givemethewillys
Jonathan Chouinard
This basically describes BMWs to a T. At least they only used the engine from one. With that said, I'm hopefully optimistic and excited to see what they bring to market, and I hope other manufacturers take notice.
INEOS Grenadier
- Thread starter Correus
- Start date
Paddler Ed
Adventurer
Few more updates on the Grenadier:
pistonheads.com
www.autocar.co.uk
Ineos backs hydrogen for future Grenadiers
Hyundai tech to be used for zero-emissions models
pistonheads.com
Ineos Grenadier FCEV gets BMW fuel cells, earth-warping torque | Autocar
Hardcore off-roader cleans up its act with hydrogen power and totes a claimed 5900lb ft
Ineos has filed suit to lift JLR's block of the importation of the Grenadier to the US. This is why US vehicles are delayed to 2023.
Ineos filing in NJ - great arguments against JLR - accusing JLR of fraud.
Ratcliff asks for suit to be dropped:
www.telegraph.co.uk
Law.com :
www.law.com
Ineos filing in NJ - great arguments against JLR - accusing JLR of fraud.
Ratcliff asks for suit to be dropped:
Jim Ratcliffe's Ineos tells Land Rover to end legal battle over 'new Defender'
Billionaire's new £1bn Grenadier 4x4 faces 'sideshow' of trademark rows as industry grapples with wider issues, his company says
www.telegraph.co.uk
Law.com :
Law.com Radar
www.law.com
Martinjmpr
Wiffleball Batter
The legal stuff is very interesting to me (then again, I'm a lawyer. 
)
I have to say I think Ineos has the better argument here. It's difficult to understand what it is that JLR thinks Ineos is "infringing" on.
After all, the only reason the Grenadier exists is becase JLR deliberately abandoned the utilitarian 4x4 market in favor of the more profitable luxury line.
While that was undoubtedly a sound business decision, they can't have it both ways: They can't on one hand say "we aren't going to make this anymore because nobody wants it, but also we don't want anybody else to make it because we're afraid that maybe people DO want it."
I mean - which is it? What exactly is the argument that JLR is making? How is it that making a copy of a vehicle that JLR no longer sells will somehow hurt JLR sales?
EDIT: The best analogy I can think of is this would be like me throwing an old TV into the trash and setting it by the curb, and then when someone comes by and takes it out of the trash can, I try to have him charged with theft.
This is very different from the FCA lawsuit against Mahindra where FCA sued Mahindra for selling a Jeep clone in the US, because FCA was still selling a Jeep in the US. FCA could legitimately claim that the Mahindra design infringed on their "trade dress" and would lead to confusion in the marketplace because the Mahindra was a straight-up copy of a Jeep (albeit an older design) that looked very similar (though not identical) to the current Jeep sold by FCA (and whether you agree with that argument or not, it's still a legitimate argument because Mahindra was, in fact, selling a vehicle of a similar type and design as the FCA Jeep.)
Unfortunately cases like this often take years to work their way through the legal system, but I'll be very interested in seeing what happens. To me this is not unlike the infamous Harley Davidson case from the mid 90's when Harley tried to trademark the sound of their V-twin engine in an effort to prevent Honda from selling a similar sounding bike. When the weakness of their case was pointed out, Harley (wisely) dropped their claim.
)I have to say I think Ineos has the better argument here. It's difficult to understand what it is that JLR thinks Ineos is "infringing" on.
After all, the only reason the Grenadier exists is becase JLR deliberately abandoned the utilitarian 4x4 market in favor of the more profitable luxury line.
While that was undoubtedly a sound business decision, they can't have it both ways: They can't on one hand say "we aren't going to make this anymore because nobody wants it, but also we don't want anybody else to make it because we're afraid that maybe people DO want it."
I mean - which is it? What exactly is the argument that JLR is making? How is it that making a copy of a vehicle that JLR no longer sells will somehow hurt JLR sales?
EDIT: The best analogy I can think of is this would be like me throwing an old TV into the trash and setting it by the curb, and then when someone comes by and takes it out of the trash can, I try to have him charged with theft.
