Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Ferrari S.P.A. Esercizio Fabriche Automobili E Corse v. Carl Roberts, D/B/A Roberts Motor Company Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit1991Docket #555989
944 F.2d 1235 20 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1001 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 20770 1991 WL 168664 Intellectual Property Torts

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: Ferrari sued a replica car maker for trademark infringement. The court held that the distinctive exterior design of Ferrari’s cars is protectable “trade dress” under the Lanham Act, and the replicas created a likelihood of post-sale confusion, warranting an injunction against their production.

Legal Significance: This case established that a product’s exterior design can function as protectable trade dress under the Lanham Act if it has acquired secondary meaning and is non-functional, even if the design is unpatented and there is no point-of-sale confusion.

Ferrari S.P.A. Esercizio Fabriche Automobili E Corse v. Carl Roberts, D/B/A Roberts Motor Company Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Plaintiff Ferrari S.P.A. designed and manufactured two iconic, limited-production sports cars: the Daytona Spyder and the Testarossa. The exterior designs of these vehicles became widely recognized by the public as originating from Ferrari. Defendant Carl Roberts manufactured and sold fiberglass replica kits, the “Miami Spyder” and “Miami Coupe,” which were virtually identical in appearance to the Ferrari models. Roberts marketed his kits to be installed on the undercarriages of other cars, like Chevrolet Corvettes or Pontiac Fieros. While Roberts did not claim his replicas were genuine Ferraris and his direct customers were not confused at the point of sale, Ferrari sued for trade dress infringement under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Ferrari argued that the unique shape of its cars constituted a protected trade dress. Roberts admitted to intentionally copying the designs to capitalize on their famous appearance.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Can the exterior design of an automobile be protected as trade dress under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and if so, does the sale of a visually identical replica create an actionable likelihood of confusion even without confusion at the point of sale?

Yes. The court affirmed the injunction, holding that Ferrari’s car designs had Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Can the exterior design of an automobile be protected as trade dress under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and if so, does the sale of a visually identical replica create an actionable likelihood of confusion even without confusion at the point of sale?

Conclusion

This decision affirmed that product configuration can serve as trade dress and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exer

Legal Rule

A product's exterior design constitutes protectable trade dress under Section 43(a) of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occae

Legal Analysis

The court applied the three-part test for trade dress infringement. First, it Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, cons

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • The exterior design of a product, such as a car, can
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in cul

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Make crime pay. Become a lawyer.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+