[vivekgk]

Originally Posted by Lambydude

This happened to a colleague who recently bought a Wrangler. He hates the decision now because people won't stop congratulating him for getting the "new Thar". They tell him how good a vehicle Mahindra Thar is before he can even tell them it's not a Thar.

Another incident which happened to him was when someone accused him of being "cheap" because he bought a Thar and have put Wrangler "stickers" on it.

A Jeep Wrangler/Rubicon buyer spends about 3 times more than the Thar buyer. If he bought the Wrangler simply for the image and the looks, he'd have been better off buying a Thar and modifying it, or better yet, buying an MM550/Marshal etc and modifying it to make a Wrangler replica, as tons of enthusiasts have done. I'm guessing he wanted more than just the looks.

The original Jeep Wrangler is a superior vehicle in every aspect, be it powertrain, features, interiors, performance, service levels and even image. Maybe he shouldn't care that much about the opinion of people who don't even know the difference. What would he do about people who think he's driving a modded MM540? If it weren't for the Thar, that would be the closest thing lookwise, right?

Thanks to the Thar, people are confusing his 70 lakh SUV for a 25 lakh SUV and not a 7 lakh UV...

[TAHR]

There can be a number of reasons for this corporate legal battle but for me it comes down to a matter of ethics (the intent to copy), especially in an area that is most visible - design.

The needle of suspicion does not point to the shape of the headlights, taillights, radiator grille, fenders or slab-sided body with a sleek glasshouse, though all of those also contribute to the distinctive Wrangler look, far removed from the earlier CJ design language that even the Thar CRDe subscribed to and for which Mahindra had a licence.

The conclusive evidence is a small design detail in the 2020 Thar - the hood latch. Not only is it different from the rudimentary design of those seen on the earlier jeeps, including the Thar CRDe, it is a shameless replica of the one on the Wrangler.

This degree of plagiarism for an element that is purely ornamental, with hardly any functional value, reveals the clear intent to copy, both by the design team and the top management giving the approval. Everything else they say or would have us believe is just distraction.

[Living2Drive]

With so many years in the industry and having an overseas design team and they dont want to invest in a complete ground up design, Mahindra could have at least made a distinguishable twin.
This is like a dumb student in exam hall copying even "Jai Shri Ram" from the next guys answer paper.

[71Convertible]

Originally Posted by Indian2003

This is something new to me. I always thought that Mahindra was building the jeep under licence for decades.

The West talks about democracy and free market that they preach to the rest of the world but themselves loath competition.

That is a copy - plain ans simple. Not competition but stealing. We don’t like itnwhen the Chinese do it.

Mahindra owns Pininfarina. They couldn’t do an original design? I love lots about Mahindra but cannot condone the copying.

[clementw]

Originally Posted by DeadCenter

Now that FCA has won with the Roxor, I'm sure they believe it would be easier to win with the Thar considering the level of similarity. While the original jeep design was licensed by Mahindra, the Wrangler was not. I would not call it a blatant copy but an 'Anu Malik' level of inspiration due to which I would never buy one even though I love it so much.

Mahindra does have presence in Australia and there must have been some kind of talks about the Thar which FCA came to know of, which triggered this.

Anu Malik level of inspiration is epic! Having said that it is an open secret that Mahindra is building a long line of Jeep inspired vehicles and in India both are selling. FCA should not feel bad because imitation is the best form of flattery.

Mahindra can make a break and build some good looking cars especially since they have their competent design teams in Mahindra Research Valley and in Pininfarina

[itsbaman]

From the very first look of Mahindra Thar, it was crystal clear that M&M copied Jeep Wrangler heavily. Calling it "Inspiration" is not taking away the fact that what M&M did was wrong. It was against the ethics of the automobile world. Jeep is surely pissed and must have been regretting its historical decision to grant a license to M&M. We come across these incidents in China where they just copy the design without any fear as the Chinese government supports it. M&M is making India proud with its safe cars, but copying a legendary design and sell it as its own is not something we must be proud of. Mahindra badly needs an in-house developed design. Hope things will change with Pratap Bose as its design head now.

[vigneshkumar31]

Copying designs outright is wrong. No matter who, no matter where.

M&M is well known for their tractor and farm equipment in Australia. They've even won the Deming Application Prize and Japanese Quality Medal.

[xjosephjacob]

And in between all this, Pratap Bose who criticized Bajaj Chethak for the Vespa inspiration, calling it a “Sad day for Indian Design”, is rumoured to head Mahindra's global design team.

Interesting times ahead

That said, once again, shame on you Mahindra- how are you different from the Chinese Landwind (x7).

[BlackPearl]

Originally Posted by kiku007

For the nth time in TBHP, people defend how the below isn't a damn copy.

This not related to Jeep or Mahindra, but wanted to show you this one in case you have not seen it before. Land Rover has lost a court case in UK against Ineos, though Jim Ratcliffe himself had said the design is inspired from Defender. In reality, it is not inspired, it is almost a copy of the Defender 110. What is your opinion about it?





Source : https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-new...s-tracks-80071

Jaguar Land Rover has lost a court case in the UK that would have stopped development of the Ineos Grenadier in its tracks.

