who owns the rights to TUCKER?

[Justinmo3000]

I was wondering does anyone know who owns the rights to the Tucker? Does the club own the rights? and if so I would like to see a model kit of the the "Waltz Blue" Tucker. <p></p><i></i>

[chris]

I think the tucker family does but if a model comes out in that color I would buy one heck make all the colors they would sell.<br>
if one is made please let me now<br>
at cschoenemann@hotmail.com <p></p><i></i>

[dyne]

I received a telephone call on Oct 12, 1986 from a Mister Pat Dunn.
He said that he was an attorney for Preston Tucker and he now owns a
R-1 transmission and all remaining rights to the Tucker Corporation.
He said that they sued Studebaker for using a center bezel similar to
the center headlight on the Tucker and they won 4 million dollars as
a result.
He said that the fuel injection system designed for the Tucker was later
perfected and got 38 miles per gallon in a Tucker car.
More recently I wrote to the address which he gave me and the letter was
returned unknown. Possibly he is now deceased.

[Tuckerfan1053]

I received a telephone call on Oct 12, 1986 from a Mister Pat Dunn.
He said that he was an attorney for Preston Tucker and he now owns a
R-1 transmission and all remaining rights to the Tucker Corporation.
He said that they sued Studebaker for using a center bezel similar to
the center headlight on the Tucker and they won 4 million dollars as
a result.
He said that the fuel injection system designed for the Tucker was later
perfected and got 38 miles per gallon in a Tucker car.
More recently I wrote to the address which he gave me and the letter was
returned unknown. Possibly he is now deceased.

I'd say he was full of it. I've read several detailed histories of Studebaker and none of them mentioned anything about being sued by Tucker. Also, if he was going to sue Studebaker, Ford should have gotten sued as well for the 49 model with a similar bezel in the center, especially since that was designed by Studebaker folks who were trying to help one of their former coworkers get a job at Ford.

[Larry Clark]

One of the fun things about Tucker stuff is just when you think something could never be true you are likely to be proved wrong. Pat Dunn was correct about a lawsuit against Studebaker. The lawsuit is Jay E. Darlington v. The Studebaker Corporation. It was filed on December 31, 1952. It alleged infringement of Tucker Corporation patent 154,192 for "design for an automobile" that was issued 6/14/49. Darlington and Dunn purchased the Tucker intellectual property rights at one of the bankruptcy sales. The federal court recognized them as the legal owner of the Tucker Corporation intellectual property rights. The lawsuit took until 8/15/60 before tossed out. The federal court did not make Studebaker pay but this does not mean that Studebaker did not settle to once and for all have the matter go away.

Patrick Dunn claimed they were granted intellectual property rights by the bankrupcty court beyond what were originally granted by the federal government. I believe he was incorrect.

[Tuckerfan1053]

One of the fun things about Tucker stuff is just when you think something could never be true you are likely to be proved wrong. Pat Dunn was correct about a lawsuit against Studebaker. The lawsuit is Jay E. Darlington v. The Studebaker Corporation. It was filed on December 31, 1952. It alleged infringement of Tucker Corporation patent 154,192 for "design for an automobile" that was issued 6/14/49. Darlington and Dunn purchased the Tucker intellectual property rights at one of the bankruptcy sales. The federal court recognized them as the legal owner of the Tucker Corporation intellectual property rights. The lawsuit took until 8/15/60 before tossed out. The federal court did not make Studebaker pay but this does not mean that Studebaker did not settle to once and for all have the matter go away.

Patrick Dunn claimed they were granted intellectual property rights by the bankrupcty court beyond what were originally granted by the federal government. I believe he was incorrect.

Given the financial disaster that Studebaker was at that point in time, $4 million dollars would have warranted a mention in one of the books I read on them. Studebaker was literally bleeding itself to death with the highest labor costs in the industry at that point (nearly double GMs) while their sales were significantly lower than GMs. Not to mention they were in the midst of tricky negotiations with Packard as part of a merger deal. (The plan was for Studebaker and Packard to merge, while Hudson and Nash merged, then a few year laters the two new companies would merge to form American Motors, the deal fell through because Hudson-Nash found out that Studebaker was in horrendously bad financial shape and because the new president of Hudson-Nash didn't get along with the Studebaker-Packard president.)

