Press Release - JLR goes after replica community.pdf - Google Drive
Very worrying.
They went after Suffolk Sportscars last year, who then went into liquidation.
What's going on with JLR? What's the advantage in doing this?
Printable View
Press Release - JLR goes after replica community.pdf - Google Drive
Very worrying.
They went after Suffolk Sportscars last year, who then went into liquidation.
What's going on with JLR? What's the advantage in doing this?
Might be something to do with Jaguar Land Rover | Classic Works and reducing the competition if they are losing sales . As you say concerning esp if other marques follow the trend. There are quite a few Jag replica builders around and I wonder whether they are under the same pressure?
Unbelievable.
When it said 'press release' I automatically thought JLR release, but it clearly isn't!
What a story gigantic Corporation versus Pensioners.
I've asked one of Europe's top I.P. experts to give me a bit of background to this. She said she'd do it if I don't burn the toast at lunchtime so watch this space ... err... and wish me luck with the toaster!!
I'm pretty sure she will tell you that registered designs are only protected for so long, unless specifically renewed.
Or is that copyright?
Anyway, good luck with the toast.
I'm sure we are all rooting for ya!
I think new EU legislation extended the period to 70 years? Came into force in 2020 as far as I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by john
Maybe it's off the back of this? Really can't see the point though. Jag are hardly losing sales over it and it's not damaging the brand I wouldn't have thought.
Sounds like Brexit should have been done and dusted sooner then!
Sounds feasible though Leigh.
Maybe they see a market for C and D type replicas once they've finished all those lightweight E types?
I presume the new rules can't be applied restrospectively? If that's the case and the replica was built 25 years after the original car when the old 25 year rule was in then it should be legal shouldn't it?
Interesting. Maybe someone should point out to the Swedish court, and JLR, that Ferrari lost a case only last year over the shape of the 250GTO because they'd not made any attempt to use that shape for a certain number of years. And a while ago Carroll Shelby also lost a case over the shape of the Cobra, which allowed replicas to continue to be built.
You often see small firms, or individuals, backing down when faced with the "might" of a large company, but that doesn't make what they're trying to do right - it's normally called "bullying". Good on this couple to try and stand up against JLR, who've just sunk to lower than low in my opinion.
These aren't current, or even recent, cars that are being replicated. I've not looked at the court ruling to see on what basis that these replicas can be outlawed, but I suspect there'll be one or two people at JLR who've got a bee in their bonnet over replicas. If there's enough hoo-ha kicked up then JLR might back down - this sort of thing does nothing for their reputation.
As for the Stratos - well, the SEC is recognised and affiliated to FCA Heritage, and when this affiliation took place early last year it was pointed out that most members' cars were replicas. The response was, to paraphrase, "so what, no bother", just so long as those cars were identified as such. And that's precisely the attitude that should be taken.
Replicas continue to promote the heritage of a given company, and put their former triumphs and glories out there where they can be seen and appreciated by the public, who can then learn more about their history. They should be actively encouraged, as some of the JLR bosses have previously done. I deplore and condemn this sort of behaviour, and especially from a British company who should know better....and a Swedish court who obviously don't.
I agree with that Norm. Except perhaps that JLR is a British Company. Who knows who owns what these days?
The only British thing about British Gas these days is the customers!
I think it was last year that JLR tried to stop Ineos using the Land Rover design for their new Grenadier. But when you are are one of the richest men in the UK it is unsurprising JLR lost. Apparently JLR tried to copyright the LR design after they stopped production. As we all know it is easier for money to get what it wants.
I had the impression that it is an Indian company?Quote:
Originally Posted by john
I think it was the Indians who bought it off Ford, but god knows what's happened in the meantime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longtimefan
Sounds like Gordon might know who actually owns it. Most of these geezers want to call themselves British. Until it's time to fill in the tax return anyway.......
I believe TATA now own JLR
Well said Norm ! This is frankly outrageous - we should support this appeal and maybe lobby the Kit press.Quote:
Replicas continue to promote the heritage of a given company, and put their former triumphs and glories out there where they can be seen and appreciated by the public, who can then learn more about their history. They should be actively encouraged, as some of the JLR bosses have previously done. I deplore and condemn this sort of behaviour, and especially from a British company who should know better....and a Swedish court who obviously don't.
