Latest news

« »

Wednesday, 11 September 2019

Re:(1) Business offer

To unsubscribe, send us an email with the subject 'unsubscribe' yIobMqUeq
We offer e-mail databases at affordable prices. yIobMqUeq
For marketing, advertising, newsletters. yIobMqUeq
This is the most effective way to attract customers for your business. yIobMqUeq
Country: Number of e-mail addresses: yIobMqUeq
US : 5 million yIobMqUeq
RU : 8 million yIobMqUeq
DE : 8 million yIobMqUeq
AU : 3 million yIobMqUeq
CA : 3 million yIobMqUeq
UK : 6 million yIobMqUeq
FR : 3 million yIobMqUeq
NZ : 1 million yIobMqUeq
COM 55 million yIobMqUeq
ALL WORLD 250 million yIobMqUeq

In addition, we can provide a base for any country in the world. yIobMqUeq

Our contacts: yIobMqUeq
7753191 yIobMqUeq

Tuesday, 9 April 2019

Commission publishes draft guidelines on autonomous vehicles

Monday, 7 January 2019

Independent garage defeats vehicle manufacturer's trade mark

Thanks to Jane Lambert and her NIPC Law blog for drawing my attention to Jaguar Land Rover Ltd v Twisted Automotive Ltd [2018] EWHC 3536 (Ch) (20 December 2018) which is a judgment of Rose J in an appeal against the 15 May 2018 (O-289-18) decision of Ms Louise White acting for the Registrar of Trade Marks. In her decision, Ms White upheld the opposition by the Respondent to the registration by the Appellant of the trademark "LR" (except for bicycles and scooters and related goods): and in her judgment Rose J dismissed the appeal. Quite right too, IMHO, although on the facts it could be a pretty close-run thing.

Twisted, who trade as specialists in Land-Rover Defender vehicles, parts and services, had no registered trade mark, so they had to rely on section 5(4)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 - which in essence required them to show that they could have succeeded in a passing-off action. The main reason that I think it might have been a close-run thing was that their use only goes back to November 2015, and although the point did not detain the learned judge the appellant pointed out that the date on which the strength of the respondent's goodwill had to be measured was the application date - 23 August 2016.

JLR put forward the interesting argument that their use of the sign LR would not be a misrepresentation, because the respondent was indeed dealing in Land-Rover products. Remember that what was at issue was not (as is usually the case when manufacturers sue independent repairers) whether the respondent could use the sign, but whether the appellant could be allowed to register it. JLR were, in a sense, too late: unless the Hearing Officer had got it very wrong (a gross over-simplification of the principles set out by Arnold J in Apple Inc v Arcadia Trading Limited [2017] EWHC 440 (Ch)) an appeal court cannot interfere, and anyway JLR's assertion that the sign would be recognised as identifying their business was just that, an assertion, unsupported by evidence. In fact, JLR had never used the sign at all. The learned judge saw no reason to interfere with the Hearing Officer's decision.

While on the face of it you might not expect such a short period of trading under the sign to create enough goodwill for a passing-off action to succeed, that didn't influence the outcome of the case. And actually in my view there could well have been enough goodwill. If (as the Mullers Margarine case tells us) goodwill is the attractive force that brings in custom, you have to take the customers as you find them. Land-Rover Defenders are specialist vehicles. Indeed, Land-Rover don't make mass-market vehicles at all, but I think there is a distinction to be drawn between its Range Rover, Discovery and Freelander ranges and the utilitarian Defender, developed from the original Land-Rover which required no fancy model name - indeed, had nothing remotely fancy about it and often attracted the adjective "agricultural", which was always meant in a good way. No-one buys a Defender as an ordinary family run-around: it is designed to do a particular job, which it does very well, and if you don't want a vehicle to do that you won't buy one. Simple. As I remarked in a slightly different context - in 2013, though it seems like only yesterday - not all car owners are the same. In that earlier post I was considering Porsche owners, but (while there might be little overlap with Defender owners) the same principle applies. We are talking about enthusiasts. "Petrolheads" might not be the right word, given that Defenders often have diesel engines, but you get my drift, don't you?

