Jaguar Land Rover goes after replica community
Discussion
We really need BV to step in on this, but my understanding is that the Swedish decision affects all the EU, but the UK is no longer a member but was when the decision was made in December. Maybe that muddies the waters? I have no understanding of this, although elsewhere did point out the difference between copyright and intellectual rights. I have written articles about replicas for Jaguar publications for many years now, and at times have sought clarification on some points from Jaguar, information that they willingly shared. I would also point out that a few years back the Revival featured a race for the 60th anniversary of the D-type. Many of the cars taking part were replicas with no provenance. where will that lead us if Jaguar seeks to have all of our cars crushed, as Mercedes did with the 300 SLR?
lowdrag said:
We really need BV to step in on this, but my understanding is that the Swedish decision affects all the EU, but the UK is no longer a member but was when the decision was made in December. Maybe that muddies the waters?
In the previous thread (my emphasis) XJ13 said:
Breadvan - you are absolutely correct in your assertion that it is virtually impossible to "copyright" items such as these - certainly under current UK copyright law and its misalignment with European & International law.
Cases in the UK have so far failed, but if the law is different elsewhere then different results are likely. Hopefully one of the people who knows about these things will come along soon to put us right.Plus8 said:
Can someone explain why many other Kit Cars or Replicas or Recreations are not in breach of copyright laws? I am thinking of Cobras, Other Jaguar C types, Lotus 7 in various guises etc. I would have thought imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I can’t imagine Jaguar winning many admirers for taking this action. Sledgehammer and nut comes to mind.
It depends on the original manufacturer & the agreement, if they have one, with the recreator. It's down to what has been registered as protected & how much the owner of those rights wants to pay to protect them. Caterham bought the rights to build the Lotus 7 & rename it as their own - over the years they've threatened legal action against those copying the design, as I would if I'd done the decent thing & paid for them up front. Ferrari are notoriously litigious, which is perhaps why some of the replicas are a long way off the original, to avoid the accusation, doesn't always work though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA5Hb9fpegA : - I wouldn't try & take a 355/MR2 into Italy, it'll be laughed at then confiscated, I suspect (not sure which would be worse).During my time at Lynx it was always the case that Jaguar were unfailingly helpful to the extent that from time to time we would receive a big brown envelope containing drawings or the like, with a note saying something like 'Found these down the back of a filing cabinet, hope you will find them of use'!
Agreed that copywriting is a tricky area which is why we always went for Registered Design, a regular part of my job was to pursue people who copied parts that we were still making, and then sold them as original Lynx parts complete with the Lynx logo. The crucial thing there is that these were items still in production by us. Our inlet manifold for three twin choke Weber carbs was a case in point, we had no idea they were being pirated until we had two back under warranty in quick succession. When we looked closely we could see that the casting was porous, the machining was not to our standards and so on. After that we changed the logo and included a flat onto which we stamped a serial number.
That is not the case here though, these cars had been out of production for half a century give or take, there was no attempt to 'pass off' as original and there is little chance of the replica taking sales from Jaguars own product.
Tony, I am not entirely clear on the chassis numbers these days, your memory will be better than mine, but Jaguar's number look a bit strange to me. For example were there not 27 monocoques stacked up, eventually to be converted to XKSSs of which 16 were built before the fire? That makes a continuation run of 11 rather than 9. I don't think there was any suggestion that D Type production should stop at any number either, they simply stopped after orders dried up, hence the pile of monocoques in the corner. If you look at the chassis numbers of the XKSS run you find that the lowest XKSS chassis number also carries the highest XKD chassis number because it was the first off the top of the pile to be converted!
Last question, do you recall who was the original owner of DS11 or who built it, it looks familiar but ............
Agreed that copywriting is a tricky area which is why we always went for Registered Design, a regular part of my job was to pursue people who copied parts that we were still making, and then sold them as original Lynx parts complete with the Lynx logo. The crucial thing there is that these were items still in production by us. Our inlet manifold for three twin choke Weber carbs was a case in point, we had no idea they were being pirated until we had two back under warranty in quick succession. When we looked closely we could see that the casting was porous, the machining was not to our standards and so on. After that we changed the logo and included a flat onto which we stamped a serial number.
That is not the case here though, these cars had been out of production for half a century give or take, there was no attempt to 'pass off' as original and there is little chance of the replica taking sales from Jaguars own product.
Tony, I am not entirely clear on the chassis numbers these days, your memory will be better than mine, but Jaguar's number look a bit strange to me. For example were there not 27 monocoques stacked up, eventually to be converted to XKSSs of which 16 were built before the fire? That makes a continuation run of 11 rather than 9. I don't think there was any suggestion that D Type production should stop at any number either, they simply stopped after orders dried up, hence the pile of monocoques in the corner. If you look at the chassis numbers of the XKSS run you find that the lowest XKSS chassis number also carries the highest XKD chassis number because it was the first off the top of the pile to be converted!
