Jaguar Land Rover goes after replica community

[Bodo]

a8hex said:

In the sales brochure for the customer C Type the model is described as the Jaguar XK120 "C" Type
and the opening paragraph starts
The "C" Type Jaguar XK120 model ...

http://www.jag-lovers.org/brochures/ctype.html

I don't know whether Harold Hastings was the first to coin the term, but this shows that Jaguar were using the term in period. The D Type brochure simply refers to the D Type.

Nice find, in the description of the brochure it says that it never reached the public:

...The well known folder for the XK120 'C' or C-Type, often copied due to its scarcity. The folder, in common with the D-Type version, was never issued for release to the public. It was printed purely for compliance with homologation rules in the early 50's and hence gives the barest information on the vehicle. For confirmation of this, see this 1956 official Jaguar factory letter sent to J Elbert in the USA which confirms that the folder was not intended as a sales item. ...

The term C Type is not too important in this matter, since the court came to the conclusion that the body of the existing car infringed JLR's (copy)right while I could not find any trademark issues being discussed in the auto-translated court document:

It is apparent from the investigation that the body of the replica car at issue in the main proceedings is an infringement of JLR's copyright.

[lowdrag]

When I built the Kettle C-type, the V5 showed it as an XK120. I wrote to them pointing out is was an XK120C and to change the definition. The DVLA said that such a definition was not known to them.

[9xxNick]

Slightly OT, but it seems Jaguar Land Rover Classic's activities include selling cars that they've not been involved in the rebuilding of. It may be common knowledge but I wasn't aware.

Edited by 9xxNick on Thursday 18th February 20:47

[Mikebentley]

Clearly the Swedish couple had shallower pockets than Ineos.

[Leithen]

lowdrag said:

When I built the Kettle C-type, the V5 showed it as an XK120. I wrote to them pointing out is was an XK120C and to change the definition. The DVLA said that such a definition was not known to them.

XK. 120. C. was the internal designation.

[CanAm]

Looks vaguely familiar.......

[a8hex]

CanAm said:

Looks vaguely familiar.......

Indeed, an acknowledged inspiration for the shape of the XK120.

[Astacus]

a8hex said:

XJ13 said:

Leithen said:

Jaguar have been snatching defeat from the jaws of victory since the mid 60's. Unsurprisingly nothing remains of what Lyons and England presided over. Which is exactly why the current owners want to have complete control of what is now an almost mythical past. Shoddy behaviour.

An objective view from someone known to you all and who has no axe to grind. I believe Philip Porter has never owned a replica.

C-type Replica Furore

Edited by XJ13 on Wednesday 17th February 21:13

One slight note

Philip Porter said:

In the legal documents, Magnusson is accused of using the C-type trademark. This model name was not actually the factory designation for the car. They were always referred to in period company documentation as the XK 120C. It has long been believed, and stated in print, that 'C-type' was first coined by motoring journalist, Harold Hastings (from memory). It has been used by many replica constructors and by dealers selling examples for several decades.

In the sales brochure for the customer C Type the model is described as the Jaguar XK120 "C" Type
and the opening paragraph starts
The "C" Type Jaguar XK120 model ...

http://www.jag-lovers.org/brochures/ctype.html

I don't know whether Harold Hastings was the first to coin the term, but this shows that Jaguar were using the term in period. The D Type brochure simply refers to the D Type.

The trademark register shows that JLR owns the trademark C-TYPE, which is registered in the relevant class of goods (Motor vehicles, and parts and accessories therefor). They also own the mark without the dash. Affixing that mark to goods in that class would likely be considered trademark infringement, so JLR appear to be prima facie correct.

The advantage of owning a trademark is that it is renewable for ever.

Edited by Astacus on Sunday 21st February 01:03

[anonymous-user]

Not looked at this in any detail, but reports of "copyright" seem legally illiterate.

Copyright, at least it's understood in the UK, has no relevance here. See;
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/secti...

This ought to be a design right.

[craigjm]

tommy1973s said:

Not looked at this in any detail, but reports of "copyright" seem legally illiterate.

Copyright, at least it's understood in the UK, has no relevance here. See;
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/secti...

This ought to be a design right.

Which is why this wasn’t in the U.K.

[anonymous-user]

craigjm said:

tommy1973s said:

Not looked at this in any detail, but reports of "copyright" seem legally illiterate.

Copyright, at least it's understood in the UK, has no relevance here. See;
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/secti...

This ought to be a design right.

Which is why this wasn’t in the U.K.

Yes, but copyright doesn't vary that much in its fundamentals in any jurisdiction. Design rights either are registered or unregistered. You get longer protection if registered, but it still usually runs out after c 25 years. Copyright is only relevant if Jaguar was relying on its underlying design drawings. Which they may well have done.

