Some of you may, or may not know....but Ineos won their court case against JLR two days ago.

the Ineos “Grenadier” will become a reality in the next model year of vehicles.

If you have no clue what I am talking about; Ineos is building a new SUV called the Grenadier, which is esthetically identical to our all time favorite D90 and D110s. stylistically it will resemble to Defenders prior to the 2000 model years.

JLR sued to stop the vehicles production based on the very simple premise of trademark infringement; and sadly the British courts disagreed. The judge in the case claimed in his decision that while there are “many similarities” between the Grenadier and the Defender, that ONLY a design engineer or automotive historian would be able to point to those distinctions In design; and that the “general consumer” would not notice the similarities.

the one huge stumbling block that Land Rover created for itself in the very beginning of the Defender’s life cycle? Astonishingly...Land Rover NEVER patented or trademarked the overall design of the completed models of the Defender. Yes they protected specific individual features and components...but never the vehicle design in whole.

I find that to be a complete lack of competence on the part of Land Rover as a company; and on the various leadership over the years of the vehicles lifespan...what auto executive, or corporate attorney doesn’t see the importance of protecting their intellectual property?

I also believe that the British courts might be culturally punishing the JLR corporation for ending the English production of the LR and selling the brand to JLR’s Corporate ownership in India...that however is just a personal opinion.

here is the latest article about the case...

https://carbuzz.com/news/new-details...d-court-battle

 

The old LR guys never patented anything because they never dreamed that LR would sell out to BMW/Ford/Tata!!!

LR lost the Best 4x4 By Far slogan once LR was sold to Ford. They no longer participated in the Camel Trophy and they concentrated more on the luxury side of things. Yes the LR3/LR4 is very capable off road, but Ford never entered them into any kind of serious drive em into a river till they float, pull em out, repair em, and head out. Then Tata got their hands on LR and they're even more into the Luxury side of things vs Ford.

My favorite LR's are from 1948 to 2004. 2005-2009 stuff is pushing it with me, and anything after that = oh heck no!

Tata ruined the Defender IMHO and I wish the best of luck to Ford with their Bronco & Ineos with the Grenadier.

 

If those design distinctions were so important to JLR (as they claim from a legal perspective), then those distinctions should have shown up in the latest instantiation of the Defender. JLR is talking out both sides of their mouth. They shouldn't have it both ways.

Ineos built what JLR should have.

 

i think you are missing the point....of my post at least.

I find it comical that a judge can say that Ineos can build the Grenadier as it is designed....it is a direct replication of a D90 and D110.

The idea would be just as ludicrous if the judge claimed a company could build a 2021 car that looks like a 70s era Camaro or Trans Am, or 60s era Mustang, simply because there aren’t enough “common people” alive today who are aware of what those cars looked like “back then”.

The shape and form of the Defender is iconic; they have sat prominently throughout history as “the” 4x4 internationally used across the globe as the adventure vehicle.

He states specifically that the Defender isn’t recognizable to society in general....that is crazy.

Its even more crazy that Land Rover as a company throughout its history didn’t trademark the design of the vehicle....not a single CEO, head design engineer, or corporate attorney EVER thought that it “might be a good idea” to protect the intellectual property of the product...to me, that is malfeasance as a company’s leadership.

personally I think it is amazing to see a true defender on the market (in the guise of the Grenadier) that is an actual “adventure vehicle”; instead of a vehicle that carries the name but is nothing more than a “city car”.

I was at LR of Louisville a few weeks ago; I saw one of the new Defenders up close....its all plastic from the middle of the doors down....$100,000 of all show and no go as far as being an adventure vehicle.

I mean Jeep has their “city 4x4s”; but they at least kept the heart of their adventure vehicles intact....but Land Rover seems to have completely abandoned that product altogether.

 

Sounds like you rattled on long enough to reach the point I made.

 

well except for the fact that I’m not talking about what Ineos is building....I’m “rattling on” about the ridiculous ruling by a court that Ineos should be allowed to build a vehicle they stole from another company.

just because the Camaro today doesn’t look like the Camaro of 1970....wouldn’t allow Ford to build one that does.

 

One of the articles I read said that Ineos decided to build the vehicle because they felt LR abandoned the design and left a gap in the market. That seems to be true. I don't know if there is a legal argument with that.

 

I don’t dispute that at all; I am not questioning their motivations. I firmly agree that LR, like ford before them with the Expedition and Explorer abandoned the “purpose” of their product in favor of making a “city boy” SUV that the homeboys could put 24” rims on, and $10k stereos in.

my only concern is the ideology and legal precedent set by the ruling of the court...

 

The judge is sadly not wrong in his opinion that people don't recognize it... but that comments more on the lack of recognition that most people have and I don't see that as basis for a legal decision... but I don't know how UK courts work. I do know that people used to think my 1980 Cherokee was a Scout more than people knew it was a Jeep. And most people seem to think that fj40s are Jeeps... and Defenders are Jeeps... Panteras are Ferraris.. and on and on... but that still doesn't seem like it should allow people to just replicate someone elses design due to people being naive to who origionally made the vehicle with a distinct look.
yes... very bad precedent to set... if UK courts work like US courts in that regard...
we just had the whole jeep/mahindra grille thing happen... mahindra had to change the Roxor grille because Jeep made a stink... about the stamped and slotted grille that they use... even though Ford came up with that to save money over the welded grilles... in ww2 for the bantam(?) designed GPs. What a mess.

 

I like what Ineos is building. And I too feel that Ineos's design is what the new Defender should have been. Not so much an exterior overhaul, but a major undermining change to bring Defenders mechanical tech to the "leading edge". But LR is all about design looks and comfort.

Would I like a new Defender? Certainly. Would I rather have a Grenadier, even if built in France? Yup!

With that said, I do see it as a blatant copy. Something Ineos denies and claims the Grenadier is a design built out of pure engineering. Thats total BS. And I dont agree with the judge. When the Grenadier gets out, it certainly will cannibalize some of LRs sales. But lets face it, the new Defender is meant more for soccer moms and hanging out at the mall.