Last question, do you recall who was the original owner of DS11 or who built it, it looks familiar but ............
As always Mike, good to have your input on Lynx. The question of chassis numbers for the XKSS is easy to explain. As we all know, one had to build a certain number of cars for homologation purposes, and Jaguar followed Ferrari in a little ruse. The first chassis numbers were XKSS 701, 704, 707, 710. Hey Presto, we've built ten cars already! This series went on to XKSS 728, where it stopped except that one D-type shell numbered XKD 542 became XKD 754. The numbers in between were the numbers used to build the "continuation " cars. So from XKSS 728 to XKSS 754 we have 26 numbers, which divided by three gives nine. Er no it doesn't! It gives 8 2/3rds! But who's counting? Let's round it off to nine and we'll build nine cars and make an extra million profit.
DS 11, the Jaguar-owned replica, was part of the James Hull collection which Jaguar purchased in its entirety for a rumoured £40 million. It included this XKSS which was built by David Duffy and Jerry Booen, and is a "proper" replica, unlike a Lynx, and I was told that James Hull paid £420,000 for it. The photo above I took in 2009 while we were fettling the Kettle at Goodwood and Jerry was doing the same with the XKSS Hope this helps.
DS 11, the Jaguar-owned replica, was part of the James Hull collection which Jaguar purchased in its entirety for a rumoured £40 million. It included this XKSS which was built by David Duffy and Jerry Booen, and is a "proper" replica, unlike a Lynx, and I was told that James Hull paid £420,000 for it. The photo above I took in 2009 while we were fettling the Kettle at Goodwood and Jerry was doing the same with the XKSS Hope this helps.
Mike-tf3n0 said:
from time to time we would receive a big brown envelope containing drawings or the like, with a note saying something like 'Found these down the back of a filing cabinet, hope you will find them of use'!
that takes me back a few years. "I thought you'd find these useful" 
Mike-tf3n0 said:
Tony, I am not entirely clear on the chassis numbers these days, your memory will be better than mine, but Jaguar's number look a bit strange to me. For example were there not 27 monocoques stacked up, eventually to be converted to XKSSs of which 16 were built before the fire? That makes a continuation run of 11 rather than 9. I don't think there was any suggestion that D Type production should stop at any number either, they simply stopped after orders dried up, hence the pile of monocoques in the corner. If you look at the chassis numbers of the XKSS run you find that the lowest XKSS chassis number also carries the highest XKD chassis number because it was the first off the top of the pile to be converted!
With the XKSS I thought that there were "plans" to make 50 due to the requirement that there should be 50 made for acceptance into a particular series of races. In reality they didn't expect to be able to sell 50 so they issued cars with non consecutive chassis numbers to make it look like they'd made more. This was hardly an original trick, military planners were certainly doing this before Jaguar, if for subtly different reasons.Interesting point about the starting number, XKSS-701 as the last batch of Ds had used 60X numbers. For the Ds I thought the number was tied to the year of manufacture, although the years listed on the coventryracers.collectordata.com. website seem all over the place.
Editted, sorry I guess Tony was typing at the same time I was.
Here's a press release said to be of the family:
I have no interest in that matter other than I'm curious about JLR's motivation to go after this particular replica/builder.
said:
WORLDWIDE PRESS RELEASE Tuesday 9th February, 2021
Jaguar – the unacceptable face of capitalism
Big business crushes Swedish couple
Impact on loyal Jaguar enthusiasts worldwide
Alleged unethical behaviour
International fund-raising seeks support to fight back
Shock Court Ruling
Jaguar Land Rover wins rights to the 1951 C-type – far reaching consequences for the whole replica community
Jaguar Land Rover recently sued a lifelong Jaguar enthusiast, Karl Magnusson (age 68), for copyright infringement after building a C-type replica in his home garage in Gothenburg Sweden, despite decades of global public approval of the replica industry from Jaguar themselves. Jaguar won. Unless overturned, the ruling is expected to set a global precedent for car manufacturers, opening up copyright proceedings for other car models across the global car industry.
Swedish pensioner and honorary member of the Swedish Jaguar Club, Karl Magnusson was invited by senior management to the Jaguar Land Rover Classic UK HQ in 2016 to give a presentation about his C-type project. “Our C-type replica was going to be the cherry on top of our small private collection of restored Jags,” says Magnusson. That collection has had to be sold to fund lawyer costs.