I'd issue fresh proceedings in the UK and seek a declaratory judgment to the effect that Jaguar has long since acquiesced to the production of these replicas. You could try estoppel in the original Swedish proceedings, that is if they have any similar concept in thir legal system.

[anonymous-user]

Wonder if all those Porsche 550 replica makers and e.g. Eagle are now looking over their shoulders?

Up to fairly recently, manufacturers had zero interest in enthusiasts and their replica of old designs. We were almost an embarrassment.

But with the lack of character inherent in awful, samey battery drivetrains, manufacturers now realise what the enthusiast community knew all along, namely the value in heritage and character. Hence this new-found aggression about these old designs.

[Astacus]

tommy1973s said:

craigjm said:

tommy1973s said:

Not looked at this in any detail, but reports of "copyright" seem legally illiterate.

Copyright, at least it's understood in the UK, has no relevance here. See;
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/secti...

This ought to be a design right.

Which is why this wasn’t in the U.K.

Yes, but copyright doesn't vary that much in its fundamentals in any jurisdiction. Design rights either are registered or unregistered. You get longer protection if registered, but it still usually runs out after c 25 years. Copyright is only relevant if Jaguar was relying on its underlying design drawings. Which they may well have done.

I'd issue fresh proceedings in the UK and seek a declaratory judgment to the effect that Jaguar has long since acquiesced to the production of these replicas. You could try estoppel in the original Swedish proceedings, that is if they have any similar concept in thir legal system.

This is discussed a little in the Suffolk Jags thread.

As you correctly point out, design right is gone. The C type trademark exists and belongs to JLR. Copyright is a little more complex. s51 CDPA suggests that unless the car is a work of art/sculpture (my paraphrase) then it’s not an infringement of the design drawings to make an article to the design. There has been a bit of discussion around whether that should be remain, but it still stands. Recent EU case law suggests that there may be mileage in this approach, but of course that will not now be part of UK law, although it could explain why the case was brought in Sweden

Edited by Astacus on Monday 22 February 00:24

[Touring442]

BMW, Porsche and JLR are aggressively protective of their designs, often to ludicrous degrees. There was a guy on some forum (Autoste iirc) doing some very nice art drawings of various products of the above mnfrs and he received cease and desist notices.

[Lynchie999]

Touring442 said:

BMW, Porsche and JLR are aggressively protective of their designs, often to ludicrous degrees. There was a guy on some forum (Autoste iirc) doing some very nice art drawings of various products of the above mnfrs and he received cease and desist notices.

I even had a take down on one of my own photos of a D-Type on a popular e-commerce website (one where you can order prints and stuff) ... I contested but it still got taken down, they basically said "we can do what we want" ....

[Fastpedeller]

Lynchie999 said:

I even had a take down on one of my own photos of a D-Type on a popular e-commerce website (one where you can order prints and stuff) ... I contested but it still got taken down, they basically said "we can do what we want" ....

Was it a genuine D-Type or a Replica though? Surely a photo of a replica (unless it has D-Type named on it) is ok?

[lowdrag]

Copy this photo then. It was my Lynx D-type which looks like a real one but isn't. In fact, here are two photos, one of my short nose and one of my long nose.





Or, if you prefer, the Lynx XKSS:-



My pleasure.

[Lynchie999]

Fastpedeller said:

Lynchie999 said:

I even had a take down on one of my own photos of a D-Type on a popular e-commerce website (one where you can order prints and stuff) ... I contested but it still got taken down, they basically said "we can do what we want" ....

Was it a genuine D-Type or a Replica though? Surely a photo of a replica (unless it has D-Type named on it) is ok?

It was very much real one..

its OK, it mainly the website (Redbubble) being far to heavy handed... the irony is if JLR were to use my photo without permission I'd send them a takedown notice or send an invoice! thats what I don't get... I mean they don't go after every automotive photographer and tell them not to sell prints of Jaguars...

[anonymous-user]

lowdrag said:

My pleasure.

That is beautiful.

[InitialDave]

Lynchie999 said:

It was very much real one..

its OK, it mainly the website (Redbubble) being far to heavy handed... the irony is if JLR were to use my photo without permission I'd send them a takedown notice or send an invoice! thats what I don't get... I mean they don't go after every automotive photographer and tell them not to sell prints of Jaguars...

That's quite interesting in the context of this thread, as that kind of copyright law (regarding photos of artwork taken in public spaces, assuming they're treating the form of the car as "artwork") is exactly the kind of thing Sweden has and we don't. (Per my understanding, not being a legal bod).