Designer's testimony fails to sway court in Land Rover case

Jaguar Land Rover felt so strongly about its ownership of the Defender's shape that it hired the former Ford Motor design chief J Mays to present its case to a UK court. 

Ultimately, JLR still lost.

The British automaker has been locked in a legal battle with the British chemicals giant Ineos since it decided to build a lookalike version of the Defender after Land Rover discontinued production of the model in 2016. 

Although Land Rover has rolled out a modern replacement for the Defender, it saw Ineos's plans as a threat to its heritage. Therefore, JLR tried to register the shape of the original short-wheelbase Defender 90 and the longer Defender 110 as a trademark.

Ineos challenged the move. The case went to court in June 2019 and Land Rover.

It appealed but lost again in March, the result of which has just been published.
 
The company said it has not given up the fight, but declined to say whether it would file another appeal.

“We will take whatever decisions we think are needed to protect our design,”  a spokesman told Automotive News Europe. 

Ineos has subsequently revealed a car that Ineos’ owner, the billionaire Jim Ratcliffe, called the “son of Defender.” 

Many of the Defender’s design features are present in the Ineos Grenadier, including the clamshell hood, the so-called “Alpine” windows in the roof and flat windshield.

It was these features that Mays, who retired as Ford's head of design in 2013, highlighted in a report for JLR that it used to plead its case in the original October hearing.

Mays pointed out the features that the Defender didn’t have compared with other SUVs, such as stamped body panels, a contoured windshield and an integrated hood. He also underlined the unique features it did have, such as the Alpine windows, offset spare wheel and the narrow so-called “arrow shot” back windows.

"Taken as a cumulative whole, the resulting difference in the overall shape of the vehicle from the norms and customs of the SUV sector is clear and significant," Mays wrote. "It is that shape which makes the Land Rover Defender so distinctive and acts as a visual receipt to the customer that it is a Land Rover Defender. It is unique."

Ineos, meanwhile, hired former Volvo and Austin Rover designer Stephen Harper, who, the appeal summary noted, pointed out that that there were many vehicles on the road that looked visually similar to the Defender. As an example, Harper cited the use of clamshell hoods on the original 1940s Willys Jeep and the Mercedes-Benz G-Class.

The hearing officer in the original case, Allan James, was not convinced by Mays’ argument. "Mr. Mays is a design expert. Differences in design that appear important to him may be unimportant, or may not even register, on average consumers of passenger cars," he wrote.

JLR appealed on the basis that, among other things, the hearing officer did not provide a reason for rejecting Mays’ evidence and that the officer was wrong for concluding that the Alpine and arrow-shot windows were minor variations.

JLR's appeal failed, with the judge in the case, Melissa Clarke, agreeing with the conclusion in the original ruling that automotive features that seem unique to enthusiasts or design experts did not necessarily register with the public. 

"I accept Ineos' submission that this provides adequate explanation of his reason for not accepting Mr. Mays' opinion," she wrote.

Land Rover’s latest move to frustrate Ineos, taken June 30, was to file trademark requests in the UK for the Alpine roof windows and the arrow shot back windows on the previous Defender. So far, Ineos has not opposed them.