Despite two years of correspondence regarding future project collaboration, meetings and nothing but praise from Jaguar Classic management, Mr. and Mrs. Magnusson were sued in 2018 by Jaguar Land Rover for copyright infringement. A staggeringly uneven battle began between a global corporation and retired pensioners, who have had to put everything on the line.
“We feel so betrayed. They had every opportunity to warn me if I was doing something wrong.” says Karl Magnusson.
After a surprising verdict by the Stockholm District Court in December, Karl and Ann-Christine were found guilty of copyright infringement and their privately-built C-type replica deemed illegal and subject to destruction - a project inspired by passion that took nine years of research and labour to complete.
In addition, the Magnussons are required to pay Jaguar Land Rover’s legal costs of £450,000. Furthermore, JLR can also claim damages.
“We don’t understand why a multi-billion dollar company needs to destroy the lives of two grandparents. And this is just one of at least 1,500 replica C-types built globally in the past 45 years. The consequence of the verdict is that all owners of C-type replicas now risk being forced to destroy their cars when JLR comes after them,” said Ann-Christine.
As for the replica industry, this verdict giving a 70-year-old car shape copyright protection is likely to have far-reaching consequences - in essence, making all C-type replicas unlawful to display, sell or use on public roads or in other public circumstances, under threat of penalties and/or destruction.
While this is a verdict by a Swedish court, because of EU directives the judgement will be invoked in other EU countries, potentially threatening the entire European replica industry. Under the current understanding of relevant agreements, this can be invoked in the UK even after Brexit. Due to this verdict, other car makers can use this precedent and claim copyright of their historic models, threatening 10s of 1,000s of Ferrari, Ford GT40, Porsche, AC Cobra, Aston Martin and other replicas.
“We don’t understand where this has come from considering Jaguar's history of supporting the replica industry,” states Karl Magnusson.
“We feel it’s so hypocritical of Jaguar to sue us when their own senior management privately build, commission, race and own C-type replicas themselves.”
Over the years Jaguar have supported the replica industry in various ways. No less than three Jaguar CEOs have supplied close to 2,000 drawings to replica builders as well as given awards to replica builders. Three Jaguar senior managers and one Director, previous and present, have privately built and raced C-type replicas themselves.
“The Engineering Manager at JLR Classic, who met with us, was used as a witness against us in court, all the while keeping his own C-type replica in his garage.”
Since 2015, 25 historic Jaguar Land Rover Classic Challenge races have been held, and 5 more are planned this year, publicly inviting replicas. On YouTube official Jaguar Land Rover marketing films feature proud displays of replicas.
You can even pay to take the Jaguar Land Rover “Classic Drive” experience, which includes driving C-type and D-type replicas. None of them built by JLR.
JLR Classic Works are currently launching their own “continuation” replica E-types and C-types with the help of replica producers in the UK, who are the ones with the skill and knowledge to produce the parts. In other words, at the same time as JLR are calling replicas illegal and pursuing this in the courts, they financially support and cooperate with replica producers.
And it does not stop here: just google “JLR Replica” and the first hit takes you to an official Jaguar Land Rover dealership, selling US kit-car C-type replicas on their website. https://www.jlrclassics.com/cars/
Despite the initial setback, the Magnussons remain determined to continue the fight and proceed with an appeal. “Anyone who has been involved with classic cars would understand the absurdity of all Jaguar replicas suddenly becoming illegal. The court ruling is highly questionable to say the least, and we have a very strong appeal,” says Karl Magnusson.
The appeal process will put a further extreme financial strain on the retired couple and their family. “We are going to have to sell our house and all of our belongings if we lose an appeal. Jaguar would essentially make us homeless.” The Magnussons have now resorted to crowdfunding to raise the needed funds, hoping for the engagement of the replica community to support them through the appeal process.
Unless the ruling is overturned in the Court of Appeal, it will not only open the door for Jaguar Land Rover to continue to sue and crush small replica builders and passionate Jaguar enthusiasts but sets a precedent for all other car manufacturers, threatening replica builders and owners on a global scale.
Enthusiasts worldwide are encouraged to share this on social media and to donate any amount, however small. At the Go-Fund Me page [request for donation retracted]
For more information and direct quotes, please contact Elizabeth Magnusson, daughter of Karl and Ann-Christine Magnusson and Official Spokesperson.
