Jaguar Land Rover goes after replica community
Discussion
Earlier today a statement from Jaguar Land Rover was spread in public forums. The Magnusson family has put together the following comments in response to this. I might add that none of this is new information. Details of the interactions between the Magnussons and JLR are available in the court documents and annexes linked in our press release.
In their statement, Jaguar Land Rover are deliberately misrepresenting both the actual
circumstances of the case and their relationship with the replica community.
Firstly, Jaguar Land Rover has gone after not only the company Creare, but the private citizens Karl
and Ann-Christine Magnusson. Creare has never manufactured or sold a single C-Type replica. The
only C-Type replica built was paid for, built, and owned by Karl Magnusson privately from start to
finish, as public documentation from the Swedish registration process for amateur-built vehicles
reflects.
Karl Magnusson had an ambition to build another two replicas using the company Creare. These
plans were openly shared in a 2016 meeting at Jaguar Land Rover Classic HQ where Karl had been
invited to present his manufacturing data. Jaguar Land Rover had no objection to these plans - not
in the meeting, nor in the correspondence that followed. On the contrary, Karl felt encouraged.
When Jaguar Land Rover suddenly sent a warning letter in 2018, the privately-built C-Type replica
was essentially completed. Any future plans for the two additional cars were immediately
dropped.
Secondly, Jaguar Land Rover has approved of, and benefited from, the replica community for
decades, both from businesses and private citizens. There are more than 1 500 C-type replicas
existing today. It is only now when JLR is launching their own continuation line, that they have
started to pursue replica builders - some 70 years after the iconic design was created. The
interpretation of JLR’s statement is clearly that all commercially made C-Type replicas are from
now on illegal and risk destruction.
Thirdly, as is well known, there has been no interest in maintaining or retaining any IP rights for
the C-Type up until this recent shift in attitude. And while the Swedish lowest courts granted JLR
these rights, such rights have not yet gained legal status as the case has been appealed.
Jaguar enthusiasts worldwide are the ones who have been committed to the preservation and
heritage of the brand and the classic iconic designs since the 1970s. It is thanks to this community
that these icons are still desired. Jaguar Land Rover’s actions clearly show that their newly found
business ambitions are worth turning against their most loyal supporters. Two of them, the
Magnussons, now need to destroy their privately-built C-Type replica. The £450,000 in legal fees
have to be met by these two older Jaguar enthusiasts from private funds.
In their statement, Jaguar Land Rover are deliberately misrepresenting both the actual
circumstances of the case and their relationship with the replica community.
Firstly, Jaguar Land Rover has gone after not only the company Creare, but the private citizens Karl
and Ann-Christine Magnusson. Creare has never manufactured or sold a single C-Type replica. The
only C-Type replica built was paid for, built, and owned by Karl Magnusson privately from start to
finish, as public documentation from the Swedish registration process for amateur-built vehicles
reflects.
Karl Magnusson had an ambition to build another two replicas using the company Creare. These
plans were openly shared in a 2016 meeting at Jaguar Land Rover Classic HQ where Karl had been
invited to present his manufacturing data. Jaguar Land Rover had no objection to these plans - not
in the meeting, nor in the correspondence that followed. On the contrary, Karl felt encouraged.
When Jaguar Land Rover suddenly sent a warning letter in 2018, the privately-built C-Type replica
was essentially completed. Any future plans for the two additional cars were immediately
dropped.
Secondly, Jaguar Land Rover has approved of, and benefited from, the replica community for
decades, both from businesses and private citizens. There are more than 1 500 C-type replicas
existing today. It is only now when JLR is launching their own continuation line, that they have
started to pursue replica builders - some 70 years after the iconic design was created. The
interpretation of JLR’s statement is clearly that all commercially made C-Type replicas are from
now on illegal and risk destruction.
Thirdly, as is well known, there has been no interest in maintaining or retaining any IP rights for
the C-Type up until this recent shift in attitude. And while the Swedish lowest courts granted JLR
these rights, such rights have not yet gained legal status as the case has been appealed.
