Replicas and the copyright/trademark law 'police'?

[AMG Merc]

There seem to be some very good replicas out there these days and, as some originals cost many £millions, the trade, auctioneers and car clubs seem to be a lot more acepting of them. For example, a few years ago if you'd rolled up to a Jaguar day in a C/D-type 'creation' you'd be lucky to be directed to a field. Now they'd give pride of place for a good one and don't seem to mind placing in next to a 'real one'.

My question concerns labelling/logo-ing: Have the manufactuers got softer on this? I recall that Merc confiscated and scrapped an 'aftermarket' gullwing SL body earlier this year as they said, quite righty, that they own the 'design'.

I'm thinking of logos, engine cover signage, miscellaneous labelling, logo-ed steering wheel bosses and road wheel hubs , etc.

Thoughts?

[Lowtimer]

The trade mark owner of something which is a continuing business (e.g. Jaguar) would be both foolish and legally negligent if it turned a blind eye to someone over whom it had no control creating Jaguar-badged components for commercial purposes. The other producer would also be engaged in an illegal 'passing off' exercise.

If the trade mark owner likes what the secondary producer wants to do, and is prepared to ensure that it is done properly, the correct way of going about it would be to issue a licence to the secondary producer. This gives the trade mark owner the ability to continue to protect the use of the trade mark, and also to exercise proper control over the quality of what is being produced using their trade marks.

Edited by Lowtimer on Sunday 23 November 16:44

[Keep it stiff]

I have no problem with reps. In the mega-money market D type reps etc. are never going to be confused with the real thing and some of these are works of art in their own right.

[//j17]

A lot depends what protections the manufacturer actually has on it's products.

At a guess Jag. didn't really both with anything specific for the C-/D-types. Sure badges and logos would be registered trade marks, but the rest of it is 'just a car' so isn't specifically protected.

A few years ago Merc. had the foresight/cynical lawyering to get the whole gullwing design registered as a trade mark, much like the classic Coke bottle. This doesn't stop you making or selling individual parts, such as body pannels (at best these would at best be covered by registered design laws and these have must fit/must match exclusions) but if you put them all together as a car you hit the trade mark.

This isn't general practice though and for logos most manufacturers don't car unless it's the current logo or really central to the brand (so on say a VW Beetle the VW roundal yes, but probably not arsed about the "VW 1303" model badge).

[mph]

If someone makes an exact cosmetic copy of an existing car I'd be surprised if the original manufacturer doesn't have some legal rights to challenge it.

The example of Caterham and Westfield springs to mind.

In the case of Jaguar, the C and D type are copies of a car they no longer make and never made in quantity anyway. The existence of copies wouldn't have any relevance on their current business.

The one that's always confused me is the AC Cobra. AC's were still being made when the replica market was in full flow and I wonder why the manufacturer never took action.

[a8hex]

I'm not sure what Jaguars official position is with regard to C and D reps. I believe its friendly but who knows...
E-Type reps might become different now that Jaguar have themselves decided to produce a few more "Light Weights".
But Jaguar have stamped down on some other products. A few Christmases ago LadyB8 bought me some nice "Jaguar" dust caps for the valves on my XJ, some kind sole decided to steal them at a show once and I looked for some more only to be told by the supplier that Jaguars lawyers had contacted them suggesting that it wouldn't be a good plan to keep producing these items with the Jaguar logo. Also a regular in the Jaguar forum has been told by Jaguar to change their company name to avoid a trademark owner by Jaguar.
When it comes to the C&D type reps I guess that Jaguar are friendly because they presume that anyone wanting a C or D is likely to be a Jaguar enthusiast and is quite like to be a customer (or potential customer) for other products. So its probably in their best interest to be friendly. Why MB choose to work differently I've no idea, that's up to them. But a few years back they tried very hard to make the production of after market parts of MB cars illegal.

[Roy C]

a8hex said:

...a regular in the Jaguar forum has been told by Jaguar to change their company name to avoid a trademark owner by Jaguar.

I understand that Jaguar's lawyers have been "strongly advising" marque specialists who use the company's name or logo to disist.

[//j17]

mph said:

If someone makes an exact cosmetic copy of an existing car I'd be surprised if the original manufacturer doesn't have some legal rights to challenge it.

The example of Caterham and Westfield springs to mind.

Actually there's been very little action in terms of the look of the different 'Lotus 7' cars as they probably aren't trade marked. There's been a LOT of action around the terms "Lotus" and "Seven" because they ARE trade marks, one owned by Lotus Cars and the other bought along with the right to the 'seven' in reference to a small sports car by Caterham.

Caterham COULD register a car as a trade mark but a trade mark has to be specific, so they could register say the Roadsport 125 and that may also cover the Roadsport 140. It WOULDN'T cover the Seven 160 though, as it doesn't look exactly the same as the Roadsport 125.

There are a number of restrictions around what can/can't be a trade mark but it must be specific and not in common usage. So Microsoft don't hold a trade mark for "Windows" as the word windows is in common usage and Caterham couldn't register something vague like "Little 2-seat sports cars with cycle arches on the front wheels" because it covers a lot of other cars. It's also why the Hover company lost their trade mark on their name because the term "hover" became the commonly used term for a vacuum cleaner and why the Coca-Cola companies spends more on protecting their trade mark than almost anything else (and why when you order "a Zinger Tower with a coke" in KFC they will say "Sorry we don't do Coke, would Pepsi be OK?").

mph said:

The one that's always confused me is the AC Cobra. AC's were still being made when the replica market was in full flow and I wonder why the manufacturer never took action.

I don't think they were still making the AC Ace, so not in direct competition and the AC company probably decided the Cobra replica market was doing more good keeping the name AC in in the press than any damage it may cause the brand.

[mph]

I'm certain that Caterham successfully took Westfield to court regarding the "similarities" of their model. Westfield were obliged to make certain changes as a result.

AC Cars (or whatever they were calling themselves at the time) were certainly in business and making Cobras while the replica business was in full flow.

I don't see any way in which replica Cobras have a positive affect on the real thing. In fact I'm sure that most owners of genuine Cobras are fed up with being asked the obvious question .....

[//j17]

mph said:

I'm certain that Caterham successfully took Westfield to court regarding the "similarities" of their model. Westfield were obliged to make certain changes as a result.

Yea, because now they don't look at all like one-another and someone like me who's not a Se7en fanatic instantly goes "There's a Westfield" or "There's a Caterham" and not "There's a Lotus 7 kit car"...

[lowdrag]

A lot of speculation here it seems. Many a replica has been built, many "original" cars aren't factory recognised as original, some manufacturers take a really dim view, and others like Jaguar and Ferrari seem to turn a blind eye. The number of manufacturers world-wide of C D and XKSS's is or was legion, from the full-on FIA-papered cars buylt in Australia, New Zealand and the UK through the Lynx and Wingfield lookalikes in alloy through the RAM/LR/Realm fibreglass ones and not forgetting Suffolk for their C-types and SS100 models. One only has to look at the Chris Rea shark nose and the Giallofly one that races at the Revival, plus the Lancia Ferrari "saddle-tank" cars that also race. But brand names are expensive things and Jaguar for one may start to get aggressive, but I see no real reason if the people involved aren't making current model parts or stamping them Jaguar. Having said that, just have a look here for examples of copies:-

http://r.ca.d.mailin.fr/it8y0kcibkrf.html

They are very well known and seem to have no issues with Jaguar. Oh, and they do dust caps Ken. I bought my E-type radiator from them £800 cheaper than in the UK.

And Ken, if you want dust covers over here, you have to do no more than look here:-

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Jaguar-Car-Wheel-Tyre-Va...

I had them in Ecurie Ecosse for the long nose Lynx but the problem is they jam on and unless you put some grease on the threads you'll have a hell of a job getting them off.

As regards engine cover signage, it makes me wince every time I see a Jaguar replica with the red C-type badges on the cam covers. It's a sure sign the car is a replica, because the originals don't have them!

[Fastpedeller]

//j17 said:

It's also why the Hover company lost their trade mark on their name because the term "hover" became the commonly used term for a vacuum cleaner

I guess you mean Hoover. I think you are absolutely incorrect on this one though - Yes it's a commonly used term (but unlike windows it only really has one meaning) but if anyone in the vacuum cleaner world used the word Hoover on their product it would be a breach of trademark.

[lowdrag]

There are so many examples of brand names moving into common usage. Fridge is Fridgidaire for example, and here in France a high-pressure washer is a Kärcher, no matter what actual make it is. Brain fade makes me forget other examples for the moment.

[Truffles]

There are very few marks which turn generic. A good example is Aspirin, which was originally a Bayer trademark but which became the generic name for salicylic acid methyl ester. The trademark was taken by the allies as part of the first world war reparations. It takes a lot to make a trademark generic.

Back on topic, I can understand why manufacturers police copies of cars in production, but I can also see why they don't mind people copying cars no longer in production. With 3D printing I expect we shall see even more of them.

[//j17]

There's Heroin, though it may be more a case that Bayer no wanted rather than lost the trade mark in that case