Email: [personal information retracted]
Phone: [personal information retracted]
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Court documents
The Swedish court files are public and can be requested from the Swedish courts at https://www.domstol.se/ and are also available in original and auto-translated versions using the following links:
Court ruling
Auto-translated to English: http://bit.ly/38UwvJj
Appeal
Appeal, auto-translated to English: http://bit.ly/2LhwaYY
Supplement to the appeal, auto-translated to English: http://bit.ly/3abYy81
Annexes: http://bit.ly/3iQxbUF
Taken from here: https://forums.autosport.com/topic/217191-jaguar-l...Jaguar – the unacceptable face of capitalism
Big business crushes Swedish couple
Impact on loyal Jaguar enthusiasts worldwide
Alleged unethical behaviour
International fund-raising seeks support to fight back
Shock Court Ruling
Jaguar Land Rover wins rights to the 1951 C-type – far reaching consequences for the whole replica community
Jaguar Land Rover recently sued a lifelong Jaguar enthusiast, Karl Magnusson (age 68), for copyright infringement after building a C-type replica in his home garage in Gothenburg Sweden, despite decades of global public approval of the replica industry from Jaguar themselves. Jaguar won. Unless overturned, the ruling is expected to set a global precedent for car manufacturers, opening up copyright proceedings for other car models across the global car industry.
Swedish pensioner and honorary member of the Swedish Jaguar Club, Karl Magnusson was invited by senior management to the Jaguar Land Rover Classic UK HQ in 2016 to give a presentation about his C-type project. “Our C-type replica was going to be the cherry on top of our small private collection of restored Jags,” says Magnusson. That collection has had to be sold to fund lawyer costs.
Despite two years of correspondence regarding future project collaboration, meetings and nothing but praise from Jaguar Classic management, Mr. and Mrs. Magnusson were sued in 2018 by Jaguar Land Rover for copyright infringement. A staggeringly uneven battle began between a global corporation and retired pensioners, who have had to put everything on the line.
“We feel so betrayed. They had every opportunity to warn me if I was doing something wrong.” says Karl Magnusson.
After a surprising verdict by the Stockholm District Court in December, Karl and Ann-Christine were found guilty of copyright infringement and their privately-built C-type replica deemed illegal and subject to destruction - a project inspired by passion that took nine years of research and labour to complete.
In addition, the Magnussons are required to pay Jaguar Land Rover’s legal costs of £450,000. Furthermore, JLR can also claim damages.
“We don’t understand why a multi-billion dollar company needs to destroy the lives of two grandparents. And this is just one of at least 1,500 replica C-types built globally in the past 45 years. The consequence of the verdict is that all owners of C-type replicas now risk being forced to destroy their cars when JLR comes after them,” said Ann-Christine.
As for the replica industry, this verdict giving a 70-year-old car shape copyright protection is likely to have far-reaching consequences - in essence, making all C-type replicas unlawful to display, sell or use on public roads or in other public circumstances, under threat of penalties and/or destruction.
While this is a verdict by a Swedish court, because of EU directives the judgement will be invoked in other EU countries, potentially threatening the entire European replica industry. Under the current understanding of relevant agreements, this can be invoked in the UK even after Brexit. Due to this verdict, other car makers can use this precedent and claim copyright of their historic models, threatening 10s of 1,000s of Ferrari, Ford GT40, Porsche, AC Cobra, Aston Martin and other replicas.
“We don’t understand where this has come from considering Jaguar's history of supporting the replica industry,” states Karl Magnusson.
“We feel it’s so hypocritical of Jaguar to sue us when their own senior management privately build, commission, race and own C-type replicas themselves.”
Over the years Jaguar have supported the replica industry in various ways. No less than three Jaguar CEOs have supplied close to 2,000 drawings to replica builders as well as given awards to replica builders. Three Jaguar senior managers and one Director, previous and present, have privately built and raced C-type replicas themselves.
“The Engineering Manager at JLR Classic, who met with us, was used as a witness against us in court, all the while keeping his own C-type replica in his garage.”
Since 2015, 25 historic Jaguar Land Rover Classic Challenge races have been held, and 5 more are planned this year, publicly inviting replicas. On YouTube official Jaguar Land Rover marketing films feature proud displays of replicas.
You can even pay to take the Jaguar Land Rover “Classic Drive” experience, which includes driving C-type and D-type replicas. None of them built by JLR.
JLR Classic Works are currently launching their own “continuation” replica E-types and C-types with the help of replica producers in the UK, who are the ones with the skill and knowledge to produce the parts. In other words, at the same time as JLR are calling replicas illegal and pursuing this in the courts, they financially support and cooperate with replica producers.
And it does not stop here: just google “JLR Replica” and the first hit takes you to an official Jaguar Land Rover dealership, selling US kit-car C-type replicas on their website. https://www.jlrclassics.com/cars/
Despite the initial setback, the Magnussons remain determined to continue the fight and proceed with an appeal. “Anyone who has been involved with classic cars would understand the absurdity of all Jaguar replicas suddenly becoming illegal. The court ruling is highly questionable to say the least, and we have a very strong appeal,” says Karl Magnusson.