While the owner of a bog standard cooking family saloon or hatchback might not bother to understand the intricacies of the motor trade - distinguishing between manufacturer and dealer, and between authorised repairer and independent - and indeed these days might not even own their car but just lease it, we should not assume that enthusiasts are the same. They buy a Defender (or a Porsche, or whatever), not mobility. When they look for specialist services, or parts or accessories, they are quite likely to trust independent experts rather than authorised dealers.

It's a fact of life that authorised workshops only usually get to see cars under three years old. Once they reach MoT age they tend to become the preserve of independent garages. Maintenance contracts, personal leases and warranties might all contribute to extending that period of exclusivity, but as a rule the buyer of a secondhand car isn't as likely to entrust it to the authorised workshops for servicing and repair. They often cost more - sometimes a great deal more - and their up-to-date knowledge isn't particularly important if you don't have an up-to-date car. The last Defender (apart from a limited edition for the 70th anniversary in 2018 - only 150 examples) was made nearly three years ago, so Land-Rover dealers will be seeing less and less of them anyway: owners will be aware of the independent sector, and to keep their running costs proportionate to the value of their vehicle they will be inclined to use it.

Enthusiasts, such as Defender owners, should be assumed to know the value of the independent sector and to understand the differences between it and the franchised motor trade. So while this isn't how Rose J reached her decision (neither is it how the Hearing Officer Ms Louise White reached hers), I think it demonstrates that the decisions were absolutely right.

BSI publishes new cybersecurity standard for self-driving vehicles

A Department for Transport press release, New cyber security standard for self-driving vehicles (19 December 2018) has announced the publication of a new BSI cybersecurity standard, PAS 1885:2018, enticingly titled “The fundamental principles of automotive cyber security – Specification”. It is available for £120. BSI subscribers can obtain it for half that.

The DfT's press release says:
Working with academics and experts from leading businesses in the car industry including Jaguar Land Rover, Ford and Bentley, as well as the National Cyber Security Centre, and funded by the Department for Transport, the British Standards Institute developed the guidance to set a marker for those developing self-driving car technology. The UK market for connected and automated vehicles is forecast to be worth up to £52 billion by 2035.
Jesse Norman, Future of Mobility Minister, said:
As vehicles get smarter, major opportunities for the future of mobility increase. But so too do the challenges posed by data theft and hacking.
This cyber security standard should help to improve the resilience and readiness of the industry, and help keep the UK at the forefront of advancing transport technology.
This follows the government’s publication last year which set out key principles of cyber security for automated vehicles, such as the expectation that systems should be designed to be resilient to attacks and respond appropriately when its defences fail.
Car manufacturers will be able to use the new standard published today to demonstrate that they are following these principles.

Thursday, 2 August 2018

A new approach to controlling secondary markets

An article in The Guardian (and elsewhere, especially Newshub) today shows how vehicle manufacturers might have new opportunities to control secondary markets, which has been a sort of Holy Grail for them as long as I have known the motor industry.

Back when I started my career, it was - of course! - the spares market that attracted the vehicle manufacturers, or "assemblers" as the component manufacturers preferred to call them. Battles were fought and, generally, won over design protection and restrictions in dealer agreements. Servicing and repair was another battleground, although the block exemption in its early iterations obliged networks to provide sales and service together, for the convenience of the customer who had bought a good the essential point of which was that it could move around and might need servicing or repairing far from home. More recently, the block exemption has separated sales from service, which might be thought of as another defeat for vehicle manufacturers.

I could go on, citing the prevalence of PCPs which ensure the VM retains ownership and control over the car while the customer gets the use of it - a potent means of keeping the network's workshops busy - and the reluctance of the VMs to disclose repair and maintenance information to enable independent repairers to do their jobs. Approved used car programmes do a similar job. It's all about control, and specifically control of the secondary markets that surround the basic matter of moving the metal. Did I mention F & I?