The British brand took Ineos to court over its apparent copycat design for the new Grenadier, which - it doesn’t take much imagination to notice - looks a lot like the previous Land Rover Defender.

But according to the UK Intellectual Property Office, the shape of the Defender simply wasn’t distinctive enough to be protected by copyright law.

Reports claim the judge overseeing the case stated that the comparisons by experts are likely to be drawn between the old Defender and the all-new Grenadier, that those same similarities “may be unimportant, or may not even register, with average consumers”.

[Tucker48]

Originally Posted by kiku007

Here we go again.

For the nth time in TBHP, people defend how the below isn't a damn copy.
If this hasn't opened your eyes to the truth then nothing else will.

This is your perception of truth, please don't impose it on others. We are here talking about opinions. If you don't like others opinions, it's fine, it's a human thing, but your truth is not the only truth. Eyes are just a medium of transmitting information but it's our brain which processes the information. Learn about the history of Jeep(vehicle and the company). If any other manufacturer other than M&M had done it then I would have been against it too but there's more to the story than meets the eye. Also ask someone around you to point out the differences between the two vehicles in the pictures you have posted above. For pointing out similarities, add G wagon too.

Who knows in future we might also be debating SpaceX suing other space agencies for copying the Starship.

By the way the first jeep was built by Ford not Willys.

[sramanat]

This is becoming increasingly embarrassing for a company that aspires to go (and has gone, to some extent) global. Historical licensing was from an era when Indians couldn't bolt two rods of steel together. XUV500 was well received for the design. And they own an Italian design studio (the merits of which, I won't get into). Why can't they put their minds together and come up with a new grille design and stop relying on the 7 slat grille? Keep the license in a vault and make commemorative editions once a decade. The bread and butter products should have a distinctive Mahindra design and not Mahindra's interpretation of Jeep design.

[wildsdi5530]

Originally Posted by Sirvoicar

The legal expenses and related uncertainty will tire M&M.

Will M&M just pass on these expenses to the customer. For all we know it may already be factored into the launch price. Perhaps that's why it costs Rs. 14-18L in Bengaluru.
And will these expenses be less than the royalty to be paid. I think it will be market specific. And surely FCA can never win a case against M&M in India.

I don't think the case is on overall design, but on specific design elements. We will know only when the details become public, if ever. However I think it is safe to assume that they are not going to go to court over who has a right to a 2 box design. It will be more to specific design details like the 7 vertical slats, Angle of windscreen, the hood latch (which is mentioned by @THAR), and other such design elements.

And surely Australia is just one of the places where FCA is going to take on Mahindra. Once precedent is created, it will continue to sue Mahindra in other countries before going to an International tribunal. This is one of the problems of being a global company, unlike the Chinese chop shops.

The best option will be for the Indian govt to have a private word with Australian High command and get the case quashed before it becomes any bigger. This will protect our Indian company's ingenuity and also keep our reputation untarnished.

[DeadCenter]

My vote is YES even though I missed the poll or haven't yet figured that part out.

Any company that truly values its brand will find a way to evolve their design in a way that only adds to its brand and not take away from it. Not for a second will I believe that there was no other evolutionary direction to take. Ask any real designer and they will tell you that the possibilities are endless. Mahindra was either lazy about it or was lacking confidence with blazing a new trail after multiple design fiascos but this is still no excuse.

[TAHR]

Originally Posted by BlackPearl

In reality, it is not inspired, it is almost a copy of the Defender 110. What is your opinion about it?

One big difference. In the case of Ineos, it was a conscious decision to resurrect the old Defender (for the purists, and markets that demanded old-school functionality) after it was discontinued by JLR in favour of the new model.

Ratcliffe formally approached JLR to buy out the Defender facility, and if the latter declined, it could perhaps only be down to their legitimate pride in keeping the Defender legacy to themselves or just plain corporate vanity.

So, essentially, Ineos was not trying to rip off an in-production design surreptitiously behind JLR's back. They were very open and public about their intention from the very beginning to keep alive a classic icon.

It's another matter that JLR lost the case on the technicality that they had not patented their design. On a personal note, though the Grenadier is very impressive, there will always be only one Defender. It's without doubt, my all-time favourite vehicle.

[Sirvoicar]

Originally Posted by wildsdi5530

The best option will be for the Indian govt to have a private word with Australian High command and get the case quashed before it becomes any bigger. This will protect our Indian company's ingenuity and also keep our reputation untarnished.

It is reported that Mahindra’s Australian website teased an image of the Thar, requesting people to register their interest. The new Mahindra Thar was also spotted testing in Australia earlier this year. FCA does not want Mahindra to launch the vehicle in Australia, and if Mahindra intends to launch the vehicle, it should notify FCA 90 days in advance.

It is reported that M&M has replied that they have no plans to launch the current model of the Thar in Australia. And, they would provide adequate notice to FCA, as is requested If they were to launch any future model of the Thar in Australia.

The Court has listed the case to be heard on May 20, 2021. Considering M&M'S stand, this matter will die down, I suppose.