The appeal process will put a further extreme financial strain on the retired couple and their family. “We are going to have to sell our house and all of our belongings if we lose an appeal. Jaguar would essentially make us homeless.” The Magnussons have now resorted to crowdfunding to raise the needed funds, hoping for the engagement of the replica community to support them through the appeal process.
Unless the ruling is overturned in the Court of Appeal, it will not only open the door for Jaguar Land Rover to continue to sue and crush small replica builders and passionate Jaguar enthusiasts but sets a precedent for all other car manufacturers, threatening replica builders and owners on a global scale.
Enthusiasts worldwide are encouraged to share this on social media and to donate any amount, however small. At the Go-Fund Me page [request for donation retracted]
For more information and direct quotes, please contact Elizabeth Magnusson, daughter of Karl and Ann-Christine Magnusson and Official Spokesperson.
Email: [personal information retracted]
Phone: [personal information retracted]
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Court documents
The Swedish court files are public and can be requested from the Swedish courts at https://www.domstol.se/ and are also available in original and auto-translated versions using the following links:
Court ruling
Auto-translated to English: http://bit.ly/38UwvJj
Appeal
Appeal, auto-translated to English: http://bit.ly/2LhwaYY
Supplement to the appeal, auto-translated to English: http://bit.ly/3abYy81
Annexes: http://bit.ly/3iQxbUF
I have no interest in that matter other than I'm curious about JLR's motivation to go after this particular replica/builder.
lowdrag said:
Now Jaguar have announced a run of eight C-types. Where they get the chassis numbers from puzzles me, because the original sequence finished at XKC 054 in 1953.
I had thought the D-types carried on the XKC numbering for a bit; they did, but started at XKC401, and only up to XKC405.Bodo said:
Here's a press release said to be of the family:
said:
...While this is a verdict by a Swedish court, because of EU directives the judgement will be invoked in other EU countries, potentially threatening the entire European replica industry. Under the current understanding of relevant agreements, this can be invoked in the UK even after Brexit. Due to this verdict, other car makers can use this precedent and claim copyright of their historic models, threatening 10s of 1,000s of Ferrari, Ford GT40, Porsche, AC Cobra, Aston Martin and other replicas.
Seems odd then that the Swedish court chose to disregard the UK court's decision that JLR couldn't stop the manufacture of a Land Rover lookalike. Hey they've even been banned from using LR as way of trading Land Rovers.NDNDNDND said:
Is there another side to this, or is this really as belligerent, immoral and hypocritical as it sounds?
Shame on JLR.
From the previous link:Shame on JLR.
JLR said:
Despite assertions in the Creare News Release, Jaguar Land Rover is not going after private owners of pre-existing individual replica vehicles, nor insisting upon the destruction of their vehicles. However, we will take action to enforce our rights against businesses using our IP illegally for their own profit. The defendants in this case had started a business to build and sell six Jaguar C-type replicas for over Euros 250 thousand each. Action to protect our IP has been very much aimed at the commercial replica manufacturers, people aiming to build and sell replicas as a business infringing our copyright and trademarks.
Jaguar Land Rover did not undertake this case lightly and, before resorting to legal action, gave the defendants ample opportunity to stop copying our design.
Jaguar Land Rover is disappointed that it had to resort to commencing legal proceedings and only began the lawsuit nine months after we asked Creare to stop their plans to make money from our copyright.
Jaguar Land Rover continuously tried to avoid litigation, but Creare would not accept any realistic compromise.
Jaguar Land Rover take whatever action is needed to protect our IP.
A plethora of copies of varying quality risk collectors and customers of the original being misled as to what they are buying. Our own vehicles are sold with clear provenance and title.
STATEMENT ON ENQUIRY
“We at Jaguar Land Rover take very seriously the protection of our Intellectual Property (IP) and reserve the right to protect our IP from businesses that infringe it.
The Swedish court’s decision in our favour confirms that we were correct to take this case. According to the Swedish court, the external shape of the Jaguar C-type does have copyright protection, and this was infringed by a car being built by the defendants’ company, the first of six that they planned to build and sell.
Jaguar Land Rover are not going after private owners of pre-existing individual replica vehicles, nor insisting upon the destruction of their vehicles. However, we will take action to prevent businesses using our IP illegally for their own profit.
The ruling established that, in terms of copyright, the creative choice and originality when designing a vehicle can be comparable to that for other works such as statues, paintings or music.
Jaguar Land Rover is committed to the preservation and heritage of our brands and classic iconic designs, establishing Jaguar Land Rover Classic in 2017. Dedicated to the production and maintenance of historic models as well as the manufacture of new parts, Jaguar Land Rover Classic ensure that enthusiasts can enjoy our vehicles long into the future.”
Jaguar Land Rover did not undertake this case lightly and, before resorting to legal action, gave the defendants ample opportunity to stop copying our design.
Jaguar Land Rover is disappointed that it had to resort to commencing legal proceedings and only began the lawsuit nine months after we asked Creare to stop their plans to make money from our copyright.
Jaguar Land Rover continuously tried to avoid litigation, but Creare would not accept any realistic compromise.
Jaguar Land Rover take whatever action is needed to protect our IP.
A plethora of copies of varying quality risk collectors and customers of the original being misled as to what they are buying. Our own vehicles are sold with clear provenance and title.
STATEMENT ON ENQUIRY
“We at Jaguar Land Rover take very seriously the protection of our Intellectual Property (IP) and reserve the right to protect our IP from businesses that infringe it.
The Swedish court’s decision in our favour confirms that we were correct to take this case. According to the Swedish court, the external shape of the Jaguar C-type does have copyright protection, and this was infringed by a car being built by the defendants’ company, the first of six that they planned to build and sell.
Jaguar Land Rover are not going after private owners of pre-existing individual replica vehicles, nor insisting upon the destruction of their vehicles. However, we will take action to prevent businesses using our IP illegally for their own profit.
The ruling established that, in terms of copyright, the creative choice and originality when designing a vehicle can be comparable to that for other works such as statues, paintings or music.
Jaguar Land Rover is committed to the preservation and heritage of our brands and classic iconic designs, establishing Jaguar Land Rover Classic in 2017. Dedicated to the production and maintenance of historic models as well as the manufacture of new parts, Jaguar Land Rover Classic ensure that enthusiasts can enjoy our vehicles long into the future.”
Just dipped into the Swedish court transcript - more specifically the section on pg 45 around consent from JLR to build the replica. A couple of things stand out - disagreement between the parties over whether the stated intent was only to build one car, or several for commercial gain - JLR claiming the former. Also, whether the JLR personnel engaged by the Magnussons in discussion at the time, were sufficiently empowered to grant permission for an external party to build a replica - JLR's argument being (presumably) that they were not.
As I said, I dipped into one section in isolation - when I have the time I will read it properly, but even the nugget above shows how things can be presented/recalled/interpreted in different ways.
As I said, I dipped into one section in isolation - when I have the time I will read it properly, but even the nugget above shows how things can be presented/recalled/interpreted in different ways.
a8hex said:
Bodo said:
Here's a press release said to be of the family:
Seems odd then that the Swedish court chose to disregard the UK court's decision that JLR couldn't stop the manufacture of a Land Rover lookalike. Hey they've even been banned from using LR as way of trading Land Rovers. said:
...While this is a verdict by a Swedish court, because of EU directives the judgement will be invoked in other EU countries, potentially threatening the entire European replica industry. Under the current understanding of relevant agreements, this can be invoked in the UK even after Brexit. Due to this verdict, other car makers can use this precedent and claim copyright of their historic models, threatening 10s of 1,000s of Ferrari, Ford GT40, Porsche, AC Cobra, Aston Martin and other replicas.
One thing for sure: they were not happy that the Grenadier didn't have to be made looking less similar to the Defender. Maybe that was an eyeopener for JLR at the same time, because the Defender/original Land Rover styling has not been protected since 1948.
In case of the Defender, JLR
https://cardealermagazine.co.uk/publish/jaguar-land-rover-loses-appeal-registering-land-rover-shapes-defender/199324 said:
... had lodged a High Court appeal after making unsuccessful trademark applications to the UK Intellectual Property Office for the shapes of the Defender 90 and Defender 110 .
As with many stories, this is a mix of ‘human interest’ and technical angles. On a human level we feel bad for the Magnussons and I have donated on that basis. I suggest anyone with past, current or potential future interest in the classic replica scene do the same, since whichever way this case is settled we are likely to learn relevant lessons. I wouldn’t feel comfortable gaining something worthwhile at someone else’s expense.
Mention of Karl’s age (68) or family are irrelevant and even his lifelong enthusiasm for the marque is presumably of no consequence in a trial of IP issues. These personal details are included purely to keep us reading and thinking “There but for the grace of God go I.” They are just a hook. Likewise, mentions of the C being built in a ‘private garage’ are more emotive than substantive. I know of many ‘private’ facilities that surpass small commercial premises and the Magnusson’s workshop is most likely better than those of many readers here.
On the other hand, we now know (though it isn’t mentioned in the press release) that there was an initial intention to build at least two cars for sale and some kind of company was set up to facilitate that. This is not the action of a pure novice amateur seeking to screw a dream-car lookalike together and act out his Tony Rolt fantasy or channel his inner Duncan Hamilton. It does explain why he met with Jaguar (and they with him) which is also something the average Joe would never do for a personal one-off or a kit car build. The fact that the Magnusson’s ‘company’ has been dormant for some time as Elizabeth now informs us, does not mean it or its directors cease to exist or have legal interests or responsibilities. And where commerce is concerned, it would be typical, wise, and usually inexpensive to establish it as a limited liability enterprise, precisely to avoid ever risking major personal loss. Failure to protect one’s assets is hardly the fault of one’s competitors or adversary.
There are clearly some significant issues of potential personal and/or corporate hypocrisy or double-standards here, in view of JLR’s personal and corporate relations with, and benefits from, an active replica scene. There are also issues of legal versus PR and commercial priorities which senior managers will have grappled with, and nobody likes to see a butterfly broken on a wheel. But without any of us being mind-readers, the absence of full information (or probably ANY information) about JLR’s true thoughts and motivations, means that many of the opinions expressed - including this one - may turn out to be ill-informed.
Mention of Karl’s age (68) or family are irrelevant and even his lifelong enthusiasm for the marque is presumably of no consequence in a trial of IP issues. These personal details are included purely to keep us reading and thinking “There but for the grace of God go I.” They are just a hook. Likewise, mentions of the C being built in a ‘private garage’ are more emotive than substantive. I know of many ‘private’ facilities that surpass small commercial premises and the Magnusson’s workshop is most likely better than those of many readers here.
On the other hand, we now know (though it isn’t mentioned in the press release) that there was an initial intention to build at least two cars for sale and some kind of company was set up to facilitate that. This is not the action of a pure novice amateur seeking to screw a dream-car lookalike together and act out his Tony Rolt fantasy or channel his inner Duncan Hamilton. It does explain why he met with Jaguar (and they with him) which is also something the average Joe would never do for a personal one-off or a kit car build. The fact that the Magnusson’s ‘company’ has been dormant for some time as Elizabeth now informs us, does not mean it or its directors cease to exist or have legal interests or responsibilities. And where commerce is concerned, it would be typical, wise, and usually inexpensive to establish it as a limited liability enterprise, precisely to avoid ever risking major personal loss. Failure to protect one’s assets is hardly the fault of one’s competitors or adversary.
There are clearly some significant issues of potential personal and/or corporate hypocrisy or double-standards here, in view of JLR’s personal and corporate relations with, and benefits from, an active replica scene. There are also issues of legal versus PR and commercial priorities which senior managers will have grappled with, and nobody likes to see a butterfly broken on a wheel. But without any of us being mind-readers, the absence of full information (or probably ANY information) about JLR’s true thoughts and motivations, means that many of the opinions expressed - including this one - may turn out to be ill-informed.
lowdrag said:
As always Mike, good to have your input on Lynx. The question of chassis numbers for the XKSS is easy to explain. As we all know, one had to build a certain number of cars for homologation purposes, and Jaguar followed Ferrari in a little ruse. The first chassis numbers were XKSS 701, 704, 707, 710. Hey Presto, we've built ten cars already! This series went on to XKSS 728, where it stopped except that one D-type shell numbered XKD 542 became XKD 754. The numbers in between were the numbers used to build the "continuation " cars. So from XKSS 728 to XKSS 754 we have 26 numbers, which divided by three gives nine. Er no it doesn't! It gives 8 2/3rds! But who's counting? Let's round it off to nine and we'll build nine cars and make an extra million profit.
DS 11, the Jaguar-owned replica, was part of the James Hull collection which Jaguar purchased in its entirety for a rumoured £40 million. It included this XKSS which was built by David Duffy and Jerry Booen, and is a "proper" replica, unlike a Lynx, and I was told that James Hull paid £420,000 for it. The photo above I took in 2009 while we were fettling the Kettle at Goodwood and Jerry was doing the same with the XKSS Hope this helps.
Thank you for that Tony, I had forgotten how much I had forgotten - if you see what I mean!DS 11, the Jaguar-owned replica, was part of the James Hull collection which Jaguar purchased in its entirety for a rumoured £40 million. It included this XKSS which was built by David Duffy and Jerry Booen, and is a "proper" replica, unlike a Lynx, and I was told that James Hull paid £420,000 for it. The photo above I took in 2009 while we were fettling the Kettle at Goodwood and Jerry was doing the same with the XKSS Hope this helps.
DS11 is not the car I thought it might be then. We did build one which was absolutely spot b
k in every respect, dry sump, wide angle head, fully powered brakes with the Plessy pump, live axle etc, it was black too! When I first heard about this it sounded abhorrent on the part of JLR - but then you read their response it casts doubts on how black and white this is. If the OPs parents set up a company specifically to profit from JLR design without any approval then it seems fair the company should protect that.
