 | Home > Off Topic > JLR sued 2 pensioner enthusiasts for copyright infringements |
 
|
|
|
| LiftedDisco Member Since: 17 Aug 2014 Location: Towcester Posts: 352  
|
It strikes me that the main issue is with 'Creare Form AB', this being the Swedish equivalent of a Ltd Company - Dan Pink states that the Magnnussons were offered the opportunity to retain the car 'for personal use only' but that this option was declined. |
||
14th Feb 2021 8:21am |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018  
|
I don't know, but were not some of the other replicas not made for their owners by some form of company, undertaking the task for money?
|
||
|
14th Feb 2021 8:27am |
|
| LandRoverAnorak Member Since: 17 Jul 2011 Location: Surrey Posts: 11324
|
The line that stood out to me in that letter was " We have never, nor would we, take action against private owners of pre-existing individual replica vehicles". This very much suggests that new replicas won't be tolerated. Probably tricky to enforce against somebody building one in their shed for their own use but any sort of commercial operation will be fair game for a lawsuit.
As JLR are now building continuation models, even in small numbers, I guess they'd argue that they are a current model and treat them the same as any other in their line up. Darren 110 USW BUILD THREAD - EXPEDITION TRAILER - 200tdi 90 BUILD THREAD - SANKEY TRAILER - IG@landroveranorak "You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought!" - Princess Leia |
||
|
14th Feb 2021 9:06am |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018
|
Yes, it looks that way.
"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." https://www.facebook.com/SaveOurClassicCarReplicas/ |
||
|
14th Feb 2021 9:30am |
|
| rockster57 Member Since: 15 Nov 2014 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 937 
|
It makes more sense to me if I regard this “prevention” as JLR protecting their IP from unlicensed commercial exploitation by a third party. This is what IP law is all about. There is no commercial or profit making aspect involved when an enthusiast builds a replica for his or her own use and enjoyment. Building to sell is another matter entirely. I feel JLR have had a very unfair bad press over this case but that’s sadly typical of today’s often malevolent media. Getting off my soapbox now  |
||
|
14th Feb 2021 9:49am |
|
| boxoftricks Member Since: 06 Feb 2019 Location: Home Counties Posts: 747 
|
Having digested this it seems the defendants collaborated with JLR to build a one-off replica and JLR were accommodating.
The defendants then decided to create a business selling these recreations. Jaguar drew the line and instigated court proceedings to stop this. I'm in agreement with Jaguar, no one should be allowed to copy another individual intellectual property without consent. It's theft. Now JLR are recreating classic cars again they want to protect their assets so I can see this happening more often if individuals like the defendants think they are above the law. |
||
|
14th Feb 2021 10:13am |
|
| mse Member Since: 06 Apr 2008 Location: UK Posts: 5035 
|
I agree, it’s absolutely correct for any company to protect its interests like this, if they didn’t for one they would struggle for all Mike |
||
|
14th Feb 2021 9:17pm |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018
|
There's reference to one, or even two "cease and desist" letters from JLR copies of which I can't find in any of the released documents; so it would be interesting to see if this offer was made, as it's directly challenged by the defendants.
That's one of the outstanding issues - this company has been singled out rather than any of the other companies responsible for some or all of the other 1,500 replicas supposed to exist. How can you point have any validity when JLR, via Dan Rose have stated the exact opposite with regard to existing replicas and by implication the bespoke spare parts/body panels business necessary to maintain them on the road in the future? |
||
|
15th Feb 2021 9:59am |
|
| blackwolf Member Since: 03 Nov 2009 Location: South West England Posts: 17360 
|
One thing is very clear, and that is that as usual in legal disputes the two parties have massively different accounts of events, and each party clearly believes it is a victim and the other party is unreasonable. Nothing new there.
I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in between. Probably we should accept that the courts took an unprejudiced and objective view and came to the right decision. |
||
|
15th Feb 2021 11:54am |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018
|
I believe the decision is only provisional, in that the an appeal has been lodged with a time frame that could mean nothing is decided for quite a period of time.
|
||
|
15th Feb 2021 12:49pm |
|
| rockster57 Member Since: 15 Nov 2014 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 937
|
Appeal? Brave or maybe misguided action. The costs of an appeal case rise exponentially. Hasn’t there already been a headline about “Pensioners made Penniless”? Perhaps their Go Fund Me page is doing well?
Meanwhile, the appeal doesn’t affect the legal “precedent” of this case. Anyone else in the business of unlicensed replica vehicles still can’t sit easy. A decision of the lower courts is of “persuasive” value. That means other courts hearing cases based on similar facts are entitled to take the outcome of the JLR case into consideration when making their own adjudication. |
||
|
15th Feb 2021 1:17pm |
|
| StefanS322 Member Since: 16 Mar 2021 Location: Ystad Posts: 1 
|
I know Karl Magnusson personally. I am an old friend of him since the 1980:s living in the same city for many years, active in the same Jaguar club. I know all about this. There was no "cease and desist" letter to Karl from JLR. JLR demanded his single privately built car to be destroyed in the first letter. JLR gave Karl no choice. Karl has built one single replica during nine years from 2009 to 2018 having been encouraged by managers at Jaguar at several meetings 2015 - 2016. He was invited to Jaguar and met Managers of the Classic division. He was not informed of any copyright problems. 2018 suddenly JLR sent a letter demanding his private car to be destroyed and fine paid. The only car built was private, not built by the company, which is dormant and has had no assets. since 2011. Karl and his wife has built one single replica by their own and had plans to build two more but stopped all plans 2018 after the letter from JLR as they naturally did not want to be ruined. JLR still demanded destruction and fine to be paid. His one only car definitely is privately owned by himself, not by any company. |
||
|
16th Mar 2021 5:50pm |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018
|
As a follow JLR are now going after "an artist using images of Land Rovers on gift cards has been told to remove her prints from an online retailer because of copyright infringement.
 Click image to enlarge Emma Lawrence from Shrewsbury was told that her artworks of Land Rovers were in breach of copyright Click image to enlarge “It makes no sense,” she said. “It appears that I cannot describe my illustration as a Land Rover but can call it a ‘landy’ or Landrover. “It seems extreme not to be able to describe something as a Land Rover when it is recognisable and has almost become common language, like the word ‘hoover’. I am not trying to sell a replica, but a drawing of something I see in everyday life.” JLR said Lawrence’s use of its trademarks gave the appearance of it being licensed by JLR. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-made...-cpsgm69w0 |
||
|
16th May 2021 8:33pm |
|
| Bluest Member Since: 23 Apr 2016 Location: Lancashire Posts: 4206 
|
This to me is JLR setting fire to its own house. The very fact that people continue to portray Land Rovers in art, stories and television and movies is something amazing. Other companies would sell their souls for that kind of recognition. But no, JLR are so obsessed with protecting there precious idea of “brand” that they don’t see that they are destroying it at the same time. At least they won’t have this problem for long, once they’ve stopped anyone portraying a Series 3 or E-type I don’t think they’ll need to worry about cards or replicas of an XF diesel or Evoque convertible.
Just because you can do something, stop to think if you should. 2007 110 TDCi Station Wagon XS |
||
|
16th May 2021 9:14pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
