SILVERSTONE, England, Feb 5 - Spyker have threatened to stop fellow Formula One tail-enders Super Aguri and Toro Rosso from racing in a row over the legality of their 2007 cars.

Team boss Colin Kolles said on Monday that Spyker would seek to prevent their rivals from starting the season-opening Australian Grand Prix on March 18 if they turned up in Melbourne with 'copycat' cars.

"If we don't like the cars then we will have an injunction, for sure," Kolles told Reuters at the launch of the new Spyker F8-VII.

"They will have to learn it the hard way.

"I don't argue afterwards any more. We are trying to find a solution and there are some people who think they are super-clever.

"And we will see at the end of the day, who has the evidence and the proof. And I can tell you that I have them and some people are very naive."

Honda-backed Super Aguri and Toro Rosso, a sister team to Red Bull Racing, are the only teams who have yet to unveil their 2007 cars.

Super Aguri, who have been testing so far with last year's race-winning Honda, have said they will launch theirs on the Monday before Melbourne.

"I've not heard of anyone not running a car and unveiling it so late. It would be madness," said Spyker technical head Mike Gascoyne. "Perhaps it isn't if the design already exists and has been well-tested."

Unhappy rivals say the Super Aguri SA07 will be a development of the RA106 while Toro Rosso's offering is expected to be a copy of the Red Bull RB3, with a different engine and gearbox.

Both Super Aguri and Toro Rosso have said their cars will conform to the regulations.

Formula One's confidential 'Concorde Agreement' stipulates that teams must design and build their own cars - at least until 2008, when the agreement expires -- and own the intellectual property rights.

Kolles said Spyker would be prepared and ready to act if the cars presented for scrutineering in Melbourne aroused suspicions.

"They (Super Aguri and Toro Rosso) shouldn't be entitled to get drivers and constructors points," he added. "On drivers points, we can look into it.

"But definitely not constructors, because they are not constructors."