New technology means new opportunities to control these markets. Connected cars have the ability to book themselves into an authorised workshop for servicing or repair (and of course if they are merely hired out on a PCP competition has already been excluded). Maintenance increasingly involves software, whether to reprogram the emissions controls or to update the four-wheeled computer that you're driving nowadays. We used to argue that selling cars was not like selling baked beans (as Asdadrive discovered, for those who remember the 1980s), but nowadays perhaps the comparison is with smartphones. You network provider can stop your phone working (and, if you haven't paid the bill, will do so): so too can your mobility provider (the company formerly known as the manufacturer of your car).

Tesla, whose offering to the car-buying public is so novel, seem to be exploring the limits of what they can do, according the article that started me writing this piece. It occurs to me that the existence of the secondhand market isn't actually in the interests of the manufacturers, who would make more profit from selling new cars even (perhaps) if they had to recycle old ones: but the fact that there is a market for used cars can be helpful, in that it lubricates the market for new ones - and it certainly helps the repair, maintenance and spares businesses. But according to the Guardian's story, Mr Darwin, the owner of an electric bike shop in New Zealand, has found his efforts to fix up a written-off Tesla and get it back on the road thwarted by the manufacturer.

Mr Darwin bought the car in an auction in Australia, where it is not legally possible to put a repaired write-off back on the road. It's hard enough in this country, of course, which is rather wasteful when cars are written-off so easily because their complexity makes the cost of repair of even minor damage so great, but in Australia it seems it simply cannot be done. New Zealand, however, is another matter, and the damage to Mr Darwin's Tesla was limited to the bodywork so he had it fixed in Australia then shipped home. It was "recertified and approved by Tesla" (this is where relying on press reports becomes unsatisfactory - so far my research has not told me what this means) but when Mr Darwin took it to a charging facility he discovered that his car was "not supported".

That's a concept we are probably all familiar with. Computer programs may not be supported by the latest version of Windows - a frequent source of irritation. When some apps were no longer supported on my old BlackBerry, I had little alternative but to get a more modern one - but that's a different matter from the Tesla situation, because that is a third party app provider being left high and dry by the maker of the phone and its operating system. In the Tesla case it's the manufacturer choosing not to support the charging function.

Tesla's argument, according to The Guardian's piece, is that it could not be sure that the car was safe, citing the "extreme amount of damage" it had suffered - which seems at odds with the buyer's version of the story, and he's the one who had seen it. So the safety of second-hand cars is a matter for the manufacturer? What about DVLA and VOSA, and their equivalents in New Zealand and other places? In the UK, the manufacturer would only be liable under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 if the defect were present at the relevant time - when the car was supplied - so subsequent repairs do not expose the manufacturer. (On the other hand, to be fair to Tesla, it might not have been a desire to avoid legal liability but a general promotion of public safety that motivated them.)

Maybe Tesla were acting from an excess of caution, which given the problems they have had with their so-called "Autopilot" feature is perhaps understandable. But they rather undermined their case by giving Mr Darwin access to "fast charging" (several hours) but not "supercharging" (under an hour) when his complaints became public - so they weren't keeping the car off the road completely, which would be consistent with their safety arguments, just taking it out of circulation for a few hours at a time.

In any event, what the matter shows is that modern technology gives car makers new powers that can overreach into additional markets, creating potential competition law problems under the cover of consumer protection concerns. Those concerns need to be left to the appropriate authorities, and any attempt by the manufacturer to control the secondary market has to be resisted. It comes down to the question of what you actually own when you buy a car - and with electric vehicles and connected cars, the manufacturer controls more and more of your wheels.

Thursday, 3 May 2018

General court allows restrictions on sales of spares to independent repairers

In a judgment from last October, the General Court has confirmed that suppliers may restrict aftermarket access to spare parts to authorised repairers. But before you get too excited, the case was about watches and the court specifically said that it did not apply to the motor sector. The fact that the motor sector has its own block exemption was one (fairly compelling) reason why the court excluded it from the scope of the judgement: it would have been surprising had the court applied the same principles to luxury watches and cars, although it begs the question whether perhaps luxury cars should be treated differently from volume ones.