Jaguar enthusiasts worldwide are the ones who have been committed to the preservation and
heritage of the brand and the classic iconic designs since the 1970s. It is thanks to this community
that these icons are still desired. Jaguar Land Rover’s actions clearly show that their newly found
business ambitions are worth turning against their most loyal supporters. Two of them, the
Magnussons, now need to destroy their privately-built C-Type replica. The £450,000 in legal fees
have to be met by these two older Jaguar enthusiasts from private funds.
I've tried reading through the translated document, and I'm definitely not a lawyer, but there's a few bits in there that feel... off, to me at least, particularly the business of trying to push an angle of "it was a commercial venture because their business made parts for them" and a certain amount of "oh, I don't remember that" when it comes to JLR being informed that the plan was to build and sell more cars at the in-person meeting.
Overall, the impression I have is one of JLR trying to hit them as hard as possible and "get" them on everything they can, rather than aiming for an amicable "you can have the one car for your personal use, but you can't make any more" resolution that seems like it would achieve their purported aims.
It's a great pity, as the quality of the car looks to be very good indeed, and the attitude that comes across from JLR is disappointing. One of the things I really liked when I visited their classics facility was how genuinely enthusiastic about the cars everyone was, it really didn't feel like the same company I'm reading about here.
Overall, the impression I have is one of JLR trying to hit them as hard as possible and "get" them on everything they can, rather than aiming for an amicable "you can have the one car for your personal use, but you can't make any more" resolution that seems like it would achieve their purported aims.
It's a great pity, as the quality of the car looks to be very good indeed, and the attitude that comes across from JLR is disappointing. One of the things I really liked when I visited their classics facility was how genuinely enthusiastic about the cars everyone was, it really didn't feel like the same company I'm reading about here.
It does seem a rather disappointing case on first reading but I suspect that this must be driven by a much broader issue around legal precedent and ip protection. Jaguar are not the only OEM that have ended up here - Ferrari being the most obvious example over the last 15/20 years.
It would be good if we had a PH’er with a proper ip background to comment.
Law has it’s own momentum etc etc
It would be good if we had a PH’er with a proper ip background to comment.
Law has it’s own momentum etc etc
With my non-legal mind...
quote=ElizabethMagnusson]
Firstly, Jaguar Land Rover has gone after not only the company Creare, but the private citizens Karl
and Ann-Christine Magnusson. Creare has never manufactured or sold a single C-Type replica. The
only C-Type replica built was paid for, built, and owned by Karl Magnusson privately from start to
finish, as public documentation from the Swedish registration process for amateur-built vehicles
reflects.
Fine, but thren..
Karl Magnusson had an ambition to build another two replicas using the company Creare. These
plans were openly shared in a 2016 meeting at Jaguar Land Rover Classic HQ where Karl had been
invited to present his manufacturing data. Jaguar Land Rover had no objection to these plans - not
in the meeting, nor in the correspondence that followed. On the contrary, Karl felt encouraged.
When Jaguar Land Rover suddenly sent a warning letter in 2018, the privately-built C-Type replica
was essentially completed. Any future plans for the two additional cars were immediately
dropped.
So you wanted to make a profit from someone else's work (ie Jaguar)....?..
Secondly, Jaguar Land Rover has approved of, and benefited from, the replica community for
decades, both from businesses and private citizens. There are more than 1 500 C-type replicas
existing today. It is only now when JLR is launching their own continuation line, that they have
started to pursue replica builders - some 70 years after the iconic design was created. The
interpretation of JLR’s statement is clearly that all commercially made C-Type replicas are from
now on illegal and risk destruction.
Were yours approved?? OR not?
Thirdly, as is well known, there has been no interest in maintaining or retaining any IP rights for
the C-Type up until this recent shift in attitude.
[/quote]
Is it well known?? From what you have written, it seems that here is an operation which wants to sell c type replicas without approval. Others have said approval, you do not. Hence the court case. What am i missing??
quote=ElizabethMagnusson]
Firstly, Jaguar Land Rover has gone after not only the company Creare, but the private citizens Karl
and Ann-Christine Magnusson. Creare has never manufactured or sold a single C-Type replica. The
only C-Type replica built was paid for, built, and owned by Karl Magnusson privately from start to
finish, as public documentation from the Swedish registration process for amateur-built vehicles
reflects.