This is very different from the FCA lawsuit against Mahindra where FCA sued Mahindra for selling a Jeep clone in the US, because FCA was still selling a Jeep in the US. FCA could legitimately claim that the Mahindra design infringed on their "trade dress" and would lead to confusion in the marketplace because the Mahindra was a straight-up copy of a Jeep (albeit an older design) that looked very similar (though not identical) to the current Jeep sold by FCA (and whether you agree with that argument or not, it's still a legitimate argument because Mahindra was, in fact, selling a vehicle of a similar type and design as the FCA Jeep.)
Unfortunately cases like this often take years to work their way through the legal system, but I'll be very interested in seeing what happens. To me this is not unlike the infamous Harley Davidson case from the mid 90's when Harley tried to trademark the sound of their V-twin engine in an effort to prevent Honda from selling a similar sounding bike. When the weakness of their case was pointed out, Harley (wisely) dropped their claim.
nickw
Adventurer
I'm not a lawyer FWIW....but when you say "How is it that making a copy of a vehicle that JLR no longer sells will somehow hurt JLR sales"....gets a bit tricky since it was never technically sold here, with that said though, does reproducing in a market where the vehicle was never originally sold count? How many model years old does it have to be before it can be reproduced? If Jeep came out with a new Wrangler for 2023 with IFS and redesigned the front fenders, could Mahindra start producing 2022 clones? I wouldn't think so....The legal stuff is very interesting to me (then again, I'm a lawyer.
I have to say I think Ineos has the better argument here. It's difficult to understand what it is that JLR thinks Ineos is "infringing" on.
After all, the only reason the Grenadier exists is becase JLR deliberately abandoned the utilitarian 4x4 market in favor of the more profitable luxury line.
While that was undoubtedly a sound business decision, they can't have it both ways: They can't on one hand say "we aren't going to make this anymore because nobody wants it, but also we don't want anybody else to make it because we're afraid that maybe people DO want it."
I mean - which is it? What exactly is the argument that JLR is making? How is it that making a copy of a vehicle that JLR no longer sells will somehow hurt JLR sales?
EDIT: The best analogy I can think of is this would be like me throwing an old TV into the trash and setting it by the curb, and then when someone comes by and takes it out of the trash can, I try to have him charged with theft.
This is very different from the FCA lawsuit against Mahindra where FCA sued Mahindra for selling a Jeep clone in the US, because FCA was still selling a Jeep in the US. FCA could legitimately claim that the Mahindra design infringed on their "trade dress" and would lead to confusion in the marketplace because the Mahindra was a straight-up copy of a Jeep (albeit an older design) that looked very similar (though not identical) to the current Jeep sold by FCA (and whether you agree with that argument or not, it's still a legitimate argument because Mahindra was, in fact, selling a vehicle of a similar type and design as the FCA Jeep.)
Unfortunately cases like this often take years to work their way through the legal system, but I'll be very interested in seeing what happens. To me this is not unlike the infamous Harley Davidson case from the mid 90's when Harley tried to trademark the sound of their V-twin engine in an effort to prevent Honda from selling a similar sounding bike. When the weakness of their case was pointed out, Harley (wisely) dropped their claim.
What surprises me is I'd think JLF and Ineos would have had this discussion LONG before Ineos started to design. There must be licensing requirement to re-produce a vehicle from a manuf within a given time period? To your point, I don't think Toyota would have a problem with FJ40 clone but see the issue with Jeep....
Maybe the argument should be does the new Defender differ enough from the old one that JLR has abandoned the old Defender "trade dress" and opened up the market to replicate?
Maybe JLR realized how viable this was and tried putting the stops to it....obviously Jeep doesn't have issues with small outfits replicating their bodies like Aqualu ( https://www.hardbody4x4.com/5030-cj7-1976-1986-body.html ) but once it hits commercial mainstream and/or they saw the potential effects of their bottom line they probably would.
