[Singh101]

Voted NO.

Picture two companies that were building a product, let's call it "A", one the original and the other a version of it, nearly a twin, under licence.

Both companies evolved through the times but even as they drifted apart, both of them continued to build Product A with continual, incremental updates and refinement- both in their own ways.

Is it really that much of a surprise that the Product A twins evolved to look similar to each other?

...

Everything seemed fine till Mahindra could only really manufacture a decidedly worse product than Jeep.

540/550- Jeep: Well, you can't do that but it doesn't affect me so it's okay, I guess.

Thar- Jeep: Ha, how laughable. It's so crude and unrefined! THE GAME HAS MOVED ON BUDDY! Look where I'm at! Look at how much money I make now! I don't even care.

2020 Thar: Jeep: Wait a minute. That's not cool. That's making me look bad- like I've been selling overpriced junk till now. Can't have that. I'm gonna tell on you.

...

Do I wish the Thar had a different style tail light? Yes. But does it surprise me that a jeep (General Purpose Veh) for the civilian market built by Jeep and Mahindra look similar? Absolutely not.

Jeep needs to grow up and put on its big boy pants.

[Hayek]

I always thought Mahindra has a license to use the original Jeep designs in India. And the Thar is clearly a development on that design, just as the Wrangler is. They don’t have the right to use these designs in any other market - hence they can’t export the Thar. But I don’t see that as a deal breaker for them. Just like Stellantis is the inheritor of the Jeep designs in other markets, Mahindra is the inheritor in India.

To GTO’s point, their right to use the Jeep brand lapsed in the 1990s - but not their right to use the Jeep designs and to continue developing the same.

[AMG Power]

Quoting my post of 23rd Feb about this CARBON-COPY-CONTRAPTION:

Originally Posted by AMG Power

I hope Jeep sends Mahindra to the cleaners like they did with the Roxor in the US.

It will have a far more detrimental effect on Mahindra when a similar order is received in India.

The order should be a cease and desist not only of production but also provision of after sales support and spares to existing customers.

The order should also make Mahindra adequately compensate all the customers who have bought the “INFRINGEMENT” for the losses they would suffer.

A very well deserved Jeep could then laugh all the way to the bank.

The reason for the delay in taking action makes one wonder if there is any hanky panky going on.

If the guys in Australia can take action so fast, why is FCA India dragging its feet? It’s long past the time for taking action.

[sidharth_j]

I can perhaps give some insight into the latest news regarding this tiff down under.

At the federal court hearing last week, Mahindra's lawyer said, and I quote -

John Hennessy (SC), representing Mahindra, told the court that before today’s hearing, Jeep was “provided with a letter that informed them … that Mahindra had no present intention to import and sell the Thar vehicle in Australia”.

You can read the entire story here - https://www.caradvice.com.au/951759/...-in-australia/

However, I am of the opinion that Jeep are just wasting their effort and money on this issue here in 'Straya.

Mahindra sells so few vehicles that their sales numbers don't even find mention in the VFACTS monthly vehicle sales report

Do Jeep really want to go to war with such a low seller?

Jeep in Australia is the ultimate dog brand. Despite years in the market, these guys at Jeep do not sell more than 6000 vehicles a year. A figure that is commercially unsustainable in the long term.

Jeeps in Australia are known to be notoriously unreliable and the poor reliability stems from undercooked R&D along with poor implementation.
Also, in the event things go wrong, you would expect that you would be dealt with expeditiously and stuff gets fixed to your satisfaction, but no chance of that happening with Jeep as evidenced by tons of bad reviews by Aussie customers.

Perhaps the worry for Jeep is, a lookalike from Mahindra might actually sell more and end up being more reliable than the original thing. Not a good look, eh?

..Sid

[indian21r]

I voted yes even though I am going to get my Thar in the next 24 hours.

First and foremost they could have continued the old Thar design and do modifications where necessary. They could have avoided copy a lot of small things which brought this whole discussion of copyright. We should not go the Chinese way in terms of design. They have good engine gearbox combos and could have delivered better without the guilt of copying.

Again maybe the evolution along with the latest regulations led to this design.