Fine, but thren..
Karl Magnusson had an ambition to build another two replicas using the company Creare. These
plans were openly shared in a 2016 meeting at Jaguar Land Rover Classic HQ where Karl had been
invited to present his manufacturing data. Jaguar Land Rover had no objection to these plans - not
in the meeting, nor in the correspondence that followed. On the contrary, Karl felt encouraged.
When Jaguar Land Rover suddenly sent a warning letter in 2018, the privately-built C-Type replica
was essentially completed. Any future plans for the two additional cars were immediately
dropped.
So you wanted to make a profit from someone else's work (ie Jaguar)....?..
Secondly, Jaguar Land Rover has approved of, and benefited from, the replica community for
decades, both from businesses and private citizens. There are more than 1 500 C-type replicas
existing today. It is only now when JLR is launching their own continuation line, that they have
started to pursue replica builders - some 70 years after the iconic design was created. The
interpretation of JLR’s statement is clearly that all commercially made C-Type replicas are from
now on illegal and risk destruction.
Were yours approved?? OR not?
Thirdly, as is well known, there has been no interest in maintaining or retaining any IP rights for
the C-Type up until this recent shift in attitude.
[/quote]
Is it well known?? From what you have written, it seems that here is an operation which wants to sell c type replicas without approval. Others have said approval, you do not. Hence the court case. What am i missing??
williamp said:
Is it well known?? From what you have written, it seems that here is an operation which wants to sell c type replicas without approval. Others have said approval, you do not. Hence the court case. What am i missing??
Just about everything.As far as I know none of the replica manufacturers have formal approval from Jaguar.
Jaguar have not, until recently, taken any action in regard to IP nor discouraged replica manufacturers.
They allow replicas to participate in JLR events, their management own Replicas and they have provided information to various Jaguar replica makers over the years, including the Magnussons.
The Magnussons had already shelved their plans to build any further cars and had built only one for personal use.
Other Replica manufacturers have built dozens, even hundreds and continue to advertise their product.
The only conclusion that I can come to is that JLR have deliberately targeted a very small operation in a specific country as they've already lost a court case in the UK.
Whatever the right or wrongs it's already generated a massive amount of ill feeling aimed at JLR, and to what end ?
The Replica market has zero impact on JLR profits. This court action has already lost them some new car sales and a lot of goodwill.
I assume that following this, any replica owners on the Jaguar payroll will be encouraged to dispose of their cars.
The chances of ever seeing a genuine C Type, let alone owning one, are almost zero for most of us, whereas the replicas always generate a positive response and surely that's good PR for JLR.
Whatever the reasoning behind JLR's recent decision to change it's policy and start targeting these miniscule small manufacturers, they've dropped the ball in this case.
The chances of ever seeing a genuine C Type, let alone owning one, are almost zero for most of us, whereas the replicas always generate a positive response and surely that's good PR for JLR.
Whatever the reasoning behind JLR's recent decision to change it's policy and start targeting these miniscule small manufacturers, they've dropped the ball in this case.
GoodOlBoy said:
The Replica market has zero impact on JLR profits.
Well, they're now building these "continuation" cars, so perhaps it does in their view?As someone suggested on the Autosport thread, perhaps they're worried that the Magnusson car is a better proposition than their own...
Jaguar own two replicas themselves, cars they use in promotional events. I put up a photo of the XKSS (a true copy, not a pastiche like my Lynx which is but an E-type reclothed) and they have a D-type, both purchased as part of the James Hull collection. I have been in the Jaguar world for over half my life, and the only reason I can see for this disastrous faux pas its the difference in price between the eight new Jaguar cars and the ones the Magnussens were going to build. £1.5 million compared to £225,000. I don't think that a "proper" chassis plate is worth £1.25 million personally. The Peter Jaye replicas are considered the crème de la crème when talking of C-types and the last one sold recently for about the same price as the Magnussens are proposing. Jaguar will not be making one part of the new cars, just assembling parts bought in, I believe. And of course, they need the specialists who make parts for the replicas to make the parts to build their cars. engines from Crosthwaite and Gardner, wheels from perhaps Turrino, instruments from Smiths, body shells perhaps Shapecraft, and so on. If I was one of these manufacturers, I'd tell them where to stuff their orders.
