JohnD Posted February 12, 2021 Share Posted February 12, 2021 The Jaguar C-type is one of the iconic sports cars. Very few ever made, and an original today is worth millions, so there is a market for replicas. Still very expensive, but sometimes used in competition - I parked next to one in the Bo'ness Hillclimb paddock a couple of years ago. Jaguar have sucessfully sued in a Swedish court that their original design has copyright. A pensioner couple in Sweden built their own C-type themselves, and are now obliged to pay Jaguar's court costs and damages (!) of nearly half a million pounds. Why Jagaur picked on them and not the many C-type replica makers around the world is unknown, but what is that JLR themselves are about to market new 'original' C-types , following on from the newly made Lightweight E-types. There isn't quite the same market for Triumphs, but replica Le Mans cars have been made. But there is no "Triumph Motor Company" to take exception. Yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 Hi John, I remember this awful case being discussed on Pistonheads a while ago. I must confess, I thought it was a fake news story at first but the couple's daughter posted on the thread and confirmed the details. The guy was a massive Jag fan (Chairman of the Swedish Jag Owners club or something like that) and had a small collection of decent jag classics which he has had to sell to fund the case costs. The consensus on PH was that the 'suits' at JLR must have lost their collective minds, to contemplate such an action and risk the attendant bad publicity. Particularly as they were about to launch their own 'continuation' replica. The irony is that JLR couldn't have sued for copyright infringement in the UK courts because Design Copyright only lasts for a maximum 15 years and the C Type was first produced in about '52. JLR did take Ineos to court over the shape of the new Grenadier and lost, although I think they were trying to argue that the shape of the Defender was effectively a Trademark. Anyway, if you want to go ahead with a Vitesse replica, as long as you are in the UK, you'll be fine. Cheers Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick B. Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 While this is a tragic case, I believe this is one of the cases that are more complex. The swedish enthusiast anted to build his replica as base for a business producing c-types. Jaguar did offer to drop charges if he did not pursue business, and he could keep his solobuild. However, he wanted to make a business out of copying jags, which is a completely different thing than just make a replica for your own amusement. So while this case look a lot like a little man against a large company, it is actually more a case of one business that want to build multiple replicas using jaguars intellectual property. Best wishes Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnD Posted February 19, 2021 Author Share Posted February 19, 2021 To me, the 'continuation' Jags are the key, but why JLR saw someone selling good replicas at around £100,000, where their 'continuations' cost a million or more, as competition beats me. Completely different market, like any 'Own Brand' product. And just look around the Internet, it's stuffed with C-Type replicas second hand, from £25K to ten times more - are they going to be sued? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Jones Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 I don’t think they can be sued anywhere but Sweden or other countries design copyright doesn’t expire. Matey probably should have backed off and registered his company somewhere else where he couldn’t be sued. I guess his lawyer told him he would win. Really don’t see any win in it for JLR. And for Triumph being defunct I’m sure I’ve read something about BMW holding what IP and trademark rights remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardB Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 The style of the photo is reminiscent of the Daily Mail type articles we get here in the UK, the complainant looking miserable and innocent against some big bad oppressor - and article leaves out really important details that paint them in a negative light. https://jec.org.uk/news/2021/jaguar-land-rover-release-open-letter-to-enthusiasts-regarding-replicas JEC state they were being sold for a substantial amount - £250k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 Hi Richard, Thank you for the link which provides some extra context but I'm not sure why the fact that they wanted to build and sell additional cars, however expensive they were to be, should paint them in a negative light. JLR still went after the guy in Sweden, because they could. There was never any prospect of this Swedish case creating a precedent under English Law and whilst it was helpful for JLR to reassure private owners of pre-existing kit cars that they wouldn't be troubling them, there seems little doubt that they do want to choke off supply of future examples, if they can. Most people who could assemble a kit need a manufacturer of kits, on order to do it. I believe they went after Suffolk Sportscars in a similar way to the Swedish guy but were beaten to it by the Liquidator! I don't know if they have tried anything with Adrian Cocking but he is still advertising the Realm C-Type. Cheers Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnD Posted February 20, 2021 Author Share Posted February 20, 2021 Conversely, for a later icon, Ford sold the "GT40" name! Can't recall who to, but when they wanted to build another supercar, hoever much it could be seen as a second generation, it had to be a "Ford GT". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterC Posted February 20, 2021 Share Posted February 20, 2021 Agree with Nick, I too recall reading somewhere that BMW own the Triumph rights. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardB Posted February 20, 2021 Share Posted February 20, 2021 Hi Chris, I was just referring to the style of photo rather than passing judgement on this particular case. Just reminded me of those DM stories where some idiot is playing the victim and the articles that accompany them are always quite misleading. I mention the amount as there was debate as to whether these replicas encroach on the same target market. Don't have a particularly strong opinion on the case in point, but am inclined to agree with Nick that backing off at the legal threat when given an opportunity to do so would have been a sensible idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now