Not try to be argumentative, this is an interesting discussion....
I assure you both the Defender 90 & 110 were sold in the United States.
I own one of the 500 NAS 110's sold in 1993
Ineos attempted to license the Defender, Land Rover declined. Ineos created a new vehicle - the Grenadier is not a re-production of the Defender, it shares many design cues with Toyota's, Mercedes, Jeep and others.
nickw
Adventurer
Poor wording on my part.....I'm aware of the 500, was trying to convey that while a limited number were introduced, it was never 'sold' on a regular / ongoing basis outside of those officially imported.
It's 100% a "reproduction" and it fills that niche, 99/100 people couldn't tell the difference but according to this article this was all hashed out a couple months ago:
INEOS Wins U.K. Legal Challenge to Totally-Not-a-Defender Grenadier SUV
A court has confirmed that the upstart SUV maker can build its Grenadier, even though it looks remarkably like the original Land Rover Defender.
www.caranddriver.com
"Turns out, Land Rover never trademarked the Defender's shape, which gives INEOS the legal window it needs to bring the new 4x4 to life.".....at least in the UK
Attachments
Last edited:
ChasingOurTrunks
Well-known member
I thought JLR imported the original 110 and 90s to the USA; they stopped in 1993 so there are still a few around that aren't imported after 25 years.
I think this is a continuation of the prior legal strategy; JLR sued Ineos as was mentioned over the rough shape but lost in the UK. But JLR apparently has been pretty open that they will continue the battle in any jurisdiction they are allowed in (That's reflected in the document linked), and so that's what I'm guessing this is but this is pure speculation on my part. I can't see how they will win this claim. If "rough shape is similar" is legal grounds to say that this is a copy, and thus stop the sale of a product, then there's other problems. For instance, it looks like Nissan is in for a spot of bother with the Titan, as that is roughly the same shape as every other pickup truck on the market. And who was the first truck maker to come out with an HD pickup? Ford Superduty or GM 2500 series? Either way, they are both truck-like so someone better sue someone else right away quick for the right to sell things in that shape. The midsize unibody SUV market is another example where the lawsuits will fly like arrows in Thermopylae since I honestly can't tell any of them apart from more than 50 feet away -- Toyota, Honda, JLR, Chevy, Ford, etc. all look ridiculously similar in this segment so obviously they have all plagiarized and sales should be halted of everyone except for whomever originally built a small, boring, unibody AWD SUV.
(I'm being a bit sarcastic above in case that doesn't translate).
I'm also strongly of the opinion that the Ineos is no more a Defender copy than the original Land Rover was a copy of the Willy's Jeep -- just because they are roughly the same size and shape and intended to do the same kind of things doesn't make them a copy (see my sarcastic pickup truck example above). That being said, if someone was building Defenders out of their garage -- as in, you could buy one of these Not-A-Defender and afterwards, you could go to Land Rover, buy a new door, and bolt it right up -- then there's more weight to the "copy" argument. There have been some vintage Jaguars "recreated" by enthusiasts in this way, and I can see the argument about them being "copies" in that case (because they are...they are literally selling them as reproductions). But, I would be willing to bet there isn't a single part of the Ineos that would fit on a Defender and the other way around, so I'd be hard pressed to see the Ineos as a "reproduction" of a Defender.
I'm hopeful this claim gets tossed out with prejudice; if I can't get the truck I want because JLR is playing legal games with a design they have decided isn't worth producing because "no one wants one", I'll be upset.
I think this is a continuation of the prior legal strategy; JLR sued Ineos as was mentioned over the rough shape but lost in the UK. But JLR apparently has been pretty open that they will continue the battle in any jurisdiction they are allowed in (That's reflected in the document linked), and so that's what I'm guessing this is but this is pure speculation on my part. I can't see how they will win this claim. If "rough shape is similar" is legal grounds to say that this is a copy, and thus stop the sale of a product, then there's other problems. For instance, it looks like Nissan is in for a spot of bother with the Titan, as that is roughly the same shape as every other pickup truck on the market. And who was the first truck maker to come out with an HD pickup? Ford Superduty or GM 2500 series? Either way, they are both truck-like so someone better sue someone else right away quick for the right to sell things in that shape. The midsize unibody SUV market is another example where the lawsuits will fly like arrows in Thermopylae since I honestly can't tell any of them apart from more than 50 feet away -- Toyota, Honda, JLR, Chevy, Ford, etc. all look ridiculously similar in this segment so obviously they have all plagiarized and sales should be halted of everyone except for whomever originally built a small, boring, unibody AWD SUV.
