, guess what the President of Subaru America at the time, Harvey Lamm, originally wanted to call the BRAT”? Yepp, you guessed it, the “SCAT.” Here’s the link to the “This week in 1977” flashback article in the July 31, 2013 online edition of Autoweek: http://autoweek.com/article/car-life/week-1977-subaru-introduce-all-terrain-vehicle. So, why did Subaru change the “SCAT” to the “BRAT” if it already publicly announced the name and actually shipped cars to the US with the SCAT name plate? Very easy. Scat Enterprises defended its brand-name & trademark. That’s the way trademark law works. If you don’t defend your rights, you lose them. After extensive discussions and a threat of a lawsuit and injunction, Mr. Lamm very correctly decided to change the name. I imagine that he was not very happy when they changed all those SCAT name plates to BRAT down at the LA Harbor parking lot. Will Chrysler/Dodge suffer the same fate as Subaru and have to recall all of the Scat Pack cars recently sold and on its dealers’ lots?

    Plus, as many of you might know, Scat Enterprises is a long-term Chrysler/Dodge supplier for the past 25-30 years, supplying crankshafts for their crate engines while also manufacturing prototype crankshafts at its Redondo Beach, CA factory for Chrysler/Dodge’s development engine programs, such as the Viper, Hellcat and Crossfire. So, yes, it would be very common for anyone with aftermarket experience/knowledge to assume that a “Scat Pack” car includes a Scat crankshaft and connecting rods. For those of us in the industry, it’s common knowledge that Scat Enterprises manufacturers prototype crankshafts for various carmakers’ Research & Development efforts. With this in mind, it’s quite strange that Chrysler/Dodge would try to use one of its supplier’s trademarks for some marketing gimmick, especially after the US PTO denied their registration request twice… And, it’s ironic that Scat Enterprises actually manufactured the prototype crankshafts for several of Chrysler/Dodge’s current cars… If you read the court case filing and search the internet, you’ll find all of this info.

    But, from everything that I’ve read, the newly promoted CEO of Dodge Tim Kuniskis is personally promoting the “revival” of the Scat Pack after more than 42 years of disuse since the original dispute. If “Scat Pack” was so important to Chrysler/Dodge, why did they decide not to use it for 42 years? Go figure. Perhaps Mr. Kuniskis’ involvement explains why Chrysler/Dodge proceeded, even though its engineers and legal department know Scat Enterprises very well as a long-term business partner and the US PTO denied them. Must be nice to be a major corporation with a US-government bailout rather than an 80 employee family-owned business started in the founder’s parents’ garage. Let’s see how it turns out in court.

Comments are closed.