Yep and Tetley Tea!Quote:
Originally Posted by David J
FWIW Many years ago I used to work for Tetley Tea (pre-Tata) and understand the Tata take-over was pretty brutal - with not much sympathy for the long-established traditions of the Company.
I had a quick read through the Swedish court decision ( translated!) and the basis of the judgement was the design was protected for 70 years after the death of the designer, deemed to be Malcolm Sayer (d 1970).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bTb...Z_bPvI8eP/view
So when the designer dies the rules at the time was 25 year protection. This meant after 1995 you could make a replica.
The law was changed in 2020 to extend it to 70 years. If the replica was made whilst the rules allwoed it, how can new laws make it illegal? I thought stuff like this couldn't be applied restrospectively?
The press release also say the case was initially started in 2018 - which was before the extnesion of the rights to 70 years?
More and more mysterious then.
If the press release is to be believed, there does seem a good case for appeal. Maybe Sweden are looking for a deal to fill up the SAAB factory again.
If the worst comes to the worst they can always seek refuge from Swedish law in the Bolivian embassy.
So the "design" is protected, but what does that mean? The under-the-skin build or layout of the components? Or the shape itself? If it's the shape, you only have to make a slight alteration and then it's no longer a replica. In fact maybe this whole thing comes down to what's considered a "replica"? Are these C-Types so close you could class them as such? None of our cars qualify, as they don't have a steel centre monocoque for starters. They're merely "homages" to the originals and based on the 250GTO ruling, we're home and dry as Lancia and Fiat have done nowt with the Stratos for years...in fact they even lost the name, as I remember!
Again, I think this is down to the Swedish court not understanding the issues.
As for JLR not being British, well maybe the owners aren't, but the factories and a lot of the management, including senior figures, sure are. Interestingly, the original Tata company was run in a very Quaker-type way, with much concern for the care of its employees. Maybe they need to be reminded of their social and ethical duty.
My eyes glaze over when designs get a mention at home. My good lady is in the European top 1 of 1 in terms of UK/European Design law and regularly act for clients in Munich, The Hague, The High Court and the Court of Session in relation to these matters. If you are really (no, really, really) interested I'll send you a link for bedtime reading but counting sheep is far more entertaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by Normb666
I did a bad job on the toast so only got a brief summary which, as you might expect, could be summarised as "it's complicated" and the judgement might have been different under a different jurisdiction and an appeal may be successful. However, and this is the biggie... it's an expensive business. Lots of folk who are arguably in the right decide to take the line of least resistance when confronted with a scenario where they have to pay someone £600-£700/hr just to tell them what exactly it is they are being sued for in the first place.
To return for a moment to Jaguar (JLR), according to Companies's House, it is a private company, a wholly owned subsidiary of TATA Motors Ltd, an Indian Company. I rest my case, and Jim, you've let it out of the box, now we know how the boys toys appear, mind you I don't envy the -20 at the moment.
Maybe jlr or whoever 'owns' them should tread carefully, did jaguar not rip off the Disco Volante for their overrated e type thing back in the late fifties? ... glass houses and all that.
Norm is correct, absolute disgrace to say the least.
Whichever country JLR are now affiliated with, the point is they're still thought of as British and they play heavily on that. So that's the thing to look at.
As for "design", yeah, that's what I was inferring in my earlier post. Who can say what that is? It's like trying to define what a classic car is, or what makes someone cool (although you just have to look at me, I suppose, as I open myself up for hilarious comments galore). It's that very vagueness that means a different court/magistrate/whatever could find the complete opposite and why an appeal could well succeed. Although if you cut the crap, that also means law and facts and bits of paper count for sod-all, as it's down to whoever's on the bench and which side of the bed they got out of that day, i.e. no matter how much you've paid for representation, it's blind luck :)
I'm wondering why JLR went for a Swedish C-type replica owner when there are plenty here in the UK - are they testing the water in a smaller country first before trying their luck in other countries - as in UK and elsewhere in EU ?
If this is perceived as a genuine threat to replica car owners then strength lies in numbers - and having exchanged E:mails with Adam Wilkins at Complete Kit Car I know that they will be featuring this issue in the the next edition. Once a legal precedent is set every major manufacturer could "at a stroke" seriously damage the replica industry - and who is to say that a minor body profile change will be sufficient to avoid the challenge without having to go to law to prove it?
A friend on Facebook posted the official Jaguar response to the legal case, see below.
JAGUAR TELLS THE OTHER SIDE OF ITS C-TYPE REPLICA LAW SUIT - IT IS NOT GOING AFTER ENTHUSIASTS AND OWNERS
I have been working with help Doug Nye in England to spread the word here about JLR's efforts to successfully prosecute a couple in Sweden for building a replica C-Type.
We have never had a reaction on our Facebook page like we have had to that posting yesterday - not by a very long way.
HOWEVER
There are two sides to every story, so Doug contacted Tracey Pink at the Jaguar PR Department and got this very informative reply. It is just a pity the company had not issued it when this entire thing blew up. It might have stopped a lot of the anger which has been brewing.
"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.”
- so it's not us owners/builders who need to be afraid - it's the likes of Hawk and LB !! The risk to the replica industry remains - if other manufacturers such as Fiat and Ford wish to follow the same route.
Two sides to every story, like they say.
Maybe it's a good job Lancia have gone out of business!
Keep up to date John! Lancia is a premium brand that will be relaunched in 2024 under the new Stellantis product strategy. Lancia is at the top of the tree with Alfa and DS.
I think I'm beginning to smell the hand of higher authority than JLR here, and are there not a number of companies in the UK that produce as a commercial business, replica 'C' type, 'D' type and even 'E' type body shells and chassis parts?
There are other implications as well, for instance, the Stag Owners Club will sell you a complete set of panels and parts to construct a body shell, all made from patterns and dies produced and owned by the club, but sold on a commercial basis.
I think that the larger manufactures are waking up to the fact that there is a huge additional market out there that they want to have a slice of, that is likely to grow considerably as we are forced to move away from what could be termed the conventional automobile to 'E' vehicles.
Robin
Well, both have already been leaned on by BMW and Lister. (respectively)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stratos Fear
That statement by JLR still doesn't answer all the questions though. JLR management actively helped some of the "replica" companies by supplying factory drawings etc. and even used replicas in some of their promotional material and at events, I've read. But now they turn on these same people, citing "intellectual property"? And it's not just Creare, but also Suffolk Sportscars who they've leaned on. All this "ensuring enthusiasts can enjoy our vehicles long into the future" is cobblers, as it's the enthusiasts they're hitting! What they should really be saying is that they're ensuring that only the moneyed elite can enjoy their vehicles, because no-one else can afford them. Going after replica manufacturers means the regular enthusiasts won't be able to have a "new" car, unless JLR believe all enthusiasts can simply knock up a D-Type in their garage?
Do they really think Creare or Suffolk were rivals compared to their own continuation cars? Even at £250K they're about 6 or 7 times cheaper than Jaguar's will be....and actually, where does this leave a firm such as Lynx, or Proteus, who produce some of the best replicas and which are renowned and respected within the classic community for such?
If the court thinks an old car can be compared to a painting or statue, then replicas must be OK, as there are countless copies of the Mona Lisa and that oriental woman with the blue face you always used to see :) So it must all be about "passing off" as a real car? ...or is that just me applying logic....
Oh, and what about free market forces? If there's a demand for an old car, and the original maker stopped doing it yonks back, surely all a replica maker is doing is satisfying that demand and giving the public what they want? If the original manufacturer wants a piece of the action, all they have to do is inspect the replica to make sure it's good enough and then take a royalty payment. In that way everyone's even happier - replica company knows they're OK, original firm is happy they're not being brought into disrepute by a substandard product, buyer's chuffed cos the car's got a degree of authenticity. Just so long as it's not actually called a Jaguar C-Type or whatever. But that's probaly too sensible and grown-up when you can throw your toys outta the pram and make a lot of noise about "intellectual property" that you'd actually abandoned 60-odd years ago....
Just one other thing: I could maybe stomach this sorta thing if JLR had got all out of shape years ago, when "replicas" of their cars first started being produced. But now, nearly 40 years later? No, sorry, too late to the party. If they want to also do replicas/continuations, join the mob and make the best rep. Don't act like you just read that fable of Aesop's about a dog in a manger!
To be fair Norm, companies spend a lot of money building up their brand which in many instances is far more valuable than the individual products they sell. Louis Vuitton make fancy handbags and fancy stuff that posh folk spend ridiculous amounts of money on. Maggie and Bertha who buy a knock-off copy on the beach at Torremolinos for 10 Euros rather than a proper one at 1500 Euros aren't a lost sale to LV but the fact that they, and the rest of the Skegness bowling club can do that dilutes the value of the brand which is why companies like Louis Vuitton are very proactive in protecting their brand officiously. Some other companies are less proactive unless their nose is rubbed in it and some companies aren't bothered. However, all the companies have the same rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Normb666
The problem with making a replica of anything is, well, the clue is in the name. You are copying someone else's property, whether that is physical or intellectual. If you do that without their permission or agreement or under a license then you may run into problems if they object and, depending on how they object, that may have expensive consequences. As ever the devil is in the detail.
Ok Tim. They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Last I saw was a campaign to save Lancia.
Any connection to the previous ownership or is it all new?
And should we be worried....!?!?
Jim makes a no doubt well informed point about brands and their value.
The only issue I see about branding is that a brand owner can and will sell it, but in many cases, with absolutely no conscience about who they are selling it to and what kind of quality will be turned out in future. The value they put on branding is how much they can get for the name. So spare us the garbage about ensuring quality.
Jim, you lost me with the handbags....only way I can tell them apart is when they say "Morrisons" or "Tesco" on the side :) But famous makers of fashion items, and car companies, have a valid point when what's being copied is till in production, or was until recently. But what we're looking at here are models that went out of production ages ago. Yes they're iconic - that's why there's a replica market - but as long as these replicas aren't being sold as the Real Deal, but are still of good quality, in what way are the original manufacturers hurt? People seeing the replicas will remember the Good Old Days, and those too young to have seen them first time round, will be inspired to learn. In both situations such an outcome can only be good for the original maker. I believe that's called "win-win"? Litigation, such as we're talking about here, is pointless and vindictive. Of course it's sometimes supported by those who can afford to buy and run the original cars, because there's nothing like feeling superior in a "I've got something you can't have" way.... in fact Jaguar were on the receiving end of this sort of attitude when they did the continuation run of the Lightweight E-Types a few years back, and an owner of an original car was interviewed and effectively said it shouldn't be allowed. In the same programme, even Lord March said they wouldn't be welcome at Goodwood. Make of that what you will - I have.
Good points Robin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longtimefan
Its a little ironic, if this is the case, that just through the passage of time this market has again become lucrative to the mainstream car manufacturers. What about the "wilderness" years when enthusiasts were not supported in terms of replacement parts and panels, when it became uneconomic for the big boys to continue producing them. This is why enthusiast clubs and small car part firms stepped into the vacuum left by a lack of supply of the bits to keep their respective vehicles on the road.
There is the "elephant in the room" in that generally most manufacturers want inbuilt obsecelence in their products, so they can sell you the next shiny thing to come off their production lines. The only reason that I can see, in this particular case, that JLR are getting their Corporate knickers in a twist is........money. Its got nothing to do with protecting the brand or owners of the genuine article, just filthy lucre. The truth is that a great number of modern component cars are completed to a better standard than the originals and a number of the manufacturers continue to develop their product to ensure a better customer experience - sadly something a lot of the "British" manufacturers forgot about particularly back in the 60's and 70's.
I hope this sort of litigation does not gather pace, but experience guides me to expect to be disappointed where the profit and envy are involved.
Cheers!
Ade
Companies exist to make profit especially those with shareholders. Ultimately that's what it boils down to. So long as you operate within the law the whole concept of 'morals' and 'doing the right thing' etc is a moot point to be honest. It might be pointless and vindictive but it's their right legally.
It's shit, but that's the world we live in.