The upshot of the judgment is that an authorised repairers can be refused access to spare parts, even if the supplier has a dominant position in the market for those parts. The case concerned a complaint, first made in 2004, by the European Confederation of Watch Repairer Associations (CEAHR). Initially the commission rejected the complaint on the grounds of the was insufficient interest the European Union level. On appeal, the General Court held that the Commission had failed to consider all the relevant facts and arguments and annulled the decision (Case T-427/08). In 2011 the Commission launched a new investigation which it closed in 2014 on the grounds that the cost was disproportionate to the likelihood of finding an infringement. (Surely it is equally important to make decisions that show where an infringement is not taking place?) Once again CEAHR appealed and once again the court sided with the commission.

It is of course quite common for the commission to identify separate product markets the primary products and secondary products – spares and replacement parts. Manufacturers have often been found to be dominant in the spares market, which is frequently brand specific - it is certainly taken to be in the motor sector. In this case, the Commission recognised a separate product market for the sale of primary products, namely luxury watches, and another market the maintenance and repair services as well as a market for the supply of spare parts. The Commission found that the secondary markets were brand-specific: Swiss watchmakers could be dominant, so was their refusal to supply an abuse of their dominant position?

The court, going beyond what should have been necessary for the purposes of deciding whether the Commission had been right to drop the investigation, took the view that selective repair systems were analogous to selective distribution systems. They are permissible under competition rules, provided the restrictions are objectively justified to preserve the quality of the products and to ensure their product use, and that admission to the network is based on objective criteria of a qualitative nature which are applied in a non-discriminatory fashion. Those criteria must also be proportionate.

If the manufacturer is dominant, the refusal to supply dependent repairers will only be an abuse where all effective competition in the parts will be eliminated. If there is still competition between authorised repairers and the network remains open to new authorised repairers, the petition will not be eliminated and there will be no abuse. Excluding repairers who do not meet criteria sept double. Preserving an distorted competition does not necessarily mean protecting independent repairers as such.

The court thought that the use of selective repair networks was probably justified the luxury watches, to prevent counterfeiting of the watches themselves and of spare parts. Significantly, it would not be justified to protect the brand image. CEAHR appealed to the Court of Justice, but later withdrew, so there the law stands.

Case T-712/14 CEAHR v Commission (27 October 2017) reported here by Baker & Mckenzie.

Thursday, 7 September 2017

Bentley: another cautionary trade mark tale

Bentley Motors has been involved in a trade mark dispute for many years, the other party being a company called Brandlogic which owns a number of trade marks of which the important verbal part is BENTLEY 1962, which have been registered for clothes since as long ago as 1982.

Bentley Motors has been using its trade mark on a small range of clothes for nearly 20 years. The prices of the clothes are, other things being equal, comparable to the price of the cars - a polo shirt will set you back £75, according to the Financial Times. Not happy about someone else using the name, Bentley Motors sought to have the Brandlogic trade marks declared invalid or revoked on grounds of non-use for five years. Although they succeeded in part, they were unable to clear the way entirely, and even an appeal (to the Appointed Person) left Bentley Motors in difficulties.

Now Bentley Motors have filed an EU trade mark application. They might have been hoping that this way they might do without Brandlogic noticing, because on the face of it their earlier trade marks will be a barrier to the new application. I've done it myself, usually the other way round - applying for a UK trade mark so the owner of an earlier EU trade mark wouldn't notice. If so, it hasn't worked. The reason the matter has been in the press recently is because Brandlogic's trade mark attorneys have switched sides, in a perfectly proper manner within the rules (although that's not to say that the rules, or the regulator, are right). Inevitably, they will want to act for the client with the biggest chequebook - that's the way the legal industry works (oh, you thought it was a profession?).

What is deplorable here is not that a company should be trying to maximise the power of its trade marks. As car companies go into making clothes - as everyone goes into making clothes, I suppose - trade mark registrations have to get wider. Often these conflicts are dealt with in a very heavy-handed way - the Goliath tries to bully David. I've seen it happen to my own clients and it isn't nice. But Goliath is answerable to its shareholders, and they are going to insist on trying every trick in the book to overcome the nuisance earlier trade mark, regardless of the merits. Often might alone (or at least a big chequebook) is enough. And that isn't a sound basis for a just trade marks system.