Ferrari lawsuits fall into two very different categories: the cases the Italian automaker files to protect its trademarks, designs, and brand image, and the cases filed against it over alleged defects, injuries, and dealership conduct. On offense, Ferrari has built a long record of wins in European courts against fashion designers, tuning houses, and replica makers, and has been unusually willing to sue its own customers over modifications and resales. On defense, it has faced U.S. class actions over braking systems and a multimillion-dollar personal-injury suit in Canada after a showroom fire.
Trademark and Design Cases Ferrari Has Won
Ferrari’s core legal strategy leans on trademark infringement, trademark dilution, “free riding,” and design-rights theories. The company treats the Prancing Horse, its model names, and the shapes of its cars as assets to be defended in court, and it has assembled a body of favorable precedent doing so.1Cardozo AELJ. Ferrari v. Plein
Philipp Plein
German fashion designer Philipp Plein repeatedly featured Ferrari vehicles in his marketing, including a June 2017 Fast and Furious–themed runway show and Instagram posts pairing his clothing line with his personal Ferrari 812 Superfast. Ferrari sued in Italy. A three-judge panel at the Court of Milan found Plein liable on three grounds: dilution of the Ferrari trademark, corrosion of the mark’s power of attraction, and free riding through unauthorized association. Plein was ordered to pay €300,000 in damages (roughly $352,000 at the time), reimburse more than €25,000 in legal fees, and remove all Ferrari imagery from his website and social media, with a €10,000 penalty per image or video left online. The court rejected his “trademark exhaustion” defense, holding that adding “PLEIN” branding to Ferrari vehicles was a substantial alteration of the goods. A separate proceeding in Genova produced an injunction over similar Instagram promotions.2Carscoops. Ferrari Wins Case Against Designer Philipp Plein’s Use of Its Supercars3Portolano Cavallo. Protection of Well-Known Trademarks: Ferrari Wins Suit Against Philipp Plein AG Again Plein said in October 2020 that he had appealed the Milan ruling, with a hearing expected in early 2021.4Hypebeast. Philipp Plein Loses Court Case to Ferrari Over Copyright Infringement
Mansory and the FXX K
Ferrari went after German tuning house Mansory Design over its “4XX Siracusa,” a body kit for the 488 GTB that Ferrari argued copied the V-shaped hood and front bumper of its track-only FXX K. The case started in German court and was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. On October 28, 2021, the CJEU ruled for Ferrari, recognizing its rights to unregistered community designs and finding that Mansory had illegally copied the FXX K’s appearance. The court held that publicly disclosing a full vehicle design also protects identifiable parts of it, such as specific lines, contours, and shapes.5Carscoops. Ferrari Wins EU Court Case Against Mansory for Copying the FXX K6Motor Authority. Ferrari Sued Mansory and Won for Copying the LaFerrari FXX K’s Design
The 250 GTO as Copyrighted Art
On June 20, 2019, the Commercial Chamber of the Court of Bologna ruled that the Ferrari 250 GTO qualified as a copyrightable work of art. The case was filed against Ares Design Modena Srl, which had planned to build replicas. The court found that the 250 GTO, of which only 36 were made between 1962 and 1964, met the statutory conditions of “artistic and creative value” for industrial design to be protected under copyright, and issued an injunction against any imitation. Ferrari said it was the first time a court had recognized an automobile as a work of art.7ResearchGate. Italian Court Finds Ferrari GTO 250 Supercar To Be a Copyright Artwork8Motor Authority. Italian Court Recognizes Ferrari 250 GTO as Art To Protect From Replicas
Getting the Testarossa Name Back
Ferrari nearly lost the “TESTAROSSA” word mark when the European Union Intellectual Property Office revoked it, finding no “genuine use” between September 2010 and September 2015. The Testarossa left production in 1996, and a German individual, Kurt Hesse, had challenged the registration. On July 2, 2025, the General Court of the European Union annulled the revocation. It found genuine use through authorized dealers reselling second-hand Testarossas with Ferrari’s certification of authenticity, through sales of spare parts and accessories under the mark, and through licensed scale models labeled “Ferrari Official Licensed Product.” The court held that for luxury and heritage brands, genuine use can be established through authorized resale and authenticated supply chains after primary production ends.9IP Stars. Ferrari Wins Back Its Testarossa Trademark: The EU General Court’s Rulings Hesse appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union in September 2025, but in January 2026 the Court refused to allow the appeal to proceed, finalizing Ferrari’s win.10Court of Justice of the EU. Case C-597/25 P