[V.Narayan]

Why are we assuming that M&M is guilty. Let the Australian Court determine that. Intellectual property laws, as approved internationally by various forums such as WTO are skewed in favour of the West. This was something India and China fought against in the 1990s and 2000s. So they can sue a third world company for car looks but we cant sue them for filing patents on traditional medicine knowledge. Just one of many examples. Can M&M sue FCA in India for copying M&M? I don't know but it is worth the thought. The West and now China want a monopoly or substantial control over media, communication, messaging, what we read and what we think. Clearly from the posts on this thread they are making headway.

Maybe M&M did copy. But lets not announce them guilty yet. Let the Australian courts have their say. The very fact that FCA chose Australia as the venue for their law suit speaks volumes. It mean they are not confident of winning in many other jurisdictions and have picked a place they think they will win.

[BlackPearl]

Originally Posted by Hayek

I always thought Mahindra has a license to use the original Jeep designs in India.

If I am not mistaken, that license was till 1995.

[AirWind]

Voted - Yes! I've always mocked the cheap Chinese copy cats and the Thar has also put India in that shameful league! Blatantly copying someone's design to get ahead quickly in the market is a theft and not something we as a responsible motoring community should be supportive of.

[vivekgk]

Voted No.

Here's why. While I agree that Mahindra has basically copied the design of the Jeep Wrangler in the new Thar, Mahindra is the reason that the Jeep name has such instant brand recogintion in India. If it wasn't for Mahindra making and selling umpteen flavours of the CJ3 and CJ5, there wouldn't be anything other than a few old Willys Jeeps leftover from WW2, and even fewer CJs leftover from UN organisations in India. Jongas would be the mainstay of the Indian Army, the Aam Janta would never really hear about the Jeep brand at all, apart from a few enthusiasts. The Land Rover, or the Land Cruiser (a blatant copy of the Land Rover name, btw), or the Nissan Patrol would have replaced it.

Mahindra and its association with the Jeep has made the brand a household name even in the "ruralest" parts of India. They tried in earnest to keep their association with the Jeep brand alive. There were plans to launch the Jeep Cherokee SUV in India under some sort of collaboration deal, as I recall, and when it went foul, Chrysler asked Mahindra to remove the Jeep branding from their vehicles.

As far as I know, the new Thar is entirely developed by Mahindra, with no input at all from FCA. The mechanicals are indigenous, and though the design does look a bit like the Jeep wrangler, I think Mahindra is entitled to take inspiration from the vehicles that they have been building for 50+ years. In India, Mahindra is the Jeep.

More importantly, Mahindra isn't taking any business away from Jeep. The Thar isn't priced anywhere close to the Wrangler. Jeep have decided to price the Jeep Wrangler out of reach of everyone but the richest of the rich. By suing a company that Indians have come to think as part of their national pride, Jeep would end up hurting their own brand here in India. I think that the hard stand that they took against the Roxor in US was unnecessary, considering that Mahindra was selling a vehicle that was purely for recreational use, not even road legal.

When Mahindra launches the 5 door Thar though, it will eat into the Jeep Compass's pie and hurt FCA. That's when FCA is likely to sue, IMO.

[MaanSingh]

Answered No.

Playing Devil's advocate here -
"Jeep" is not only a company/brand, but also a body style in a way just like - MPV/SUV/Hatchback/Sedan/"Jeep"

May be Mahindra went bit overboard with copying design elements of Thar, but we should still have retro classic styled vehicles called "Jeeps" (or lets call them "Thars") from other manufacturers as we have SUVs and Sedans from most of them.

[ash22]

No!

Thar 2.0 and Wrangler may share the same 4X4 DNA and it is similar indeed but not a direct copy.
If M&M changed the headlight to square/rectangle instead of circle, Then it should have been released as Armada 2.0 and not the Thar 2.0.

[Tucker48]

Voted No because they just can't.

The first jeep (as jeep refers to a particular shape not a company just like sedan/etc) was built by Ford.

It was called GP (Government Pygmy). That's where the name jeep came from. GP was pronounced as Jeep.

Now a company who calls itself Jeep, which was made by another company, wants to sue a third company with whom they collaborated for like half a century.

FCA has won the case in their homeland where the govt favours the corporates over it's citizens(eg AZT), any foreign manufacturer doesn't even stand a chance.

Moreover, for a new manufacturer, it's almost impossible to create a substantially different product in the same category. Trade dress and patents should have a definite time period otherwise it's very unfair for new companies to prosper. How many new auto manufacturers have prospered in USA in last 100 years?

