Talk Morgan Forums Community Vehicle Talk (non-Morgan) Suffolk Cars

The game must be played fairly, and that goes for both sides. My two cents as a suggestion for kindness: Let's assume that well-made replicas also mean image advertising for JLR, in a broader sense. Because the heritage of the brand is made visible and the heritage is so enormously important for the overall image of a brand. Then JLR could change its attitude and continue to accept such companies as Suffolk, for example. On the other hand, it has to be played fair. It is dishonest (without meaning anyone specifically) when classic car enthusiasm is feigned, and there is a business behind it.
My suggestion, the Vintage Jaguar aftermarket scene is accepted by JLR after individual examination. If there is a business background, the producer pays a license that is reasonable but does not kill him. So it would be a possible win win situation. At the same time, it must remain clearly recognizable externally that it is not an original.

I come up with the idea because that's how it works, for example, with the licenses of the BBC replica speakers. E.g. Doug Stirling has to pay a license fee to BBC for each pair of LS3/5a and other models. In return the speaker is officially approved and this is proudly shown on the label on the back.

JLR would have the advantage of a more positive emotional mood and more goodwill in the scene, especially since many of these collectors (and rebuilders) also need a new car, which could be a Jaguar.

Fair comment TBM. As always you never get the full story on the first pass. That's part of the fun of life.

Well they bought Bowler with some motive so why not purchase Proteus and turn them into a living co-operation branch. As you mention if it is organised then there is no where to hide and no reason to. Unless you have something to hide.

One of the Morgan dealers used to also sell Proteus C Types, I had a blast round Silverstone in one a few years ago

The other thing to remember is that so called "Replicas" aren't really that at all. They all have slightly different features and fixings, some required by the need for the IVA, others because we all want a little bit of safety and comfort. If you look carefully at the Proteus for example, great car though it is, it only bears a passing resemblance to one of the genuine C Types of which only 53 were built, so the question still remains, why are JLR coming in so hard when all that is really hapening is that all the small companies are just making a living and keeping the flame alive which is more than can be said for Jaguars current range ( F Type excepted )

I'm not aware of anyone "chucking JLR some wedge" in order to make replicas. The reason they don't go after Replica makers in the UK is because they'd lose. An Eagle isn't a replica BTW, it's an upgraded original.

The head of Jaguar Classic has released an open letter which has since been shown to contain many false statements. This is backed up by court documents that the couple have made public.

The couple were originally planning to make two further replicas for sale but dropped the plans after being contacted by JLR. JLR have stated that they didn't initially ask the couple to destroy their own car. The court documents have shown that to be another false statement.

Personally I hope the couple win the appeal and show Jaguar Classic up for what they are.

MPH, I find it difficult to believe that JLR would present a widely published open letter which contains "False Statements" It has just appeared in this months copy of the JEC magazine and is widely available in various on line car sites.
I have read both sides of the case and am still not reassured that I know what is going on but I just can't see JLR telling "porkies", they are just too big for that, or do you know something that others have missed. I will be very interested in your comments please.

What about Suffolk?

Caterham has a successful case against Westfield so the legal precedent is there.



If that's the case, then the couple will have an absolute field day in court. However, I imagine JLR have employed a rather good team of lawyers, and every press release will have been massively scrutinised to avoid any legal issues, so if I were a betting man, I'd not be putting any money on the couples chances of coming out of this with their shirts on their backs.....

The couple have posted a rebuffal on the Internet - addressed directly to Mr Dan Pink and making specific references to his statements with cross references to court documents.

All that aside what sense does it make for JLR to go after a minute operation that hasn't made a single commercial replica while at the same time ignoring long-established replica makers in the UK ?

Here is the letter.

Open letter to Mr. Dan Pink, Director Jaguar Land Rover Classic.
In response to your letter to the Jaguar community 11 February 2021.

Dear Mr Pink,

It is sad to have to conclude that your letter is full of false statements.

In this case you have in fact gone after two private citizens and life-long Jaguar enthusiasts, Karl and Ann-Christine Magnusson. And at no point were they offered the “opportunity to retain their completed replica for private use and enjoyment” as you put it in your statement. To the contrary, JLR have throughout the process insisted on the destruction of Magnusson’s privately built C-Type replica, despite many attempts from the Magnussons to reach a reasonable settlement. We are attaching extracts from JLR’s initial lawsuit in 2018 and from JLR’s September 2020 settlement proposal clearly showing JLR demanding destruction. These facts stand in direct conflict with your public statement to the community.
With respect to the company Creare’s ambitions to build two replicas, you describe this as “using our Intellectual Property illegally for their own profit”, and that you will “take action to stop businesses” from doing this. This begs the question how it was possible for Karl Magnusson to be in correspondence with senior managers at JLR for many months discussing potential business collaborations, even being invited to JLR Classic HQ, receiving nothing but appreciation and encouragement. Attaching court document annexes 7, 25, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 40 and 41 showing this. Here again, the facts of this case stand in direct conflict with your public statement to the community.

If JLR truly stands by the statements made in your open letter, how is it possible that we find ourselves in this situation? The company plans were dropped when JLR suddenly decided to object to them. All we are left with is a pensioner couple and their one and only C-Type replica. Who JLR decided to take to court.

Together with the Jaguar enthusiast community, we can only establish that your attitude towards replicas have shifted, conveniently lining up with the launch of your own continuation program. Actions speak louder than words, and based on your actions in this case we doubt that other owners
of Jaguar replicas feel reassured that Jaguar Land Rover will not come after them, demanding destruction.

Best Regards,
The Magnussons

---
Link to extracts showing JLR demanding destruction of Magnussons replica

Link to court annex 7 and annexes 25, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36, 37, 40 and 41 showing correspondence between Karl Magnusson and JLR senior managers discussing potential business collaborations.



And here's an interesting opinion from the founder of Proteus, Jim Marland.

I started making and selling C type replicas 40 years ago with the full knowledge of Jaguar. The picture used on some announcements of this action shows Lofty England with one of my cars. He and William Heynes were joint managing directors of Jaguar when William Lyons retired. I also have pictures of William Heynes admiring one of my cars. I attended Jaguar Drivers club events and classic car shows with them. Norman Dewis was a regular presence at these events, acting as brand ambassador after retiring as chief test driver. I advertised in the the Jaguar Drivers Club, and Jaguar Enthusiast Club magazines throughout this time.
Many other well known manufacturers have been doing the same for many years. My point is that it is inconceivable that Jaguar have been completely unaware of the existence of the replica market for so long. I am no lawyer but I would have that continued lack of action in full knowledge of the alleged breach, amounts to tacit approval, so their action should have been kicked out.
If the there is to be an appeal lets hope they get some better lawyers. Is it pure coincidence that this has come about just as Jaguar are launching there own replicas? I think not, and at a million pounds a pop for a car that would be illegal to use on the road they are hardly going to be competing with road legal replicas costing a tenth the price.

Suffolk were never taken to court.

Caterham was a current production car and their sole product was copied by Westfield. Not really a precedent.

JLR certainly do have massive legal resources but they were rinsed by Ineos which IMHO was a much more valid case. They may well be able to intimidate smaller companies into submission.

Intellectual Property Rights on the C Type have long since expired so even that statement is incorrect in the JLR open letter.

I should add that I'm a lifelong Jaguar fan - it's just that in this particular case I feel that JLR have badly misjudged things and to what end ?

What all of this for? In four years, Jaguar will be a purely electric car manufacturer.