[Larry Clark]

I want to return to post to say that I fully agree, for the reasons provided in the previous posting, that it is VERY unlikely that if Studebaker did settle with an amount outside of court that it was anything like $4.0 million. This would have been big money back then, especially for Studebaker in its situation. When I said it is possible that they settled I am thinking maybe, if they did, something on the order of five figures, if that. This said, Studebaker had to have a fair amount of legal costs over the years battling the lawsuit as it bounced up to the federal appellate court and back along the way. Larry

[Guest]

I want to return to post to say that I fully agree, for the reasons provided in the previous posting, that it is VERY unlikely that if Studebaker did settle with an amount outside of court that it was anything like $4.0 million. This would have been big money back then, especially for Studebaker in its situation. When I said it is possible that they settled I am thinking maybe, if they did, something on the order of five figures, if that. This said, Studebaker had to have a fair amount of legal costs over the years battling the lawsuit as it bounced up to the federal appellate court and back along the way. Larry

You might be right, but I find it difficult to swallow, since out of all the books on Studebaker that I've read, only one of them mentioned anything about Tucker, and that was merely in passing, as it was discussing the kind of competetion Studebaker faced at the end of the war. Given the kind of problems that Studebaker faced over the years (in some cases, problems identical to those faced by Tucker), if they had to shell out a significant chunk of change even for legal costs, muchless a payout to someone owning the rights to the Tucker name, I'd think that it'd have warranted a mention in one of the books I read. Admittedly, I'm not an expert on Studebakers, so I can't say for certain. I'll check with the folks at the Studebaker club and see if they know anything.

Oh, and odds are that if Pat Dunn has passed away, then the rights to the name have lapsed. A query to the Trademark Office would tell you for certain, though.

[dyne]

I am the one telephoned by Pat Dunn. I kept notes of the call and later typed them up. He was a complete stranger to me. Maybe I heard him wrong. Perhaps he said they won $4,000 or $400,000. But it sounded like he said four million. What is the differance ? Who cares ? The point
was that he sued Studebaker about the center bezel design. This was
just incential information.
The main point I was making was that he claimed that he owned all remaing rights to the Tucker Corporation. Is that correct ? I have no idea.

[Larry Clark]

To Dyne: Yes, I believe you are correct about what you originally said and I have previously provided support to back you (the federal court found that Darlington (and therefore Dunn) had purchased the intellectual property rights of Tucker Corporation. I also agree with the other person posting with us that I believe that time has run out on the rights. I mentioned that the bankruptcy judge supposedly granted them perpetual rights, something the judge had no legal authority to extend to be able to grant. If true, the heir of Dunn could might have legal standing to at least raise the appearance of continued ownership, albeit that I believe they'd be just blowing in the wind to do so. Larry

[Preston]

If the license/rights wasn't picked up and continued... it could be public domain. Franklin Mint, Hotwheels and all these other model/toy
makers... who are they paying royalties to? Even the IDA models?
I've even seen metal signs, license plate holders, reprints of the '48
brochure.
With these companies producing these products... I would think it's
public domain... if not.. If someone has the rights to this car/image they are missing out on a ton of royalties.

[Larry Clark]

Preston- you ask a great question as to whom, if anyone, royalty rights are being paid out to. I do not know. Preston Tucker, and then his immediate family after his death, continued to own the rights to his likeness, name, etc. after the Bankruptcy Court's assigment of corporate intellectual property rights to Darlington. This has given the family a reason to be involved in licensing discussions separate from the car itself (which, again, involved intellectual property interests owned by the corporation, not Preston Tucker the individual) IF linked to Preston Tucker. Bottom line, replicating the appearances of the Tucker car is probably possible without family permission or fear of violation of continuing intellectual property rights. For other things involving the likeness or person of Preston Tucker, the family probably still has rights that must be secured (although in time these will also expire). Larry