Feds Wade Into Fiat Chrysler-Mahindra Spat, Promise to Get to Bottom of Roxor Affair

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

A decade-old document signed by Indian automaker Mahindra & Mahindra and Chrysler Group LLC will be at the center of an investigation by the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Announced Tuesday and reported by Reuters, the feds will look into the patent dispute that erupted when Mahindra began importing the very Jeep-like Roxor all-terrain vehicle into the United States. FCA claimed the Roxor looks too much like the classic Jeep CJ line, predecessor to the Wrangler, and filed an intellectual property complaint to the ITC. Nuh uh — we had a deal, Mahindra responded.

FCA wants Mahindra’s U.S. arm to cease the importation and sale of Roxors or Roxor parts, but the India-based company is now seeking an injunction against FCA. It’s a pretty bitter dispute, perhaps even more so than those seen between Western automakers and makers of carbon-copy Chinese knock-offs. The Roxor does look an awful lot like the classic Jeep, adopting numerous styling cues long associated with the go-anywhere brand.

But the 2009 agreement forged between Mahindra and Chrysler — with current FCA CEO (then Jeep division boss) Mike Manley holding the U.S. pen — focuses not on the body, but on the grille. Mahindra found itself in hot water at the time after designing an SUV with a seven-slot grille, a feature at the heart of Jeep’s identity. The two sides reached an agreement: If Mahindra agreed to redesign the grille in a manner that met Chrysler’s approval, the American automaker would refrain from any claim of design or trademark infringement against the other automaker’s vehicles, so long as said grille was in place. (You can see the before-and-after grille designs in court documents published by Jalopnik.)

While the Roxor’s grille sticks to the general design seen the 2009 document, the body — “trade dress” in automaker legalease — goes straight for Jeep’s heart. FCA mentions it extensively in its ITC complaint; more so than the grille, in fact.

Whatever the ITC decides, we’ll know about it soon enough. Reuters claims the feds aim to complete the investigation into Mahindra’s Roxor within 45 days.

[Image: Mahindra & Mahindra]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 24 comments
  • Lne937s Lne937s on Sep 12, 2018

    Looks more like a Ford M151 than a current Jeep. Is Ford going to go after them next? Or AM General? I think the rights to the "Jeep-like" shape are so diluted that it would be a hard case to make. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M151_%C2%BC-ton_4%C3%974_utility_truck

  • Vulpine Vulpine on Sep 12, 2018

    The problem is, they're both right... and both wrong. Mahindra was given an unlimited license to build vehicles based on the original CJ-3 series of Jeeps by Jeep's then-owners in the early- to mid-50s. While FCA now owns the Jeep brand, the license was never revoked by any previous Jeep brand owners. This could result in a very interesting fight.

  • 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.
Next