When Ferrari Loses a Trademark Case
The strategy has ceilings. On May 30, 2025, the Malaysian Federal Supreme Court dismissed Ferrari’s claim against Sunrise Mark Sdn Bhd, maker of the “WEE POWER” energy drink. Ferrari had objected to a logo featuring two rearing horses forming a “W,” arguing it resembled the Prancing Horse. The Malaysian Trademark Registry had approved the mark in April 2024 over Ferrari’s objections, and the court upheld that decision. Judge Adlin Abdul Majid found the WEE POWER logo visually and conceptually distinct, pointed to the two horses, the large “W,” and additional text, and noted that luxury cars and energy drinks are different sectors with no evidence of intent to imitate. The court wrote that “fame cannot justify suppressing legitimate alternatives.”11The Trademark Lawyer Magazine. Ferrari Loses Trademark Suit Against Malaysian Energy Drink
A Dutch court likewise declined to order the destruction of a Daytona replica that carried no Ferrari badging, indicating that without the actual marks, replicas alone can be harder to shut down.12CarBuzz. 7 Times Ferrari Filed Lawsuits Against Its Own Fans
Suing Its Own Customers
What sets Ferrari apart from most automakers is how often it goes after paying customers. It maintains right-of-first-refusal clauses in sales contracts, allocation-based loyalty expectations, and brand-use rules, and enforces them.
Deadmau5 and the “Purrari”
In August 2014, Canadian DJ Deadmau5 (Joel Zimmerman) received a cease-and-desist from Ferrari North America over his Ferrari 458 Italia. He had wrapped it in a Nyan Cat rainbow theme and fitted custom “Purrari” badges that Ferrari called “dead ringers” for its own text, plus matching floor mats and emblems. The car had become well known after the Gumball 3000 rally. Ferrari objected to the badges as trademark infringement, and may also have been reacting to Zimmerman listing the car on Craigslist, potentially breaching the right-of-first-refusal clause that Ferrari contracts commonly include. On August 27, 2014, Zimmerman said on Twitter that he had stripped the wrap, badges, and custom parts and returned the car to factory appearance.13HuffPost. Deadmau5 Purrari Cease and Desist Ferrari14Stites & Harbison. Deadmau5 Gets in Trademark Catfight With Ferrari
Jean Blaton’s F40 LM Barchetta
Belgian racing driver Jean “Beurlys” Blaton owned one of the 19 Ferrari F40 LMs built. In 1993 he commissioned a radical Michelotto-supervised conversion: the roof came off, the bodywork was reshaped, an F1-style pushrod suspension went in, the engine restrictor was removed to bring output to 760 horsepower, and a competition windshield was fitted. Ferrari demanded that all Ferrari badging be removed. The dispute reportedly reached a Belgian court in 2005, which ruled for Ferrari and ordered Blaton to strip the badges or face a substantial fine. Ferrari also removed the car from its archives, treating it as a vehicle that “doesn’t exist.” The lack of recognition hit the car’s value hard; it failed to reach a $195,000 auction target in 2005, at a time when documented F40s were trading in the millions.15Monochrome Watches. The Story Behind the Ferrari F40 LM Barchetta16MotorBiscuit. 5 Times Ferrari Sued Its Own Fans17HotCars. Ferrari F40 LM Barchetta Doesn’t Exist
The Purosangue “Flipping” Suit
Right-of-first-refusal contracts drive litigation between dealers and buyers too. In September 2024, Ferrari of Houston sued customer Todd Carlson in Harris County District Court in Texas, alleging he violated an “Opportunity Agreement” signed in October 2022 by reselling his 2024 Ferrari Purosangue on the open market. According to the complaint, Carlson took delivery in June 2024 and promptly sold the roughly $429,000 SUV without offering the dealer first refusal. The dealership is seeking the profit from the sale plus legal fees.18CarBuzz. Ferrari Dealership Sues Purosangue Owner for Flipping19Carscoops. Ferrari Dealer Sues Customer for Flipping His Purosangue
Miami Vice
In one of its earliest pop-culture enforcement actions, Ferrari sued the producers of the 1980s series Miami Vice over a Corvette-based replica of the Ferrari Daytona (365 GTB/4) used on the show, citing trademark infringement for building and selling replicas. The production crew wrote the car out by destroying it on screen in the first episode of the third season. Ferrari then donated two Testarossa Monospecchios for use in the show and reportedly eased off further stunt-replica objections once the series had helped elevate the Testarossa’s profile.20Rosso Automobili. The Story Behind the Miami Vice Ferrari Testarossa
Product-Liability and Injury Cases Against Ferrari
Brake-Defect Class Actions in the U.S.
