This affects us all!

[Neville]

Save the replica industry ..

A retired couple certainly deserving of our support.
Despicable behaviour.

PLEASE SHARE!!!

Donate to Support appeal to save the replica community, organized by Elizabeth Magnusson

Support lifelong Jaguar enthusiasts, Karl Magnusson (68) and his wife… Elizabeth Magnusson needs your support for Support appeal to save the replica community

gofund.me

 

[Larry L.]

Similar idiocy was tried by whackaziod politicians here in the U.S.
Thankfully they didn't get very far with it.

 

[JP Verweij]

Thing is, Jaguar is still building the C types on order.
I saw a dozen build at the Jaguar/Land Rover heritage centre where they also build the Works Defender.
Lamborgini & Ferrari are doing the same

Ford, in our case doesn't own the GT40 trademark.

 

[Mike Pass]

Duly shared to Facebook.
Maybe just take a leaf out of the Austin Powers book and make up some "Shaguar" badges.
Cheers
Mike

 

[Bill Kearley]

Shelby tried, his suit was dropped after his death thank god. Can only hope the stock market kicks JLR in the ass.

 

[Randy V]

Mercedes Benz is/was doing the same thing with replicas of the Gull Wing... GULF, the same thing with paint jobs mimicking the Lemans winning GT40’s. Shelby was suing the Cobra replica car companies and as I understand it, Factory Five successfully defended itself but could not use the name Cobra or Shelby in any part of their advertisements or signage / emblemage.. I had hear that Ferrari was doing the same ten years or more ago.
—
Personally I don’t think it should be illegal to make your own replica for your own use. Different story if you are in the business to make and sell them.

 

[Stephen Ducker]

Yep, it's a mad world.

Shelby at various times was after trade marks that had legally already gone to FoMoCo.

Suffolk Sports Cars have been dragged into liquidation largely due to the JLR court case over their C type replicas, now that JLR suddenly want to build a few new ones.

Randy, I too remember the gullwing replica being crushed years ago.

 

[Tom]

that is some heavy handed BS. I had, at one point or another, thought about buying a modern Jag. Not a chance of that now.

 

[Brian Coombs]

I think the main issue is Jaguar have started making new C types, and these people in Sweden have also made 6 new C types, so both trying to sell their 250k cars to the small number of people who can afford them. Replicas have always been a grey area within the law, and always will be, I don't think it will effect anyone just building a one off in a shed for their own use?

 

[Andy Green]

I wasn’t aware the couple in Sweden were also manufacturing C-types, as it puts a different perspective on matters. JLR have also gone after and successfully seen the demise of Suffolk SportCars , who manufactured replica Jaguar SS100 & C-type replicas. What they are trying to stop is anyone trading off their name & heritage. One-off & home builders aren’t worth their legal costs

 

[DJ]

I believe Ferrari stepped into stop replicas do to the use of one in filming the TV series Miami Vice.I believe it was the Black Mac Burnie Daytona on a corvette c3 chassis. They also supplied the film co with a new white Testa Rosa to use in future episodes

 

[Cliff Beer]

This is just silly squabbling over money and rights. Jaguar shouldn't be bothered by a few c-type replicas running around, and certainly shouldn't have an issue with a retired couple in Sweden cranking out a replica or two. That's shameful behavior of Jaguar. That kind of behavior has nothing to do with the marque or the history or celebrating the history, that's just petty squabbling over a few dollars (or Euros). It reflects very poorly on Jaguar and diminishes the brand.

So long as replica builders aren't using a copyrighted name in connection with the car, or describing their replica as an "original" car there shouldn't be an issue. Trouble is, certain manufacturers and copyright holders have successfully asserted that they own the "image" or "shape" of the original car in addition to the name, thus preventing replica builders from building/owning/selling their own self-made car. That's going too far.

People and companies who squat on vintage automobile copyright rights to extract money from others rank about the same as used car sales people and ethically compromised politicians.

 

[Scott]

I believe Ferrari stepped into stop replicas do to the use of one in filming the TV series Miami Vice

Ferrari has stopped other replica manufacturers as well. To my understanding the agreements were a cease and desist type of arrangement which is the worst that Jaguar should be seeking. IMO Jaguar has let replicas exist for a long time and so long as the couple didn't pass them off as Jaguars or put a Jaguar badge or logo on them the court should have told Jaguar to pound salt. Awarding legal fees and damages is ridiculous.

One-off & home builders aren’t worth their legal costs

Andy, if someone is building a replica from scratch for their own use, I don't think that an OEM has any legal standing. However, once an OEM has legal precedence it's easier for them to pursue other companies. If they win a ruling against a kit car manufacture for IP/copyright/patent/etc. infringement I assume that it would be a simple and low-cost process for them to have those parts destroyed. If you inadvertaly purchase a stolen car or a stolen engine and the authorities find out they'll confiscate it and your only recourse is to go after the person that sold it to you.

In any event, the industry should get behind overturning this ruling and more importantly giving Jaguar a public relations black eye.

 

[Mike L]

JLR side is a company was trying to make and sell 6 C type jags replicas and profit from their IP. They are going after individuals so the "grandparent" angle is help get support for their crowd funding. JLR gave their company 9 months to stop with their plans before taking legal action.

Ferrari got very very upset with a guy here in NZ.

He purchased a Ferrari with damaged front end and installed a Mazda 13B rotary under the hood. I believe Ferrari were in contact with owner/car builder about protecting its brand and image. Not sure of the outcome but I suspect he can't have the Ferrari badges or call it a 456 anymore

 

[Mike L]

JLR side is a company was trying to make and sell 6 C type jags replicas and profit from their IP. They are NOT going after individuals so the "grandparent" angle is help get support for their crowd funding. JLR gave their company 9 months to stop with their plans before taking legal action.

Ferrari got very very upset with a guy here in NZ.

He purchased a Ferrari with damaged front end and installed a Mazda 13B rotary under the hood. I believe Ferrari were in contact with owner/car builder about protecting its brand and image. Not sure of the outcome but I suspect he can't have the Ferrari badges or call it a 456 anymore

 

[Cliff Beer]

Ouch. A 13B rotary engine under the hood of a 456 in place of the V12? That probably deserves a lawsuit of some kind.....

 

[Neville]

I think the main issue is Jaguar have started making new C types, and these people in Sweden have also made 6 new C types, so both trying to sell their 250k cars to the small number of people who can afford them. Replicas have always been a grey area within the law, and always will be, I don't think it will effect anyone just building a one off in a shed for their own use?

The difference is Jaguar ask for £1.5 million for theirs. And are prepared to destroy the lives of a retired couple of enthusiasts to do so. Doesn't even register on their radar.

Simply WRONG

 

[Neville]

I wasn’t aware the couple in Sweden were also manufacturing C-types, as it puts a different perspective on matters. JLR have also gone after and successfully seen the demise of Suffolk SportCars , who manufactured replica Jaguar SS100 & C-type replicas. What they are trying to stop is anyone trading off their name & heritage. One-off & home builders aren’t worth their legal costs

Andy - the couple built a SINGLE car for their own use. As soon as Jaguar expressed concerns about their wish to build TWO more for sale the family pulled the plug. Jaguar saw an opportunity to gain a legal precedent on a soft target. A precedent that will have repercussions on the whole replica industry - not just Jaguar. The couple didn't get a "cease and desist" letter, no "dont make any more". Jaguar went for the jugular with all their financial and legal resources and forced the family to defend themselves. They used all their savings and sold their small car collection to do so. If the appeal (which is strong) cannit go ahead for lack of funding they will very likely have to sell their home. Serious.

They need our help - surely worth the price if a few beers to support fellow car enthusiasts?

Donate to Support appeal to save the replica community, organized by Elizabeth Magnusson

Support lifelong Jaguar enthusiasts, Karl Magnusson (68) and his wife… Elizabeth Magnusson needs your support for Support appeal to save the replica community

gofund.me

It is the cynical exploitation of a legal loop-hole as part of a broader strategy by Jaguar to close down the entire replica industry. Ford, Ferrari etc can use the same precedent - certainly iin Europe.

Destroying the lives of a retired couple in the process probably didnt enter register with them.

Ill conceived, misguided and despicable. A step too far. Simply WRONG.

I'm sure the vast majority of current and past Jaguar employees feel let down.

 

[roaldin]

Well then, no more Jaguars for me.
Just mercenaries after all.

Tim.

 

[flatchat(Chris)]

If it was made in china ..... that'd be an interesting law suit
JLR CEOs handing out "copyright" specs to replica builders over the years - I think that'd be enough to bounce 'em back
At the end of the day it'll just be squabbling over a badge