(I'm being a bit sarcastic above in case that doesn't translate).
I'm also strongly of the opinion that the Ineos is no more a Defender copy than the original Land Rover was a copy of the Willy's Jeep -- just because they are roughly the same size and shape and intended to do the same kind of things doesn't make them a copy (see my sarcastic pickup truck example above). That being said, if someone was building Defenders out of their garage -- as in, you could buy one of these Not-A-Defender and afterwards, you could go to Land Rover, buy a new door, and bolt it right up -- then there's more weight to the "copy" argument. There have been some vintage Jaguars "recreated" by enthusiasts in this way, and I can see the argument about them being "copies" in that case (because they are...they are literally selling them as reproductions). But, I would be willing to bet there isn't a single part of the Ineos that would fit on a Defender and the other way around, so I'd be hard pressed to see the Ineos as a "reproduction" of a Defender.
I'm hopeful this claim gets tossed out with prejudice; if I can't get the truck I want because JLR is playing legal games with a design they have decided isn't worth producing because "no one wants one", I'll be upset.
nickw
Adventurer
I think the difference is that the Grenadier is a very close copy of the Defender (even according to Ineos) and the Defender image is @Martinjmpr put it so well a "trade dress" and very unique and embodies a large chunk of the JLR lineage & global image....whereas pickups and SUV's are a generalized group that is not protected. Nobody is saying they can't make an SUV, but to do it with strict likeness to the older Defender is what JLR is pushing back on. I see both sides, it's not cut and dry IMO, which is probably why it's going to court AND why it already went to court in the UK...but they have different laws and rules.
It doesn't need to be exact to have "likeness" you see it all the time with badging and branding, it can be similar enough to warrant the legal discussion....making an exact copy and adding 1" to all the doors doesn't mean it's not a copy in spirit.
Based on the lawsuit it comes down to JLR "abandoning" the marque Defender image in the US....is there a statute of limitation?
Martinjmpr
Wiffleball Batter
Without wanting to get too much into the weeds here, in order for JLR to prevail they have to show two things: First, that the Grenadier infringes on a trademark or "trade dress", and second that they, JLR, could be harmed by that.
IMO this fails on both counts: First because "trade dress" means a NON FUNCTIONAL design element. A functional element cannot be a part of trade dress because it is functional - it's not there to add a unique or distinctive appearance, it's there for a function. The slab-sides, flat windows, and flat windshield of the Grenadier (and the original LR) were designed that way because they were cheap and easy to build, and because they allowed for maximum cargo capacity. So they are not a unique "trade dress" and cannot be protected as such.
Imagine if I wanted to sell a claw hammer and Craftsman Tools sued me because my claw hammer had a flat face on one end and a claw on the other. Well, no kidding, it wouldn't be very effective as a claw hammer if it didn't have those things.
More importantly, seeing as how JLR does not sell a vehicle that is in any way similar to the Grenadier in the US means they cannot show how sales of the Grenadier will cause "confusion in the marketplace" or hurt their sales of their vehicles.
IF JLR still sold the "Classic" Defender in the US, then they would absolutely have a cause of action against Ineos - no question.
But seeing as how they not only don't sell the old Defender in the US, they have not done so in over 20 years, it makes no sense to say that the introduction of the Grenadier will harm JLR in any way.
I mean, this would be as ridiculous as if someone wanted to sell a straight-up copy of the Fort Model T and got sued by Ford for infringing on their "trade dress" because people might confuse the new, 2021 model T with the 1921 version that Ford hasn't made or sold in almost 100 years.
