Can not vote but would say - YES
A little bit of context to help clarify confusion around licensing of brand & product design.
Jeep shape - The ubiquitous shape has been inspiration for many car companies around the globe since WW2. There was nothing bad in using a license agreement and lawfully producing a copy of the original Willy's CJ. Mahindra was doing all ok till here.
What happened to all the licensee companies -
Most of the licenses that Willy's had granted/loaned expired during 1990's. Consequently, some manufacturers (such as Mitsubishi) stopped production, but others (such as Mahindra) continued producing the CJ derivative albeit with different product branding. Looks fishy, but I would say Mahindra was still legally right.
FCA vs Mahindra conflict
While Mahindra kept selling the CJ derivative models in India, it never bothered the parent company due to non-conflicting situation. Chrysler wasn't selling in India and Mahindra wasn't big enough a player to play in US market.
However, that situation changed when Mahindra first tried to launch the Thar/Roxor in US and was challenged by FCA in the court. That was the first sign of Mahindra treading the legal and moral borderline - does a company (Chrysler/ FCA) who has paid for the Jeep brand holds the right to the original shape and design or a long standing licensee gets to inherit the old design.
Mahindra goes one step too far
It was a fair battle with up until Mahindra upgraded the Thar and made it look like the Jeep Wrangler. This was not the CJ of WW2 but a new design developed and industrialized by Chrysler. I think Mahindra crossed the fence on many fronts here:
1. LEGAL - A company can legally protect its IP which is not just limited to technical stuff but also the way a car looks or its livery. It holds more importance if you are talking about iconic products like CJ, Beetle, Mini, etc. If Jeep has got it covered, they have full rights to challenge Mahindra in the courts any where in the World
2. MORAL - Mahindra had the option of using the the CJ/Classic/Thar design just as an inspiration and develop their own design language for the new Thar. By blatantly copying the Wrangler they lost on the moral ground too.
3. BAD PRECEDENCE - Copying stifles innovation. Why would other Indian companies feel motivated to invest on new designs if copycat-strategy starts producing good sales results.
I hope Mahindra acknowledges these facts and gets original with all future designs. Mr. Bose's entry looks very timely!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayek But I don’t see that as a deal breaker for them. Just like Stellantis is the inheritor of the Jeep designs in other markets, Mahindra is the inheritor in India.
To GTO’s point, their right to use the Jeep brand lapsed in the 1990s - but not their right to use the Jeep designs and to continue developing the same. |
In the fight between - Inheriting a design by an old licensee (Mahindra) vs. Owing a brand and its design (Stellantis> FCA> Chrysler >AMC > Kaiser >Willy's), the brand owner gets a larger say. Reason - because they paif for all the IPs associated with that brand.
Further to your point, here is a degree of what can be lawfully protected in a vehicle:
- Brand name - Highest IP protection possible
- Product name - Watertight protection as the name gets registered
- Technical IP - You can file a patent but determined companies can still find a work around and copy the technology
- Shape/Livery - You can register the specific design elements but its tough to protect the entire shape and therefore loopholes are easy to find
Lets see how well Jeep has protected its design elements but it would have been nice if Mahindra used the CJ/Thar as an inspiration to come up with something new and different than the Wrangler.