I wonder whether it might be a case of tail wagging dog, or have started that way around.
Someone in legal department might have started the ball rolling as "the standard thing to do" ie protect your IP. Rather than the mainstream management having sent the legal lot of in pursuit of the replica manufactures. As we know, there are senior managers at Jaguar who own replicas because they couldn't afford real ones, and as you say, Jaguar themselves own replicas. Once the ball is rolling its harder to stop.
Someone in legal department might have started the ball rolling as "the standard thing to do" ie protect your IP. Rather than the mainstream management having sent the legal lot of in pursuit of the replica manufactures. As we know, there are senior managers at Jaguar who own replicas because they couldn't afford real ones, and as you say, Jaguar themselves own replicas. Once the ball is rolling its harder to stop.
I just don't see the point of this from JLR's point of view... and to what end? Its certainly not financial.
They have legal teams involved at a very high cost, tying up man hours/cost/energy that would be far better spent on quality control, whilst pissing off enthusiasts that bleed Jaguar blood, curtailing the possibility of people seeing old Jags on the road and the marketing benefits they would get from this free promotion, etc etc… I just don't see the point. Surely someone at JLR, someone in management can see this, surely someone there has some common sense.... Pull the plug on this JLR, its complete BS to ruin someone's life when JLR themselves run/own replicas... their is just no logic to it what so ever. And do they really think that those clients who would and could spend £1.5 M on a Jaguar built replica will actually decide, "no, I'll buy the cheap one from Scandinavia…"?
They have legal teams involved at a very high cost, tying up man hours/cost/energy that would be far better spent on quality control, whilst pissing off enthusiasts that bleed Jaguar blood, curtailing the possibility of people seeing old Jags on the road and the marketing benefits they would get from this free promotion, etc etc… I just don't see the point. Surely someone at JLR, someone in management can see this, surely someone there has some common sense.... Pull the plug on this JLR, its complete BS to ruin someone's life when JLR themselves run/own replicas... their is just no logic to it what so ever. And do they really think that those clients who would and could spend £1.5 M on a Jaguar built replica will actually decide, "no, I'll buy the cheap one from Scandinavia…"?
InitialDave said:
GoodOlBoy said:
The Replica market has zero impact on JLR profits.
Well, they're now building these "continuation" cars, so perhaps it does in their view?As someone suggested on the Autosport thread, perhaps they're worried that the Magnusson car is a better proposition than their own...
V12 Migaloo said:
I just don't see the point of this from JLR's point of view... and to what end? Its certainly not financial.
They have legal teams involved at a very high cost, tying up man hours/cost/energy that would be far better spent on quality control, whilst pissing off enthusiasts that bleed Jaguar blood, curtailing the possibility of people seeing old Jags on the road and the marketing benefits they would get from this free promotion, etc etc… I just don't see the point. Surely someone at JLR, someone in management can see this, surely someone there has some common sense.... Pull the plug on this JLR, its complete BS to ruin someone's life when JLR themselves run/own replicas... their is just no logic to it what so ever. And do they really think that those clients who would and could spend £1.5 M on a Jaguar built replica will actually decide, "no, I'll buy the cheap one from Scandinavia…"?
Which is why it would be good to hear from any PH'er with an IP background because there is clearly more to this. It could well be a case of the tail wagging the dog but I rather think it may be the inevitability of a broader legal process to protect their current IP. They have legal teams involved at a very high cost, tying up man hours/cost/energy that would be far better spent on quality control, whilst pissing off enthusiasts that bleed Jaguar blood, curtailing the possibility of people seeing old Jags on the road and the marketing benefits they would get from this free promotion, etc etc… I just don't see the point. Surely someone at JLR, someone in management can see this, surely someone there has some common sense.... Pull the plug on this JLR, its complete BS to ruin someone's life when JLR themselves run/own replicas... their is just no logic to it what so ever. And do they really think that those clients who would and could spend £1.5 M on a Jaguar built replica will actually decide, "no, I'll buy the cheap one from Scandinavia…"?