I wonder if we'll ever get the full facts, on the face of it before hearing the JLR response you could easily see a movement starting against JLR and a lot of people jumping on board.
I wonder if we'll ever get the full facts, on the face of it before hearing the JLR response you could easily see a movement starting against JLR and a lot of people jumping on board.
I don’t think the defendants’ statement does them many favours. The ruling does not make replicas illegal at all, the court rules that they had infringed on the design without permission. Get the permission and all is well.
All the bluster about JLR running and making replicas has nothing to do with the case as they own the design rights. Anything that has been approved by JLR is not at risk as is any other replica made without the design owners permission.
Where I do feel sorry for them is that they may have believed that they had such permission but that should not have gone as far as a court unless either side was playing daft.
All the bluster about JLR running and making replicas has nothing to do with the case as they own the design rights. Anything that has been approved by JLR is not at risk as is any other replica made without the design owners permission.
Where I do feel sorry for them is that they may have believed that they had such permission but that should not have gone as far as a court unless either side was playing daft.
This seems to bounce back and forth, and I've lost track on who published what, where and when.
Possibly in reaction to that one there is one, quoted further below on the same link, said to be from the Magnussons https://forums.autosport.com/topic/217191-jaguar-l...
1. JLR has no control over the rules of that event
2. there was not enough evidence brought forward by the defendants that JLR had known that Karl intended to build this car for commercial reasons [albeit from the context of the document, they could not remember in a non-executive, non-legal capacity]
3. the replica was made for commercial intents [which may or may not include private use]
The same document shows some of the Magnusson's work, and I must say this is very impressive from an engineering point of view. The effort the Magnussons have put into that must be worth more than the legal cost of JLR! I understand that they don't have to destroy the entire car, but only the bodywork. Still, the price they'd have to pay so far feels disproportional, and I'm sure many things went wrong in the last couple of years. IMO, the best outcome would have been that they could have stopped their commercial quest, could keep their own replica, re-use the acquired parts in other ways, and make their data available for the community.
InitialDave said:
JLR said:
Despite ...
said:
"1. JLR supports, owns and promote replicas. In the event Classic Challenge, that JLR sponsor and promote, replicas are eligible. Regulations for 2021 were updated on the 28th of january this year, still stating this. JLR use replicas for their driving experiences (ad with c-type repica can be published). This is the first time JLR is stating they have IP rights, even though the industry has been going since the 70s.
2. The Magnussons built one care for private use. Paid for privately and registered privately.
During the build, Karl had an idea to activate his inactive company and build a further two cars. He apporoached JAguar Classic to put forward this plan as well as to see if there was interest in co-operation with them using his production data. He met with [names removed] in March 2016, after being invited to Browns Lane to give a presentation. The presentation had over 100 slides and a manuscript Karl followed to the tee. After this meeting, the three had email corrrespondande for a year and a half, during which time Karl continued building his first and only car for private use. No meantion from anyone that this was illegal.
3. There was never an option for cease and desist. In the first warning letter to the Magnussons, JLR demanded the car to be destroyed. They have not once wavered in this, even though the car is clearly for private use."
Looking partially into the auto-translated court document, the court may have found that [my interpretation, translated from a third mother-tongue]2. The Magnussons built one care for private use. Paid for privately and registered privately.
During the build, Karl had an idea to activate his inactive company and build a further two cars. He apporoached JAguar Classic to put forward this plan as well as to see if there was interest in co-operation with them using his production data. He met with [names removed] in March 2016, after being invited to Browns Lane to give a presentation. The presentation had over 100 slides and a manuscript Karl followed to the tee. After this meeting, the three had email corrrespondande for a year and a half, during which time Karl continued building his first and only car for private use. No meantion from anyone that this was illegal.
3. There was never an option for cease and desist. In the first warning letter to the Magnussons, JLR demanded the car to be destroyed. They have not once wavered in this, even though the car is clearly for private use."
1. JLR has no control over the rules of that event
2. there was not enough evidence brought forward by the defendants that JLR had known that Karl intended to build this car for commercial reasons [albeit from the context of the document, they could not remember in a non-executive, non-legal capacity]
3. the replica was made for commercial intents [which may or may not include private use]
The same document shows some of the Magnusson's work, and I must say this is very impressive from an engineering point of view. The effort the Magnussons have put into that must be worth more than the legal cost of JLR! I understand that they don't have to destroy the entire car, but only the bodywork. Still, the price they'd have to pay so far feels disproportional, and I'm sure many things went wrong in the last couple of years. IMO, the best outcome would have been that they could have stopped their commercial quest, could keep their own replica, re-use the acquired parts in other ways, and make their data available for the community.
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff