Jump to content


Photo

Jaguar Land Rover - A Brutal Own-Goal?


  • Please log in to reply
131 replies to this topic

#1 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 10,281 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 10 February 2021 - 09:53

Just received - as yet I cannot vouch for its factual base, BUT at face value Jaguar enthusiasts worldwide could be disgusted and dismayed by this developing example of corporate-brand bullying from the once-admirable company.  

 

Defend the marque against criminal fakers, by all means - but sadistic persecution of lifelong genuine enthusiasm (as encouraged and supported in the past by those who made Jaguar great), potentially to kill competition to an already controversial replica-building programme of its own would - surely - be indefensible.

 

Sledgehammer and nut spring to mind.  But there are real victims here...read on:  

 

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 https://gofund.me/f6916372

 

For more information and direct quotes, please contact Elizabeth Magnusson, daughter of Karl and Ann-Christine Magnusson and Official Spokesperson.

Email: magnusson.jag@gmail.com 

Phone: +46 734-136047

 

 

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:

DCN 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Advertisement

#2 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,323 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 10 February 2021 - 10:06

Lots of money can destroy people building replicas.

On You Tube a builder built an 'Eleanor' 67 fastback, built on a 2015 Mustang floor and was sued and lost his project to the 'Eleanor' name copyright owner. The original producers wife I believe. As most will know the original movie cars was a 71 fat body Mustang.

Ofcourse there is probably 100s of far more accurate clones built of the 67. A couple here in Adelaide as well as Bullit Mustang clones of which there must be thousands.

As for the Indian company now building Jags they should be totally ashamed of them selves.

As Doug says there is past and current Jaguar execs who have these cars. So why go after a elderly couple? 

The XJ40 project that a one time member here had spent a LOT of time and money on must also be hoping they do not get picked on.



#3 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 52,589 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 10 February 2021 - 10:17

The claim, in essence, seems to be that the couple intended to make replicas for sale, which is the crucial difference between them and a general hobbyist, and had not sought JLR's permission to make commercial replicas.

 

I assume Eagle et al must have got permission from JLR, which would involve paying a licence fee; the judgment implies replica manufacturers have done so.  That would make sense as JLR would want to make sure that anyone making a Jaguar lookalike with Jaguar badges was not going to produce something that damaged the brand.

 

Part of me wonders whether the "official" continuation market is to preserve intellectual property rights for longer...



#4 Glengavel

Glengavel
  • Member

  • 1,112 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 10 February 2021 - 10:18

So, how does that square with Ecurie Ecosse's 'continuation' C-Type build?

 

https://www.topgear....ype-recreations

 

I can see Jaguar want to preserve their brand, but this is just heavy-handed in the extreme.



#5 Derwent Motorsport

Derwent Motorsport
  • Member

  • 661 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 10 February 2021 - 10:27

Well JLR put Suffolk out of business did they not?    Where do the likes of Linx stand or people who own one?



#6 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 27,442 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 February 2021 - 10:32

The claim, in essence, seems to be that the couple intended to make replicas for sale, which is the crucial difference between them and a general hobbyist, and had not sought JLR's permission to make commercial replicas.

I assume Eagle et al must have got permission from JLR, which would involve paying a licence fee; the judgment implies replica manufacturers have done so. That would make sense as JLR would want to make sure that anyone making a Jaguar lookalike with Jaguar badges was not going to produce something that damaged the brand.

Part of me wonders whether the "official" continuation market is to preserve intellectual property rights for longer...


I was wondering why JLR would suddenly about turn on these people. That could well be why.

#7 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 8,843 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 10 February 2021 - 11:19

I see that in the States a retailer called Evermore is sueing Taylor Swift for entitling her latest(?) album "Evermore," reminds me of the time Audi attempted to sue Maserati for calling a car the Quattro Porte until the judge pointed out that to attempt to clain ownership of a single integer was a) ridiculous, and b) if allowed would have to mean the whole world of numbers would have to be recast rendering the name Quattro meaningless. Still, I don't suppose that it will prevent companies trying to trademark perfectly ordinary English (or any other) language's words. JLR's current ownershiip are not doing the company any favours as they continue to slide down the scale of reliability, and soon celebrities and the gentry will decide that they are no longer "The Car" to be seen in and switch their attention to another make - They have already lost the "working vehicle" market, I mean, who's going to stuff 3 pigs into the tail end of the new Defender, assuming the DPF filter hasn't given up the ghost after 500 miles...



#8 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 52,589 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 10 February 2021 - 12:22

People trademark ordinary words all the time.  Because it works only in specific categories.  Hence Apple for music and Apple for computers.  When computers started playing music, the writ hit the fan.

 

Intellectual property law is a minefield, but it can be quite fun, if you're not a party...



#9 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 20,088 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 10 February 2021 - 12:30

JLR is Tata Industries, a company that dominates the Indian economy and is ruthless in ensuring it does so.  A friend of mine set up a little business with a British Asian neighbour to design and market solar powered street and garden lights in India. It was a tiny business but Tata squashed them and pout them out of business by buying up the company actually making the lights and intimidating traders who were selling them.  No recourse to law, just simple old-skool bullyboy tactics.



#10 john aston

john aston
  • Member

  • 2,062 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 10 February 2021 - 12:50

This move epitomises the backward looking industry which is being shown to look like amateurs by firms like Tesla . Jaguar, Aston Martin and so many others are becoming little more than washed up tribute acts to their former selves. Can you imagine Ford , in 1962 , evoking the Model T design language  in the Mustang , or BMW looking to the 328 for inspiration for the Neu Klasse breed of saloons ? Aston Martin design has been little short of endless variation on a DB 5 theme  for donkey's years and now it has reached peak meta by building DB 5 recreations you can't even drive on the road . It really is beyond parody , and Jaguar shouldn't be worrying about bloody C Types, but working on how to make a car that doesn't even look worse than the XE and XF   - and which people might , y'know , want actually to buy ? 

 

BMW is largely exempt from this criticism but , on the evidence of utterly ludicrous styling of the current breed , only because its design staff are clearly no strangers to the use of recreational chemicals ..



#11 68targa

68targa
  • Member

  • 465 posts
  • Joined: October 19

Posted 10 February 2021 - 12:52

Unless there is something we don't know about this case it seems to smack of extremely excessive behaviour from JLR that will harm it's reputation far more than a few replicas would. 

 

Why leave it so late in the day for goodness sake, if the beancounters wanted to protect their brand they should have done something about it decades ago.

 

Is this similar to Ferrari protecting against GTO replicas some years ago ?



#12 Andrew Stevens

Andrew Stevens
  • Member

  • 111 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 10 February 2021 - 12:53

It's an awkard area for any enthusiast. I personally am aware of Ferrari's actions again various people who have built cars or even reprinted handbooks etc without any permission. Whilst I feel sorry for the couple involved in DCN's post and agree that it's rather excessive action, I can't help but feel sad (in Ferrari's case) that things like 250 GTEs and 330GTs have been cut up to make 250SWB/GTO/Cal Spider etc pastiches. I guess it was also driven by the fact that JLR are doing a C-Type continuation themselves now? There has to be balance somewhere and I guess it's tied into people doing them for resale rather than personal use only. 

 

If I was GTO Engineering or owned one of their cars, I would be concerned at the moment. And not just the fact that the cars they have constructed don't meet the DVLA requirements for rebodies.... 



#13 Adrian Beese

Adrian Beese
  • Member

  • 46 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 10 February 2021 - 12:53

I wouldn't expect any less. Rubbish company, rubbish vehicles



#14 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 10,281 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 10 February 2021 - 16:37

Concerning the above post re the vehicles - BL-period Jaguars, certainly true - many others, certainly untrue. As a devoted Land Rover fan over the last 12-15 years, in my experience absolutely untrue.

 

DCN



#15 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 52,589 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 10 February 2021 - 17:12

Why leave it so late in the day for goodness sake, if the beancounters wanted to protect their brand they should have done something about it decades ago.

 

Is this similar to Ferrari protecting against GTO replicas some years ago ?

They can't take action until there's a breach.  And yes, it is similar to Ferrari's actions.

 

There is a valid role for intellectual property; if you take an age to create something iconic, you don't want anybody copying it.  More crucially, if you do not take action to stop people copying it, you might be deemed to have accepted the right for people to copy - one of the defences in the Swedish case was that others had done it without Jaguar stepping in.  Thing of e.g. hoover or sellotape.  Trademarks that have more or less been lost to the language.

 

There is a question though of how far those rights should go.  It's not an easy one.  I think everyone would agree that people should not sell bootleg copies of recent films; similarly I think everyone would agree there's not much value in a film from 1920 and if people want to try to sell it, then go for it.  The question is where to draw the line and for films it is 90 years (I think), which to me is grotesque.  The problem is that line seems to extend ever further into the past, Elvis was about to fall out of copyright and, hey presto, the line was drawn further back.

 

And car design is an entirely different kettle of fish.  If you lose your front bumper for your car, should you be able to get a new one from Halfords?  Or should the manufacturer have the sole rights to supply them?  Should they have a monopoly on bits of the car?  Should they have a monopoly on the overall design (which is the case)?  For how long?  I think that right is for ever, because it is copyright, rather than trademark or design right...

 

This action is extremely heavy-handed.  It suggests to me that JLR were pretty piqued at something.

 

There is a nice way to do it...

 

54cccd439f1f7_-_esq-jack-daniels-cease-a



#16 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 10,281 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 10 February 2021 - 20:50

Perfectly civilised, certainly.  Sadly this particular case seems to have gone rather far...

 

But one awaits clarification of the company's true current position.  Upon reflection - by management - it might be somewhat different from that projected?

 

DCN



#17 bradbury west

bradbury west
  • Member

  • 5,903 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 10 February 2021 - 23:21

 And not just the fact that the cars they have constructed don't meet the DVLA requirements for rebodies.... 

 

The DVLA policy on rebodying, re engining, et al,  makes very interesting reading, especially as it centres on a 40 year rule, pre 2018.  I suspect that warrants a thread on its own, coupled with a template I have come across in the art world about provenance.

 

The Ferrari GTO  ruling was overthrown, reported in June last summer, after an appeal. Google Ferrari GTO on the Daily Mail online site.

 

Their original ruling was secured against the constructor Favre in Switzerland , I believe, as they claimed the under 50 number built by Ferrari could class them as works of art. However, I recall  a very serious bout of  replica hostility in Italy a few years before that, centring on lookalike Maserati sports racers, with a good number seized and crushed. 
Roger Lund



#18 RCH

RCH
  • Member

  • 1,024 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 11 February 2021 - 10:08

Some years ago, BL or Austin Rover or whatever they called themselves at the time started issuing threats and demands for large payments to people "infringing" their trade marks, copyrights etc. I believe this caused some embarrassment to some spares suppliers. My interest was as a retailer of model cars. Around that time realising there was money to be made car manufacturers had started demanding licence fees to model their products. When BL moved in this direction the reaction from the model makers was; "who wants to model their cars anyway?"



#19 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,098 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 February 2021 - 11:02

Crumbs. If I was a stakeholder in JLR (a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Motors, alas) I'd be worried about the judgement of those in charge.

 

Starting with the decision to pursue constructors of replicas, I would consider it to be heavy handed, even counter productive regarding brand image. There is the consideration that JLR have chosen to prohibit replicas after they have been in existence for many years. The oldest replica designs are now older than the cars which they represent. From what I have read, JLR do not argue that replica constructors (individual design, kit construction or factory construction) are "passing" as genuine Jaguar models. A Lynx is a Lynx. Replicas are distinct from "continuation models" from JLR. I can think of many examples of misleading practices in the historic car business, but there is no evidence here.

 

The sums of money involved, assuming that replicas compete for sales with "continuation models", are trivial compared to JLR turnover. It is debatable whether "continuation models" make money or are built for marketing purposes. I am delighted that JLR care about their heritage, but if I owned shares I'd be concerned that the company might regard heritage as a profit centre.

 

JLR ought to be making money from selling 21st century cars. Income from branded consumer merchandise, even spare parts for 40+ year old cars, should be a pleasant bonus. JLR are clearly making an effort to build attractive modern cars but sales growth is embarrassing when compared to their opposition. Maybe this kerfuffle will distract from other inadequacies.



Advertisement

#20 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 10,281 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 11 February 2021 - 11:45

Re above Post 17: However, I recall  a very serious bout of  replica hostility in Italy a few years before that, centring on lookalike Maserati sports racers, with a good number seized and crushed. 

Roger Lund

 

I believe two Maserati replicas were indeed seized and crushed. But one of them carried one of the only two genuine 350S engines built, and if I recall correctly that was also committed to the crusher - which was seen even then as a work of incomprehensible officially-sanctioned vandalism.  

 

The last I heard, litigation over the entire sad episode was rumbling on - as these things tend to do under what passes for a legal system in Italy - with the aggrieved former owner seeking compensation for having been the victim of a court's scandalous misjudgement.

 

DCN


Edited by Doug Nye, 11 February 2021 - 11:47.


#21 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 10,281 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 11 February 2021 - 12:01

Two sides to every story.  Just received from Jaguar Land Rover:

 

 

  • 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.”

 

DCN


#22 sabrejet

sabrejet
  • Member

  • 647 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 11 February 2021 - 12:35

Interesting to see the other side of the story. I imagine that extant replicas will now become a hot commodity.



#23 opplock

opplock
  • Member

  • 752 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 February 2021 - 12:49

I imagine that extant replicas will now become a hot commodity.

 

Many years ago you'd see adverts for "pre-litigation Westfields". Will extant replicas become "pre-litigation C Types"? What would DSJ think of it all?   



#24 Nev

Nev
  • Member

  • 284 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 11 February 2021 - 13:17

 

Two sides to every story.  Just received from Jaguar Land Rover:

 

 

  • 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.”

DCN

 

 

Doug

 

Here are some facts presented directly from the Magnussens this morning (actually from Elizabeth, daughter of pensioner Karl).

 

This is a direct quote.

 

"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."
 
I personally find Jaguar Classic's actions deplorable, mis-guided and ill-considered. In seeking to exploit a legal "loophole" to gain copyright for the 70-year-old design, they may very likely damage their brand and wonderful heritage. Whilst the appeal hasn't hit the international press yet, reactions on social media have been overwhelmingly negative against JLR. Negative comments include existing and former employees of JLR (the vast majority of whom are honourable and genuine enthusiasts).
 
:o

Edited by Nev, 11 February 2021 - 13:19.


#25 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 20,088 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 11 February 2021 - 13:28

Many years ago you'd see adverts for "pre-litigation Westfields". Will extant replicas become "pre-litigation C Types"? What would DSJ think of it all?   

I never understood how Westfield got away with building copies of a car that was, and still is, in production by Caterham who had bought the right from Lotus.  If I started building & selling Porsche Caymans, would I get away with it?  It is one thing to resurrect a historic model long since out of production and another to build a copy of a current model.



#26 geoffd

geoffd
  • Member

  • 38 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 11 February 2021 - 13:48

I own a "pre-lit" Westfield.  It's not a complete copy of a Lotus/Caterham - the suspension is very different, although the body shape is similar.  After the court case Westfield changed the body to look different.  I think Caterham lost a similar court case later.  I heard somewhere that if Westfield supply a spare part for a pre-lit, they have to destroy the original!



#27 F1matt

F1matt
  • Member

  • 1,499 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 11 February 2021 - 14:08

I tried to google a picture of the car in question but couldn't find a decent image, if it isn't badged as a Jaguar C type and described it as a tribute retro car to the C type is he still breaching copyright? As DCN points out there is two sides to every story, if a Jaguar enthusiast set out to build himself a replica Jaguar I see no issue with it, in fact if I was on the board of JLR I would use it as a good PR story, however he has now turned a passion into a commercial enterprise so it is easy to see JLR's issue, sadly the legal people must be having a field day. 



#28 RCH

RCH
  • Member

  • 1,024 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 11 February 2021 - 15:07

Am I missing something here? The family from Sweden were in trouble because they were possibly going to be building a handful of "replicas" for profit. Are all the other makers of Jaguar replicas, other than JLR themselves, not then making a profit?



#29 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 52,589 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 11 February 2021 - 15:33

They may be making a profit, and they will be paying a licence fee in order to make replicas.  There may even be a requirement for JLR to audit their workshops and whatnot to make sure the output is up to scratch.



#30 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 10,281 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 11 February 2021 - 15:42

I am not sure that 'paying a licence fee' is in fact the case - nor that it is even that simple.  In the past these matters were nodded through, or regarded with tolerant gratitude as a tribute.  But the world has changed and long accepted practises are suddenly causing conflict, and dispute, and some genuine pain...

 

DCN



#31 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,098 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 February 2021 - 16:04

There is a lot missing. From what I have read, I believe that JLR are NOT making claims for a Registered Design or Patent. The claims are for Copyright -- the small d design or form or composition. The value of the copyright is tricky to determine, but as Ensign suggests, JLR may have licence agreements with existing replica constructors, kit suppliers etc. Or they may have turned a blind eye for years on the basis that the companies are small and the sums of money are trivial, earned by companies which themselves are Jaguar customers. And that there has never been intention to deceive purchasers of replicas or the used car market generally.

 

The Magnussons claim that they approached Jaguar with a request to make replicas with the approval of JLR. Discussions followed. Litigation followed. In January 2021, JLR announce a continuation series of Jaguar C Types. This is all a bit smelly and it could be that JLR are crass and heavy handed. There are questions about good faith which both sides need to answer.



#32 nca

nca
  • Member

  • 52 posts
  • Joined: June 17

Posted 11 February 2021 - 16:06

Where does this kerfuffle leave whoever is building the seven tribute replicas of C types for Ecurie Ecosse as noted in this post on another thread.

The intention to build these cars became public knowledge well after the forced demise of Suffolk. JLR must surely be aware of the intention to build these "tributes' which can in no way be considered to be 'tool room copies'

 

The latest edition of MotorSport arrived this morning carrying the story of Ecurie Ecosse setting out to build seven replica Jaguar C types, to commemorate the seven C types that the team raced in period.

This has been public knowledge for some time, but these are not slavish follow ons of the C type.  The engine will be the 4.2 litre version of the XK twin cam in conjunction with a 5 speed manual gearbox. Modern disc brakes and suspension will be used.

This would seem to be much the same approach that Suffolk Cars took with their version of the SS100, and C type, using available Jaguar parts to build a car as a far from identical replica.   

If as is alleged, JLR took action against Suffolk, for copyright infringement, can we expect a similar stance against Ecurie Ecosse 

The seven replicas will be available in exchange for your £516,000-

 

nca



#33 68targa

68targa
  • Member

  • 465 posts
  • Joined: October 19

Posted 11 February 2021 - 16:30

There is a certain amount of corporate speak in the JLR statement. It does seem strange that they had to wait some 4 years before trying to stop this replica build after knowing that the Magnussens wanted to manufacture another two cars. From the outside it certainly appears that JLR thought that there is something in this replica business and decided to build a few themselves and sell them for hefty six figure sums - oh, and they had better stop anyone else now.    They appear to be happy for all other replica C types (and presumably D types, XKSS's etc) to remain and I suppose continue to be built so why have they got it in for this couple ?    I am sure there is more in this than we know just now.



#34 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,098 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 February 2021 - 17:06

From the outside it certainly appears that JLR thought that there is something in this replica business and decided to build a few themselves and sell them for hefty six figure sums - oh, and they had better stop anyone else now.

Big companies aren't very good at making small quantities profitably. Volkswagen Group even boast about how much money they lose when making those hideous Bugattis. If JLR make any money from "continuation cars" it's just skim from other companies' work, almost unidentifiable in the books. Licence fees for repro parts for old cars and branded handbags are nice to have, not worth worrying about too much if Jaguar were selling another 50,000 cars per annum.

 

On the other hand, JLR thought it was worth risking £450,000 or more in legal fees when challenging the Magnussons. What is the profit from eight continuation cars assembled at Browns Lane from components made outside the company, perhaps even from companies who have been a bit sloppy about licensing? On the range nil, zero and zilch?

 

Naah, it reads like a company run by managers who can't admit that they've put their shoes on the wrong feet and who end up walking around in circles.



#35 Nev

Nev
  • Member

  • 284 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 11 February 2021 - 21:40

2021-02-11
Comments by the Magnusson family in response to the statement issued by Jaguar Land Rover

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.

#36 Nev

Nev
  • Member

  • 284 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 11 February 2021 - 21:59

I should add ....

The Magnussen family are honourable and honest. All the points made above are backed up with solid documented evidence.

I'm not suggesting JLR are anything less - misguided and ill-advised perhaps - but the vast majority of JLR individuals I personally come into contact with are genuine enthusiasts. They must feel badly let-down.

#37 bradbury west

bradbury west
  • Member

  • 5,903 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 11 February 2021 - 22:58

For those who might understand these things better than I, it may be worth checking the Daily Mail piece I mentioned, as a main thrust of the judgement was because Ferrari failed  to exercise their copyright for five consecutive years, on a copyright not lodged prior to 2007/8. The view was that they had not used the design since 1964. Just thought I would mention it.

Unbiased as I am, I carry no torch for Tata since they had no compunction about  being wooed by the EU to move a lot of their Coventry production to somewhere like Rumania,  all this during the whole,Brexit process ISTR. It was reported in detail in the Telegraph.

Roger Lund



#38 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,323 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 12 February 2021 - 01:23

The Japanese car companies came to life using the basic designs from US, British and Euro manufacturers.

The more obvious such as Austin Sevens created in reverse, Later the BMC A series engines, Hillman engines cloned, Mercedes engines cloned, Chev 6s and many more And some models that were quite similar in appearance to other manufacturers. Generally these engines were improved by the Japanese, but never designed. Too a point in aircraft as well. They even made a wooden DC3! Though I think they did pay a licence on those.

Currently the Chinese are now doing the same thing, not just with cars but thousands of items.

Cars are now only bad,, not dreadfull. Far too much cheap stuff [again copies] being sent out often that do not work. I bought FOUR clock radios, the last one works, the 3 previous did not.

 

Jaguar are being total hypocrites,, when they decide to 'recreate'  an old car the decades of clones are then suspect! 

In reality they should be making modern vehicles, not 70y/o ones.



#39 Tom Glowacki

Tom Glowacki
  • Member

  • 435 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 12 February 2021 - 03:03

So what happens with Ecurie Ecosse?  Are their "C-Type" legacy cars different enough to head off JLR litigation?



Advertisement

#40 Dipster

Dipster
  • Member

  • 500 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 February 2021 - 08:02

Just a thought (slightly tongue in cheek). Rather than simply being hypocrites as some have suggested here, perhaps JLR are fearful that their replica might not be as good as those produced by the  competition- Production that may now be feeling threatened. Perhaps potential buyers might take a look around before committing a lot of money to the purchase of a replica and actually prefer the competitors' products. So I can see it might be tempting to get them off the market. Obviously I know nothing of the truth of this matter but it does make one think whether this was a good long-term move by JLR.  



#41 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 52,589 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 12 February 2021 - 08:05

I should add ....

The Magnussen family are honourable and honest. All the points made above are backed up with solid documented evidence.
 

But not the judgment...



#42 Stephen W

Stephen W
  • Member

  • 14,408 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 12 February 2021 - 09:38

I seem to recall that when Westfield were taken to task over their "Lotus 7 Replica" they just insured that there were several differences in the Post Litigation models which meant they were no longer considered as a replica. Some of the C-Type replicas are patently different but whether they are sufficiently different is a matter for the legal eagles!



#43 Derwent Motorsport

Derwent Motorsport
  • Member

  • 661 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 12 February 2021 - 09:44

Where does this leave the owners of Proteus and Lynx cars, many of which were built by their owners  many years ago?

it seems to me that JLD have scored a massive PR own goal here.   

Are they not also buying in old Land Rovers and restoring them to a more modern spec?



#44 Ralf Pickel

Ralf Pickel
  • Member

  • 586 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 12 February 2021 - 09:54

https://www.topgear....ender-v8-trophy

 

They are still doing it ! But now those are REALLY the last ones... Like one of those carpet outlets ads - "we are closing, this, the 40th time really..."  :p


Edited by Ralf Pickel, 12 February 2021 - 09:58.


#45 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 2,362 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 12 February 2021 - 10:38

But not the judgment...

Exactly this.

 

The two sides in this dispute are making "statements of fact" which contradict each other; one or both sides is not telling the truth. The court has effectively ruled on which one they believe. We should beware of assuming the opposite without having evidence.

 

I have no experience of the car replica business, but have used a lot of copyright material in another context. It is beyond belief that anyone should use someone else's copytright material without first acquiring clear, written permission to do so. It's really not difficult.

 

Implications that wicked Indian Tata are behind this are quite uncomfortable. Do we know where Jaguar's decisions were taken? I worked for a Tata subsidiary for a while, and encountered sound business practices, and good treatment of staff (inc me). Customers of the subsidiary compared the service favourably with that of British and American companies.

 

I'm not saying JLR is beyond criticism here, just that we don't know.



#46 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 20,088 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 12 February 2021 - 12:44

  

Are they not also buying in old Land Rovers and restoring them to a more modern spec?

Is there something wrong with that?  :confused:   They WERE the original manufacturer after all.



#47 Dipster

Dipster
  • Member

  • 500 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 12 February 2021 - 13:51

Is there something wrong with that?  :confused:   They WERE the original manufacturer after all.

 

 

I wonder if they would like to buy mine? I will check it out!



#48 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 10,281 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 12 February 2021 - 19:13

It does sound as if the Magnussons' account of what took place between themselves and JLR, and JLR's account of their negotiations differ in significant core respects.

 

Dan Pink of Jaguar Classic has meantime posted this open letter to Jaguar enthusiasts, worldwide.

 

https://jec.org.uk/n...arding-replicas

 

Hmmm - there's a truth in here somewhere but 'sledgehammer, brutal, nut and to smash' still seem apposite.  

 

For decades Jaguar management turned a benevolently blind eye to external replication of their historic designs - viewing such enterprise as a supportable, sustainable, cost-free, brand promoting and positive activity.  

 

That management cadre's successors - whose understanding of, and sympathy with, such interests is apparently restricted - are a distinctly different breed, perhaps not least because they did nothing to help build their brand's historic stature in the first place.  One must remember it's not their fault they were born too late.  But some learn.  More don't.

 

DCN



#49 John Elmgreen

John Elmgreen
  • New Member

  • 12 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 13 February 2021 - 02:13

Now JLR has issued a letter to the "Jaguar community".

They say they will not ask for every existing replica to be destroyed. 

But this letter raises more questions than it answers!

  • Why did JLR take legal action against the Magnussons?
  • Would the court’s decision in Sweden stand up in courts in say the UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand?
  • Does JLRC now intend to sue everyone else world wide making C and D replicas (and other Jaguar replicas)?


#50 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 52,589 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 13 February 2021 - 08:20

I assume JLR took legal action because the Magnussons were intending to make six cars at a cost of a quarter of a million euro each.  I.e. a profit on JLR's design rights.

 

The Swedish court decision is something JLR can enforce throughout the EU against the Magnussons.  Doesn't seem to be much point in that. The findings themselves though are not a precedent for other countries; everyone's IP law is slightly different.  Although there are international copyright conventions so the chances are the result would not be significantly different in other countries.  The main exception being China, where Chinese companies tend to win...

 

geely_merrie_300.jpg?itok=CEnLbty5

 

^ NOT A MERCEDES COPY

 

Although JLR actually did get a win over Landwind in China recently, so maybe things are changing.