Does Wrangler and Thar look similar? ABSOLUTELY.
Do they look same? NO.

[niruvrs9669]

Matter of 'Integrity' and 'righteousness' in developing and marketing a product, which is lacking in M&M.

I'm disappointed to see this by a leading automobile manufacturer in India. Looks like they want to do what is easy even if it is wrong.

Like I had mentioned earlier posts, it's also to do with our country's own skewed, draconian govt,. taxation policies on LAUs, CKDs, CBUs which is enabling such fraudulent businesses to thrive in our country, taking shelter with loopholes in our law and being protected by our vote bank politics.

As a common man, I would want to file a PIL in court to squash our old taxation policies on automobile imports which don't allow me to afford a decent spec'd vehicle built abroad that offers better performance without paying through my nose. Quality of life compromised ! .

[Kols]

Can not vote but would say - YES

A little bit of context to help clarify confusion around licensing of brand & product design.

Jeep shape - The ubiquitous shape has been inspiration for many car companies around the globe since WW2. There was nothing bad in using a license agreement and lawfully producing a copy of the original Willy's CJ. Mahindra was doing all ok till here.

What happened to all the licensee companies -
Most of the licenses that Willy's had granted/loaned expired during 1990's. Consequently, some manufacturers (such as Mitsubishi) stopped production, but others (such as Mahindra) continued producing the CJ derivative albeit with different product branding. Looks fishy, but I would say Mahindra was still legally right.

FCA vs Mahindra conflict
While Mahindra kept selling the CJ derivative models in India, it never bothered the parent company due to non-conflicting situation. Chrysler wasn't selling in India and Mahindra wasn't big enough a player to play in US market.
However, that situation changed when Mahindra first tried to launch the Thar/Roxor in US and was challenged by FCA in the court. That was the first sign of Mahindra treading the legal and moral borderline - does a company (Chrysler/ FCA) who has paid for the Jeep brand holds the right to the original shape and design or a long standing licensee gets to inherit the old design.

Mahindra goes one step too far
It was a fair battle with up until Mahindra upgraded the Thar and made it look like the Jeep Wrangler. This was not the CJ of WW2 but a new design developed and industrialized by Chrysler. I think Mahindra crossed the fence on many fronts here:

1. LEGAL - A company can legally protect its IP which is not just limited to technical stuff but also the way a car looks or its livery. It holds more importance if you are talking about iconic products like CJ, Beetle, Mini, etc. If Jeep has got it covered, they have full rights to challenge Mahindra in the courts any where in the World

2. MORAL - Mahindra had the option of using the the CJ/Classic/Thar design just as an inspiration and develop their own design language for the new Thar. By blatantly copying the Wrangler they lost on the moral ground too.

3. BAD PRECEDENCE - Copying stifles innovation. Why would other Indian companies feel motivated to invest on new designs if copycat-strategy starts producing good sales results.

I hope Mahindra acknowledges these facts and gets original with all future designs. Mr. Bose's entry looks very timely!

Originally Posted by Hayek

But I don’t see that as a deal breaker for them. Just like Stellantis is the inheritor of the Jeep designs in other markets, Mahindra is the inheritor in India.

To GTO’s point, their right to use the Jeep brand lapsed in the 1990s - but not their right to use the Jeep designs and to continue developing the same.

In the fight between - Inheriting a design by an old licensee (Mahindra) vs. Owing a brand and its design (Stellantis> FCA> Chrysler >AMC > Kaiser >Willy's), the brand owner gets a larger say. Reason - because they paif for all the IPs associated with that brand.

Further to your point, here is a degree of what can be lawfully protected in a vehicle:

• Brand name - Highest IP protection possible
• Product name - Watertight protection as the name gets registered
• Technical IP - You can file a patent but determined companies can still find a work around and copy the technology
• Shape/Livery - You can register the specific design elements but its tough to protect the entire shape and therefore loopholes are easy to find

Lets see how well Jeep has protected its design elements but it would have been nice if Mahindra used the CJ/Thar as an inspiration to come up with something new and different than the Wrangler.

[benbsb29]

On the 4x4 Australia Facebook group, when there was news of the Thar making its way to Australia, I did see reasonable interest in the comments section. Think about it, a Wrangler lookalike at a fraction of its cost, and with a proven diesel mill.

FCA group knew what's coming If the Thar were to make its way here.