What Is The Vintage Broncos Ford Lawsuit About?

The world of classic cars often celebrates creativity, nostalgia, and craftsmanship. But when those passions intersect with intellectual property law, disputes can quickly shift from workshops to courtrooms.

One of the latest high-profile cases involves Ford Motor Company and a Georgia-based restoration shop known as Vintage Broncos—now rebranded as Vintage Modern, Inc.

In October 2024, Ford filed a trademark and trade dress lawsuit against the shop, alleging that its business model—transforming new Ford Broncos into vehicles styled after first-generation Broncos—crossed the line into infringement and false advertising.

The Ford Motor Company v. Vintage Modern, Inc. et al lawsuit is drawing widespread attention among enthusiasts, restoration businesses, and legal observers alike because it raises questions about where the line between innovation and infringement lies.

In this article, I will talk about the following things:

• What is the Vintage Broncos Ford Lawsuit about?
• Major allegations in the lawsuit.
• IP and trademark issues in the industry.
• What are the potential outcomes of the case?

Therefore, if these are some of the things that you want to know, then keep on reading this blog till the end… 

What Is The Vintage Broncos Ford Lawsuit About?

Vintage Modern’s work (previously marketed under the name “Vintage Broncos”) catered to a unique customer base: people who loved the look of a 1966–1977 Ford Bronco but wanted the safety and reliability of a modern SUV.

According to Diesel World, the company took sixth-generation Broncos—the models Ford relaunched in 2021—and swapped out body panels with retro-inspired designs that replicated the iconic first-gen look. 

Each build came with a hefty price tag, often exceeding $169,000, but catered to the booming restomod culture in the United States, where collectors want classic aesthetics paired with features like anti-lock brakes, air conditioning, and driver-assist technology, reports Hemmings.

The Bronco has long been one of Ford’s most beloved nameplates, with strong cultural recognition. Its 2021 relaunch capitalized on nostalgia, marketing the Bronco as both rugged and modern. Against this backdrop, Vintage Modern’s conversions quickly attracted attention—both from wealthy clients and, inevitably, from Ford’s legal team.

What Did Ford Motor Company Say?

From Ford’s point of view, the problem isn’t just about a boutique shop selling a few dozen modified SUVs. It’s about brand integrity, consumer safety, and market confusion.

• Trademark Concerns: Ford owns the Bronco trademark and has invested heavily in promoting the relaunch. The company argues that Vintage Modern’s use of the “Vintage Broncos” name and marketing could mislead consumers into believing the shop is affiliated with or endorsed by Ford.
• Trade Dress Concerns: Ford claims that the retro-styled body panels and distinctive design features of the first-generation Bronco remain protected as trade dress. By recreating those looks on modern vehicles, Ford argues, Vintage Modern is diluting the distinctiveness of its design.
• Safety Concerns: Ford has also raised safety issues, pointing out that heavily modified vehicles may not comply with the same crash testing or durability standards as factory-built models, potentially harming consumers and Ford’s reputation if something goes wrong.

In short, Ford sees Vintage Modern as a business unfairly riding on its coattails while risking brand confusion.

What Are The Major Allegations In The Vintage Broncos Ford Lawsuit?

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on October 31, 2024, sets out several claims under the Lanham Act:

• Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114): Unauthorized use of Ford’s Bronco trademarks.
• Trade Dress Infringement: Copying the overall look and feel of the first-generation Bronco.
• False Advertising / Unfair Competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)): Suggesting affiliation with Ford or misrepresenting the nature of the vehicles.
• Dilution of Famous Mark: Weakening the Bronco brand’s distinctiveness.

According to filings, Ford sent a cease-and-desist letter in June 2024, which Vintage Modern did not comply with, prompting Ford to sue

In response, Vintage Modern has emphasized that it:

• Clearly disclaims any affiliation with Ford on its website, noting that references to trademarks are “solely for identification purposes.”
• Argues that Ford may have abandoned certain classic Bronco trade dress by not producing the original designs for decades.
• Could invoke the first sale doctrine, which allows owners to resell or modify legally purchased goods, though courts sometimes limit this defense when modifications risk confusion.

Additionally, Ford has demanded a jury trial, significantly raising the stakes. 

Read Also: CP4 Fuel Pump Silverado Sierra Lawsuit: How Can You Claim Your Settlement Amount?

Intellectual Property and Trademark Issues in the Auto Industry

This case highlights a recurring tension in the auto industry: how much control manufacturers have over their brand identity once vehicles hit the aftermarket.

• Trademark Law: Protects names, logos, and branding that identify source. For Ford, the “Bronco” mark is unquestionably protected.
• Trade Dress: Protects non-functional, distinctive designs. Courts often scrutinize whether a car’s shape or styling is “source-identifying” or merely functional.

Similar disputes have occurred before:

• Ferrari has sued customizers who copied body designs.
• Other automakers have cracked down on replica kit car manufacturers for infringing classic styling.

While restoration of genuine vintage cars is generally legal, the recreation of protected trade dress on new cars remains a gray zone.

How Has The Community Reacted To The Vintage Broncos Ford Lawsuit?

Unsurprisingly, the lawsuit has divided opinion:

• Car Enthusiasts: Many sympathize with Vintage Modern, praising the creativity of blending old looks with new tech. They argue Ford’s lawsuit could stifle the restomod culture that keeps automotive history alive.
• Ford Supporters: Others believe Ford is right to protect its brand, especially given how much it invested in the Bronco relaunch. Allowing look-alike vehicles could confuse buyers and dilute the exclusivity of Ford’s designs.

For the restoration industry, the case is a wake-up call. Small shops may need to reconsider how they use trademarks and whether they risk lawsuits by replicating iconic designs too closely.

Read Also: What Is The Nintendo Palworld Lawsuit Update?

What Are The Potential Outcomes Of The Case?

For Vintage Modern, the lawsuit threatens its business model. For Ford, the stakes are about long-term control over its heritage brand.

Several scenarios could emerge:

1. Settlement: The most likely outcome. Vintage Modern could agree to stop using Ford trademarks, rebrand its vehicles, or limit its modifications.
2. Ford Wins: If Ford prevails, Vintage Modern could face injunctions, damages, or even be barred from selling its retro-styled Broncos. This would send a strong message to other shops.
3. Vintage Modern Wins: Less likely, but possible if the court finds no likelihood of confusion or determines Ford abandoned certain trade dress rights.

The broader implication? This case could set a precedent for how far restomod and custom shops can go before infringing on intellectual property.

The Vintage Broncos lawsuit is about much more than SUVs. It’s about the boundaries of creativity in the aftermarket, the legal reach of trademark law, and the ongoing battle between big automakers and small custom shops.

At its heart lies a cultural question: how do we preserve automotive history while respecting intellectual property? If Ford succeeds, restoration shops may face tighter restrictions. If Vintage Modern prevails, small businesses could gain more freedom—but automakers may respond by increasing enforcement.

Either way, the case underscores one truth: in the age of nostalgia-driven car culture, the law plays just as big a role in shaping the industry as the cars themselves.