Clone Wars: Jaguar Land Rover Still Pissed About Chinese Evoque Knock-Off, Files Lawsuit

by Steph Willems

Published: June 6th, 2016

clone wars jaguar land rover still pissed about chinese evoque knock off files

When is a Range Rover Evoque not a Range Rover Evoque? When it’s a Landwind X7 — a carbon copy Chinese imitation that Jaguar Land Rover wants out of the picture.

According to a report in Reuters, the automaker recently served China’s Jiangling Motor with legal papers over their copycat crossover SUV, alleging the vehicle amounts to copyright infringement and unfair competition.

The British company (owned by India’s Tata Motors) tried to play nice with Jiangling ever since the Landwind X7 bowed in 2015, but early attempts to have the vehicle removed from the market failed, leaving JLR with no choice but to pull out the big legal guns and sue.

If an American, European or Japanese automaker pulled this stunt, the reaction would have been very different, but China operates in a different realm. Automakers who have had their designs copies are reluctant to pursue legal action.

China is the market automakers flock to in search of steady sales growth. The rise of that country’s car-buying middle class means luxury and near-luxury foreign makes are a hot commodity.

Jiangling is one of the country’s top automakers, and a lawsuit against that company could sour the Chinese public on JLR’s products. The odds of winning such a legal battle in China seem low, causing automakers to hold their fire when a design clone pops up.

Still, there’s a repercussion for the copycat — Jiangling won’t be able to export the X7 while the case is before the courts.

The JLR case could be a watershed moment in the automotive industry, though it depends if they win in their suit against Jiangling. If the court decides in JLR’s favor, expect to see more lawsuits leveled by automakers with illegitimate Chinese sons.

[Image: Navigator84/ Wikimedia]

#China #Design #JaguarLandRover #LandwindX7 #Lawsuit #LegalAction #RangeRoverEvoque

Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 35 comments

Tekdemon on Jun 07, 2016

Bit of a stretch to claim that Jiangling is one of China's "top automakers" when they wouldn't even be in the top 20 and we're talking about a market where the top companies control the majority of market-share. Most of their sales come from joint venture product and cheapo pickup trucks.

Like Reply
Bricoler1946 on Jun 08, 2016

It should be called Passedwind. Hey amigo,build the wall as high as you want, us Mexicans are good at building tunnels.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.