It's pretty clear what JLR's strategy is here.
They know they can't prevail and they don't care. Their objective is to try and bankrupt Ineos with legal fees by filing frivolous lawsuits in as many jurisdictions as possible, just to prevent the introduction of a vehicle that they, JLR, don't even want to sell anymore which I think is just plain ********y.
IMO this fails on both counts: First because "trade dress" means a NON FUNCTIONAL design element. A functional element cannot be a part of trade dress because it is functional - it's not there to add a unique or distinctive appearance, it's there for a function. The slab-sides, flat windows, and flat windshield of the Grenadier (and the original LR) were designed that way because they were cheap and easy to build, and because they allowed for maximum cargo capacity. So they are not a unique "trade dress" and cannot be protected as such.
Imagine if I wanted to sell a claw hammer and Craftsman Tools sued me because my claw hammer had a flat face on one end and a claw on the other. Well, no kidding, it wouldn't be very effective as a claw hammer if it didn't have those things.
More importantly, seeing as how JLR does not sell a vehicle that is in any way similar to the Grenadier in the US means they cannot show how sales of the Grenadier will cause "confusion in the marketplace" or hurt their sales of their vehicles.
IF JLR still sold the "Classic" Defender in the US, then they would absolutely have a cause of action against Ineos - no question.
But seeing as how they not only don't sell the old Defender in the US, they have not done so in over 20 years, it makes no sense to say that the introduction of the Grenadier will harm JLR in any way.
I mean, this would be as ridiculous as if someone wanted to sell a straight-up copy of the Fort Model T and got sued by Ford for infringing on their "trade dress" because people might confuse the new, 2021 model T with the 1921 version that Ford hasn't made or sold in almost 100 years.
It's pretty clear what JLR's strategy is here.
They know they can't prevail and they don't care. Their objective is to try and bankrupt Ineos with legal fees by filing frivolous lawsuits in as many jurisdictions as possible, just to prevent the introduction of a vehicle that they, JLR, don't even want to sell anymore which I think is just plain ********y.
Martinjmpr
Wiffleball Batter
There is no SOL on trademark or trade dress. However, in order to maintain a trademark or trade dress, the holder has to defend it.
Here's an example: Before ibuprofen and tylenol, what did you take for your headaches? Asprin, right?
Did you know that Aspirin was a trademark of the Bayer company? Yet, nowadays, any Joe Schmoe from Kokomo can sell a product called "Aspirin."
Why? Because back in the 1920s, when lots of people started selling "aspirin" despite Bayer's having registered the trademark name, Bayer did nothing to defend it. They didnt' sue the people who infringed on it back then and so, after a while, they just lost the trademark and now "Aspirin" is a generic term for acetylsalicylic acid pain relievers. Because Bayer didn't defend their trademark.
Highlander
The Strong, Silent Type
There is a significant difference between the mechanics of the Df and Gr.
Will the judge take this into account?
As for the looks, well yeah it looks quite similar...
If they lost a case in the Common Law system, will it it be taken into account as a precedent in another Common Law country (US)?
Will the judge take this into account?
As for the looks, well yeah it looks quite similar...
If they lost a case in the Common Law system, will it it be taken into account as a precedent in another Common Law country (US)?
Martinjmpr
Wiffleball Batter
No. This is not a patent case (the patents on any LR have long since expired anyway.) This is only about the appearance of the Grenadier, a legal concept called "trade dress."
A court might consider it persuasive but it is not "binding" precedent they are required to follow. IOW they don't HAVE to follow it just because it's a ruling in another common law country. But they can certainly discuss the arguments that the other court used to reach its conclusion and they can adopt those arguments (or similar arguments) if they wish to do so.
ChasingOurTrunks
Well-known member
I can see where you're coming from for sure Nick. It certainly is pretty similar to the Defender. The old Defender is at the root of the narrative behind how the Gren came to be, too, which further supports the "copy" argument. If Ineos had never mentioned the Defender or if Ratcliffe had never shown interest in it-- if they were just a brand new car company -- the "it's a copy" argument might be a bit weaker but not by much. I personally see it a bit like "Every Breath You Take by P-Diddy is to Sting what the Gren is to the Defender", but there are others who think "sampling" is the same as "ripping off", so I understand that perspective on the Gren too. But I guess that's the question for me -- where is the line between "copy" and "something new"? (and I get we won't answer that question, and that's exactly what the lawsuits are for). But actually, @Martinjmpr's post really resonates and answers this a bit:
I didn't quote the whole message for brevity, but I was thinking of something similar to what you shared, Martin. There's a deeper thing at play here in my mind that I think speaks to the difference in philosophy between Ineos and modern Land Rover's corporate direction and why this lawsuit rubs me the wrong way. I've been thinking about this a lot and I have an instinct/theory/observation.
It strikes me that the Grenadier (And the Defender before it) was first and foremost a tool, like a hammer as you've described. And there are only so many ways to design a tool to do a given job. In the case of a hammer, it's something hard and heavy on the end of a stick, because for a whole host of reasons -- experience, physics, the human hand, etc. -- that is the shape that works best for driving nails, and it would be a bit silly for Craftsman to win a lawsuit against Stanley because of a similar design of hammer (I think they might be the same company now anyway!).
Similarly, the Gren is the shape that it is because for a whole host of reasons -- approach angles, interior space, exterior usability -- that's the shape that works to do the job (the job in this case is travel well in remote areas off road). Put another way, a 4x4 vehicle for off-road travel that maximizes interior space, load hauling, and off-road performance, is going to look roughly like the Gren. Or the Old Defender. Or the G-Wagen in the front with the hood. Or the 70 Series in the back with the tailgate. Or the Jeep underneath with the 4x4 system. That's the nature of designing tools - the function wins over the form, and given the common functions of these vehicles, it's not surprising the forms are similar.
JLR on the other hand don't seem to be seeing their vehicles as tools anymore -- they are seeing them as "Icons", as symbols of status, akin to statues of religious figures worthy of protection and preservation as if there is something mystical and unique and special about the vehicles itself. In my opinion, that's at the root of why this lawsuit feels icky -- I think what JLR fails to recognize is that the reason their tool is iconic is because of the jobs it was asked to do and seen doing, not because of what it is. In other words, the OG Land Rovers weren't special -- they were just cars (and pretty mediocre ones, in many ways) -- but the people who used them were special. These are people who are willing to go see what's at the end of that road, or if it's possible to drive from London to the Singapore, or who were willing to brave miles of mud and ruts and danger because some kids need a mosquito net and nobody else will bring them one -- it is these people doing these jobs that is iconic.
Nowadays Land Rover has said there's no market for these legends. Again, by "Legends" I'm not referring to the cars, but the people. Land Rover has said those people don't matter enough to build a vehicle for, which is fine and 100% their choice as a private company. These are people vaccinating innocent kids against Polio, or cleaning up Land Mines in war torn countries, or simply going beyond their particular spot in their particular shire to have a grand adventure that will inspire future generations - and Land Rover has said "They don't matter enough to build a vehicle for". I disagree. I think they do matter - in fact I think in many ways they represent the best of us.
All of this legal stuff between JLR and Ineos leaves a sour taste in my mouth because Land Rover is attempting (hopefully unsuccessfully) to litigate out of existence a tool that will be extensively used by the people whose needs they have chosen not to meet. These are the same kinds of people that JLR owes most of their 'Adventure-ready' reputation to. It doesn't just feel like a lawsuit - it feels like a betrayal of those who made Land Rover into the cultural icon it is today.
nickw
Adventurer
Good example....I deal with construction contracts daily and imagine that falls into a sim category or premise that your actions and behaviors (or lack thereof) can supersede terms of the contract...I'm sure there is a legal term for that.
Maybe the argument is Trademarking and 'Branding'? I know there are differences in the legal world....