Vintage Modern, Inc. specializes in creating modernized interpretations of classic automobiles. By integrating our own custom-designed parts, we craft vehicles that capture the essence of classic cars.After looking at them, I wondered how are they avoiding infringing on Ford's trade dress. So I asked Grok: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.”
Vintage Modern (formerly Vintage Broncos) does not fully avoid the issue—Ford is actively suing them over it. The company takes new modern Ford Broncos, removes the factory body panels, and installs custom retro-styled panels designed to evoke the 1966–1977 first-generation Bronco while retaining the modern chassis, safety systems (including airbags), powertrain, and other features.Ford filed suit in October 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:24-cv-04988) alleging trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false advertising, dilution, unfair competition, and related claims. Ford argues the overall boxy shape, proportions, fender contours, and related design elements of the classic Bronco constitute protected trade dress, and that Vintage Modern’s vehicles create confusion or trade on Ford’s goodwill. As of late 2026 the case remains open, with both sides having filed summary-judgment motions; no final ruling on the merits has been reported.
How Vintage Modern tries to address the trade-dress risk
- Custom, scaled body panels rather than exact replicas: The modern Bronco platform is substantially longer (~23 inches) and wider (~7 inches) than the original. Vintage Modern designs and stamps its own American-made steel panels to fit this larger chassis, describing them as “classic-inspired” with “design liberties” rather than precise copies of Ford’s 1966–77 body. They emphasize hand-crafted, proprietary parts.
- Own branding and no Ford/Bronco emblems: Vehicles carry “Vintage” badging. The company states it does not apply aftermarket Ford or Bronco emblems.
- Explicit disclaimers: The website states that Vintage Modern has no sponsorship, association, approval, or endorsement from Ford (or any motor company); that Ford and Bronco are Ford trademarks used only for identification; and that the vehicles should never be referred to as a “Vintage Ford Bronco,” “Ford Bronco,” “Vintage Modern Ford Bronco,” or similar.
- Rebranding: After Ford’s cease-and-desist and lawsuit, the company changed its name from Vintage Broncos to Vintage Modern.
- Abandonment defense: In the litigation, Vintage Modern argues Ford abandoned rights in the classic Bronco trade dress because it has not used that specific exterior design/shape since 1977 (and points to the long production gap for the Bronco name itself, roughly mid-1990s to 2020). Trademark/trade-dress rights generally require ongoing commercial use; prolonged non-use can support an abandonment claim.
Ford disputes these points, contending the vehicles are substantially similar imitations that cause confusion, that any disclaimer is insufficient given the overall look and modifications, and that it retains enforceable rights in the iconic design despite the production hiatus. Ford has also raised safety and quality concerns about the modified vehicles.
In short, Vintage Modern’s strategy relies on custom (non-identical) panels scaled to a modern chassis, independent branding/disclaimers, rebranding, and a legal argument that Ford abandoned the classic trade dress through decades of non-use. Whether this is sufficient is the core issue in the pending lawsuit; it has not been resolved. The company continues to operate and sell the vehicles while the case proceeds.
What do you think? Knock-off? Or sufficiently different?