Anyone know the position with the recently announced Ecurie Ecosse C-type?
Curious timing given the legal proceedings - it was announced earlier this month. It looks to be based on the Proteus, so I wonder if they have the relevant IP permission/licence from JLR, and the granting of such licences means JLR want to go after those without them.
Curious timing given the legal proceedings - it was announced earlier this month. It looks to be based on the Proteus, so I wonder if they have the relevant IP permission/licence from JLR, and the granting of such licences means JLR want to go after those without them.
V12 Migaloo said:
No it doesn't, those who can afford £1.5 Million on a Jaguar built replica wont even think about buying one made by one man in his shed... would you?? I wouldn't if I could afford one..
I don't know, I'd want to see both in the metal first.Neither are "real", so I wouldn't pay three or four times the price based on the idea the Jaguar one has better provenance, given that provenance seems to be somewhat artificial.
lowdrag said:
Jaguar will not be making one part of the new cars, just assembling parts bought in, I believe. And of course, they need the specialists who make parts for the replicas to make the parts to build their cars. engines from Crosthwaite and Gardner, wheels from perhaps Turrino, instruments from Smiths, body shells perhaps Shapecraft, and so on. If I was one of these manufacturers, I'd tell them where to stuff their orders.
Interesting.... I'd tend to agree with you!But I wonder at what point a manufacturer (brand) needs to step in when replicas are being sold as a business? There will be a limit. An even shorter limit for Ferrari or Rolex - the latter recently when re-dialed watches are being sold as 'Rolex'.
jeremyc said:
Anyone know the position with the recently announced Ecurie Ecosse C-type?
Curious timing given the legal proceedings - it was announced earlier this month. It looks to be based on the Proteus, so I wonder if they have the relevant IP permission/licence from JLR, and the granting of such licences means JLR want to go after those without them.
Sadly a rather inconvenient moment to announce a series of seven cars. Yes, they are based on the Proteus C-type, and are really a modern take on the original car. IRS, Wilwood vented disc brakes all round, fuel injection, Mazda RX8 rear diff, and so on. Yet they are caught in the same net as the Magnussens. Only time will tell us the outcome of all this. I admit to having worries about my XKSS replica for a while too, but that is now clarified, than the lord.Curious timing given the legal proceedings - it was announced earlier this month. It looks to be based on the Proteus, so I wonder if they have the relevant IP permission/licence from JLR, and the granting of such licences means JLR want to go after those without them.
DeejRC said:
I can only echo the others - it appears an insane reaction from JLR. I just don’t see any winners from this.
It certainly puts any plans I had of finally sorting out my XKSS rep back on hold.
Why?, reading the JLR release above, they are not interested in existing cars in private ownership, only those who are looking to to make a business of producing replicas. It certainly puts any plans I had of finally sorting out my XKSS rep back on hold.
Surely everyone knows its a replica so will never have the same provenance as the original?
As you cant buy originals where is the problem?
In some ways they ought to be pleased that people are making replicas
The Landwind X7 vs evoque could be more of an issue as it could affect sales - although again doesnt everyone know which is which and how much?
Can you name car types today that on first glance look like another?
Hyundry vs vauxhall?
As you cant buy originals where is the problem?
In some ways they ought to be pleased that people are making replicas
The Landwind X7 vs evoque could be more of an issue as it could affect sales - although again doesnt everyone know which is which and how much?
Can you name car types today that on first glance look like another?
Hyundry vs vauxhall?
darreni said:
Why?, reading the JLR release above, they are not interested in existing cars in private ownership, only those who are looking to to make a business of producing replicas.
Though if you use a business to make parts for that one replica - even a business you own outright so you're still effectively making them yourself - they'll try and use that as an argument it's a commercial enterprise in order to get you.Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff