Jaguar Land Rover goes after replica community

[DonkeyApple]

ettore said:

Indeed they don’t.

No evidence to suggest selling off...

I have t said that there is!

[anonymous-user]

a8hex said:

DonkeyApple said:

An EV XJ6 would be a rather stylish urban wafter.

back in the discussion about electrifying classics, I said that an EV version of a X300 would be tempting, a series XJ like wise. For these cars the engine is not the major feature of the car. An electric motor could make a better XJ, it would be even quieter and the torque characteristics would really suit one. Perhaps even doing it to an XJS. An EV classic XK however wouldn't make sense to me.

Suggesting that the engine in an XJ is not a major feature of the car seems odd to me, but I agree than an electric XJ would be a good thing.

[anonymous-user]

Back on topic, is there a replica "community"? I can't see any evidence that Jaguar is targeting enthusiasts in sheds. Targeting commercial operations that produce or aim to produce products that would infringe an intellectual property right does not strike me as objectionable.

The thread title looks to me to be misleading, and it is notable that the the OP did not declare her personal interest in the dispute until called on to do so by another poster.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 14th February 07:32

[anonymous-user]

a8hex said:

Plus8 said:

... Other Jaguar C types...

I think that Jaguar threatened Suffolk Sports cars last year. I'm sure that was covered on here.

They had lost court cases in the past
https://www.autonews.com/design/jaguar-land-rover-...
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/jaguar...

I guess they tried Sweden to see whether they could find a sympathetic judge having failed to find one here.

I guess the modern business idiom is that if times are hard you stamp on your friends.

Trademark is not the same as copyright and design right. Trademark does not protect the design of a car. You are not comparing apples with apples.

[anonymous-user]

Here is the Suffolk Sports Cars discussion from last year.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=18...

[lowdrag]

Breadvan72 said:

Here is the Suffolk Sports Cars discussion from last year.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=18...

Which in brief, to save you reading it all, shows that the directors blamed Jaguar for going under. The fact that the company was £850,000 in debt and had the DVLA on their backs for selling replicas on old identities without putting them through the IVA had noting to do with it of course, nor the fact that it was the third bankruptcy of the MD.

[a8hex]

Breadvan72 said:

a8hex said:

DonkeyApple said:

An EV XJ6 would be a rather stylish urban wafter.

back in the discussion about electrifying classics, I said that an EV version of a X300 would be tempting, a series XJ like wise. For these cars the engine is not the major feature of the car. An electric motor could make a better XJ, it would be even quieter and the torque characteristics would really suit one. Perhaps even doing it to an XJS. An EV classic XK however wouldn't make sense to me.

Suggesting that the engine in an XJ is not a major feature of the car seems odd to me, but I agree than an electric XJ would be a good thing.

Oh the XK engine in the XJ6 (I should have stressed that I was talking about the XJ6) is still a very good engine and I really like the AJ16 in my X300. But the engine is not the most significant feature. To me the XJ is about effortlessly wafting about. It's about quiet luxury and the engine shouldn't intrude too much. The turbine like smoothness of the V12 is, I think, better aligned with the overall character of the car. The extra punch it provides is nice too. By 1968 the XK engine was no longer cutting edge whereas the NVH characteristics of the chassis were. I was still mightily impressed, as a young boy, with it when my uncle took me for a spin in his new one when they first launched. When he visited in the XJ12 a few years later it was even more impressive.

[DonkeyApple]

a8hex said:

Breadvan72 said:

a8hex said:

DonkeyApple said:

An EV XJ6 would be a rather stylish urban wafter.

back in the discussion about electrifying classics, I said that an EV version of a X300 would be tempting, a series XJ like wise. For these cars the engine is not the major feature of the car. An electric motor could make a better XJ, it would be even quieter and the torque characteristics would really suit one. Perhaps even doing it to an XJS. An EV classic XK however wouldn't make sense to me.

Suggesting that the engine in an XJ is not a major feature of the car seems odd to me, but I agree than an electric XJ would be a good thing.

Oh the XK engine in the XJ6 (I should have stressed that I was talking about the XJ6) is still a very good engine and I really like the AJ16 in my X300. But the engine is not the most significant feature. To me the XJ is about effortlessly wafting about. It's about quiet luxury and the engine shouldn't intrude too much. The turbine like smoothness of the V12 is, I think, better aligned with the overall character of the car. The extra punch it provides is nice too. By 1968 the XK engine was no longer cutting edge whereas the NVH characteristics of the chassis were. I was still mightily impressed, as a young boy, with it when my uncle took me for a spin in his new one when they first launched. When he visited in the XJ12 a few years later it was even more impressive.

I tend to agree. While a straight 6 can be the dominant and defining character of one car, in another it can matter less. The old XJ had other things going for it than an I6 that in many ways seemed a bit suffocated in a big heavy vehicle aimed at travelling smoothly and sedately.

I keep meaning to restore an XJ. We always had them floating around in the family when growing up. At one point in the mid 70s my grandfather had a Daimler double six, my father a V12 sovereign and my mother a 4.2. They all arrived at the height of the fuel crisis which I think still leaves scars on my father to this day as he was running all the family cars and by then had stopped receiving money from Jaguar themselves via their racing program. But my childhood was wafting about in these things. Incredibly smooth for their day and very quiet. I learnt to drive in central London in an XJ driving my father about. My grandfather gave me his Daimler in the mid 90s and it was beautifully smooth on the rubbish country lanes of Hertf and Berks while being a really good town car in the middle of London.

To me, it's an ideal candidate for restomodding and electrifying as an electric motor would accentuate some of the core, defining qualities of the XJ6 while not crippling it due to its loss of a nice engine.

I might go Series 1 just to get that massive, bling Audi style grille.

[Bodo]

Breadvan72 said:

a8hex said:

Plus8 said:

... Other Jaguar C types...

I think that Jaguar threatened Suffolk Sports cars last year. I'm sure that was covered on here.

They had lost court cases in the past
https://www.autonews.com/design/jaguar-land-rover-...
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/jaguar...

I guess they tried Sweden to see whether they could find a sympathetic judge having failed to find one here.

I guess the modern business idiom is that if times are hard you stamp on your friends.

Trademark is not the same as copyright and design right. Trademark does not protect the design of a car. You are not comparing apples with apples.

While the cases are not comparable, it is indeed possible to trademark the shape of a car, such as Morgan Motors did: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademark...

[dbdb]

DonkeyApple said:

a8hex said:

Breadvan72 said:

a8hex said:

DonkeyApple said:

An EV XJ6 would be a rather stylish urban wafter.

back in the discussion about electrifying classics, I said that an EV version of a X300 would be tempting, a series XJ like wise. For these cars the engine is not the major feature of the car. An electric motor could make a better XJ, it would be even quieter and the torque characteristics would really suit one. Perhaps even doing it to an XJS. An EV classic XK however wouldn't make sense to me.

Suggesting that the engine in an XJ is not a major feature of the car seems odd to me, but I agree than an electric XJ would be a good thing.

Oh the XK engine in the XJ6 (I should have stressed that I was talking about the XJ6) is still a very good engine and I really like the AJ16 in my X300. But the engine is not the most significant feature. To me the XJ is about effortlessly wafting about. It's about quiet luxury and the engine shouldn't intrude too much. The turbine like smoothness of the V12 is, I think, better aligned with the overall character of the car. The extra punch it provides is nice too. By 1968 the XK engine was no longer cutting edge whereas the NVH characteristics of the chassis were. I was still mightily impressed, as a young boy, with it when my uncle took me for a spin in his new one when they first launched. When he visited in the XJ12 a few years later it was even more impressive.

I tend to agree. While a straight 6 can be the dominant and defining character of one car, in another it can matter less. The old XJ had other things going for it than an I6 that in many ways seemed a bit suffocated in a big heavy vehicle aimed at travelling smoothly and sedately.

I keep meaning to restore an XJ. We always had them floating around in the family when growing up. At one point in the mid 70s my grandfather had a Daimler double six, my father a V12 sovereign and my mother a 4.2. They all arrived at the height of the fuel crisis which I think still leaves scars on my father to this day as he was running all the family cars and by then had stopped receiving money from Jaguar themselves via their racing program. But my childhood was wafting about in these things. Incredibly smooth for their day and very quiet. I learnt to drive in central London in an XJ driving my father about. My grandfather gave me his Daimler in the mid 90s and it was beautifully smooth on the rubbish country lanes of Hertf and Berks while being a really good town car in the middle of London.

To me, it's an ideal candidate for restomodding and electrifying as an electric motor would accentuate some of the core, defining qualities of the XJ6 while not crippling it due to its loss of a nice engine.

I might go Series 1 just to get that massive, bling Audi style grille.

I agree with this, I quite fancy an electric Series II or XJ40. My father ran XJs when I was young but he was quite conservative and I could never convince him to buy the V12 nomatter how hard I tried. I still have an XJ which he owned, but the damn thing is a 3.2 Sovereign not the 6 litre V12!

I suspect that you are right about long-term values of the E-Type since there are so many of them, but I feel the very rare and super-desirable Jaguars such as the C-Type and D-Type will continue to be very expensive, much in the way that the value of 'brown furniture' has wilted significantly in recent years but the very best antique furniture remains very expensive indeed.

[Fastpedeller]

Bodo said:

Breadvan72 said:

a8hex said:

Plus8 said:

... Other Jaguar C types...

I think that Jaguar threatened Suffolk Sports cars last year. I'm sure that was covered on here.

They had lost court cases in the past
https://www.autonews.com/design/jaguar-land-rover-...
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/jaguar...

I guess they tried Sweden to see whether they could find a sympathetic judge having failed to find one here.

I guess the modern business idiom is that if times are hard you stamp on your friends.

Trademark is not the same as copyright and design right. Trademark does not protect the design of a car. You are not comparing apples with apples.

While the cases are not comparable, it is indeed possible to trademark the shape of a car, such as Morgan Motors did: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademark...

What's to stop a manufacturer trademarking all sorts or body shapes in order to 'corner' the market, much in the way Peugeot have the 'O' in the model designation that only they can use?

[a8hex]

DonkeyApple said:

I tend to agree. While a straight 6 can be the dominant and defining character of one car, in another it can matter less. The old XJ had other things going for it than an I6 that in many ways seemed a bit suffocated in a big heavy vehicle aimed at travelling smoothly and sedately.

The XK engine was originally intended for "big heavy vehicle aimed at travelling smoothly and sedately" they developed it along with the front suspension for the big saloon, which was the money spinner. Putting it in a sports car was an afterthought. The saloon wasn't ready for the 1948 motor show so the XK120 was quick idea to show case the new bits of tech. They then found themselves in the situation of almost having to beat customers off with a stick. The initial idea of "we'll make 200" had to be revised and they had the problem of having to find a way to make a production XK120 to meet the demand. But the XK engine was really too heavy for an ideal sports car as it was engineered for a luxury saloon. I guess the over engineering probably helped when it came to the 24 hour race.

The rest of your post was very interesting too, I just wanted to respond to that point.

[a8hex]

Breadvan72 said:

Trademark is not the same as copyright and design right. Trademark does not protect the design of a car. You are not comparing apples with apples.

OK, but as I'd highlighted in my links back into the previous thread Jaguar don't appear to have followed the same course in the UK as they did in the Swedish case, presumably because of the misalignment of UK and European law on these subjects.

[Bodo]

Fastpedeller said:

Bodo said:

Breadvan72 said:

a8hex said:

Plus8 said:

... Other Jaguar C types...

I think that Jaguar threatened Suffolk Sports cars last year. I'm sure that was covered on here.

They had lost court cases in the past
https://www.autonews.com/design/jaguar-land-rover-...
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/jaguar...

I guess they tried Sweden to see whether they could find a sympathetic judge having failed to find one here.

I guess the modern business idiom is that if times are hard you stamp on your friends.

Trademark is not the same as copyright and design right. Trademark does not protect the design of a car. You are not comparing apples with apples.

While the cases are not comparable, it is indeed possible to trademark the shape of a car, such as Morgan Motors did: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademark...

What's to stop a manufacturer trademarking all sorts or body shapes in order to 'corner' the market, much in the way Peugeot have the 'O' in the model designation that only they can use?

Money.

Morgan's is believed to be the only car shape accepted by the Alicante, Spain-based registry as qualifying for legal protection under European Union trademark law. Registration has taken two years and costs have been 'significant,' said Richard Callaghan, partner in trademark lawyers Barker Bretell, who handled the process.
https://europe.autonews.com/article/20000717/ANE/7...

[Touring442]

DonkeyApple said:

I keep meaning to restore an XJ.

I doubt you'll ever have the time.

[DonkeyApple]

Touring442 said:

DonkeyApple said:

I keep meaning to restore an XJ.

I doubt you'll ever have the time.

Plenty of spare time. Haven't really been working since I was 39.

Edited by DonkeyApple on Monday 15th February 07:59

[Venturist]

Fastpedeller said:

What's to stop a manufacturer trademarking all sorts or body shapes in order to 'corner' the market, much in the way Peugeot have the 'O' in the model designation that only they can use?

Trademarks only have basic checks done at registration, they can be overturned all the time in court. I wonder how the Morgan one would fare when tested. Trademark is really not intended for this sort of thing, it’s registered designs you use for protecting designs of objects. Trademark is for things like logos - something the layman recognises as a badge of origin. I suspect a layman looking at a Morgan would just see “old car” and not necessarily any particular brand. JLR lost out on the Defender shape as a trademark too because it’s just a car with wheels, headlights, doors etc like any other. If you were using it as a design for a plane or boat, then it would be unusual enough to be valid as a trademark.

[DonkeyApple]

What's the actual benefit of obtaining a trademark on a shape anyway? Would it not be the case that an exact copy that claims to be the real thing would be illegal regardless and that the market will ascribe a value to a copy or imitation commensurate with how good a copy it is and how well it is accepted by society?

I'm struggling a little to see the clear advantage to Morgan as a small company of relatively limited capital to throw around and such an overtly distinctive basic design ?

It's a little easier to see the threat to someone like Caterhan who were operating down at the end where copies and fakes are more socially acceptable so more threatening to sales.

I can also see JLRs desire re things like the C Type to limit imitations to avoid that Cobra effect on a product but do they specifically need to copyright a shape in order to halt commercial copycatting?

Or is this as much to do about protecting or expanding merchandising revenues? Or bumping up the book value ahead of the selling of the business to the next corporate milkmaid?

[saaby93]

Was the TVR wedge anything like a Lotus Eclat Excel?

[DonkeyApple]

saaby93 said:

Was the TVR wedge anything like a Lotus Eclat Excel?

Weren't they the same car, both aimed at men who liked to sit next to a very nice man, a very, very nice man dressed in yellow? The TVR version being for men over 6 foot and a penchant for pub letching, while the Lotus one catered for chaps who earned the bulk of their income during panto season?