Rose v. Ferrari North America Inc. (Case No. 2:21-cv-20772), filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleged that Ferrari and brake supplier Robert Bosch sold vehicles with components that caused partial or total brake failures. Plaintiff Jeffrey Rose claimed Ferrari had known of the issue since 2015 and pointed to more than 23,000 U.S. Ferraris recalled since 2005 over faulty brake fluid reservoir caps.21Top Class Actions. Ferrari Class Action Alleges Many Vehicles Suffer Partial, Total Brake Failures In October 2022, Judge John Michael Vazquez dismissed the fraud and unjust enrichment claims, finding the plaintiff had not shown Ferrari had a legal duty to disclose the alleged defect, and gave 30 days to amend. A second amended complaint followed, and the case was ultimately voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.22Mealeys. Class Suit Alleging Defective Braking Systems in Ferraris Voluntarily Dismissed
A separate proposed class action, Nechev v. Ferrari North America Inc. (Case No. 24-cv-00516), was filed in March 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Plaintiff Iliya Nechev made similar allegations against Ferrari North America and Robert Bosch GmbH, contending that Ferrari’s voluntary recalls in 2021 and 2022 were only an “interim corrective measure” that did not address the underlying defect.23Claims Journal. Ferrari Class Action Alleges Dangerous Safety Defect Related to Braking Systems
The $20 Million Ferrari Quebec Showroom Fire
On August 7, 2024, Montreal car collector Richard Papazian was engulfed in flames at the Ferrari Quebec showroom when a sales manager attempted to start a 2004 Ferrari 360 Modena. According to the lawsuit, parts of the fuel system, including the fuel rail and injectors, had been removed and installed on another car. Raw fuel spilled onto the floor and ignited on the third attempt to start the engine. Papazian suffered second- and third-degree burns over 56 percent of his body, was placed in a medically induced coma for a month, and underwent multiple surgeries, failed skin grafts, and dialysis for kidney complications.24National Post. Montreal Car Collector Sues Ferrari Quebec for $20M After Being Burned by Explosion
Papazian and his wife, Isabelle Arcand, sued in Montreal’s Superior Court for more than $20 million: $10 million in punitive damages, $10 million in economic damages, $800,000 in non-pecuniary damages, and the return of a $20,000 deposit. The suit alleges gross negligence, recklessness, and willful misconduct against the dealership, Ferrari North America, and Ferrari’s Maranello headquarters. As of May 2026, the case remains active. Surveillance footage showing the scale of the fire surfaced in reporting that month. Ferrari Quebec has said it is cooperating with authorities and declined to comment on specifics because of the active proceedings.25Carscoops. Ferrari Quebec 360 Fire Lawsuit
The Pattern That Ties It Together
Two patterns run through Ferrari’s litigation record. First, on offense, the company treats the Prancing Horse, its model names, and its car designs as protected assets and defends them with cease-and-desist letters followed by lawsuits when needed, winning in European courts on theories of dilution, free riding, and unregistered design rights. It has lost, however, when the alleged infringer sits in a clearly different market or when a replica carries none of Ferrari’s actual marks. Second, and unusually among automakers, Ferrari and its dealers reach into the customer relationship after the sale, using right-of-first-refusal clauses and brand-use expectations to sue owners who modify or flip their cars. On the defensive side, U.S. class actions have targeted the brakes without yet producing a judgment on the merits, and the Quebec showroom fire has put dealership handling of a stored vehicle at the center of one of the largest personal-injury claims the company has faced.