Latest news

« »

Tuesday 15 October 2013

Emissions: supercredits out of favour, Germany wants long transition

Yesterday, the Environment Council discussed CO2 emissions from cars. The press release of the meeting says:
CO2 emissions from cars
The Council examined the final compromise text of a draft regulation amending regulation
443/2099 to define the modalities for reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO2 emissions from new passenger cars. The text was negotiated in informal trilogues with the European Parliament last June.
The Council confirmed its willingness to reach, at the earliest opportunity, a first reading agreement with the European Parliament on this file, and maintain a high level of ambition.
The Council agreed to support the presidency in seeking, together with the Commission, further
contacts with the European Parliament in order to explore the possibility of finding some limited
flexibility, while maintaining the overall balance of the compromise agreed in June and reach a
solution satisfactory to all.
The Commission presented its proposal in July 2012 (12733/12).
Which seems to mean that the Germans have kicked the issue into some longish grass: the 95g/km limit would not be fully operational until 2024 under the new proposals. Although this is a legal topic, it has has little to do with law, and everything to do with political horse-trading, at which the European Union and its predecessors have always excelled. Germany wants to protect its car industry, which on average produces cars that emit rather more carbon dioxide than most (especially when driven at Autobahn speeds, but that isn't up for discussion in this forum). The rest of the EU supposedly kept quiet over the summer, to avoid rocking the boat and interfering with the German general election, although presumably there are plenty of governments in EU countries which would be pleased to have seen someone other than Mrs Merkel win. France took an opportunity to remind the Germans of the importance of respect for Union legislation, banning sales of Mercedes cars with illegal refrigerant in their air-conditioning systems, as I reported at some length at the time (and that did have an interesting legal dimension).

So has everything changed after the election result? Not a bit of it. Now it seems that Britain (and Poland) are supporting Germany in its efforts to push back the lower emissions limits - reportedly because the British government wants German support against French proposals to cap bankers' bonuses. At least, they appear to be prepared to help Germany delay matters. The German government now proposes a solution that relies not on 'supercredits', which is what it has argued for (and secured agreement on) in the past, but on delaying the introduction of the lower limits. Exactly the uncertainty that the European motor industry does not want. And the delay could be considerable, as dumping the supercredits approach means restarting negotiations with the Parliament - this could go on for ever!

Thursday 3 October 2013

Selecting Car Trademarks - Ford Mustang Was Almost Called What?

Selecting Car Trademarks - Ford Mustang Was Almost Called What?

Germany tries new objection as car CO2 vote returns | European Voice

Germany tries new objection as car CO2 vote returns | European Voice

NSK: Plea Agreement with respect to Bearings » Automotive World

NSK: Plea Agreement with respect to Bearings » Automotive World

JTEKT Plea Agreement with the United States Department of Justice Concerning Certain Automotive Products » Automotive World

JTEKT Plea Agreement with the United States Department of Justice Concerning Certain Automotive Products » Automotive World

Panasonic executive charged with price-fixing on Toyota components

Panasonic executive charged with price-fixing on Toyota components

South Africa: Appeal court confirms - no design protection for spares

In August last year, the Motor Law blog reportedthe first instance judgment in BMW v Grandmark, a case before the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria. Ranchod J held that there was no infringement of BMW’s registered designs for certain spare parts (all being for external components of the 3 series, which were claimed to e ‘aesthetic’), nor was there trade mark infringement. Now the Supreme Court of Appeal has rejected BMW’s appeal.
The designs concerned did not meet the requirements for registration as aesthetic designs because, while the appearance of the car itself was no doubt an important factor in attracting customers, when they came to buy replacement parts they were not interested in the aesthetics of the article. All that mattered was whether it would do the job.
The trade mark point concerned the use of the letters ‘BM’ in parts numbers printed on the packaging. BM was a registered trade mark of the manufacturer, but the court held that there was no infringement because that use of the letters was not ‘trade mark use’. Trade marks function as badges of origin, and in the context of a parts number it would not be regarded by a customer as an indication of origin. In a thoroughly commonsense judgment, Nugent JA went on to say that the fact that a different origin was clearly indicated ensured that there was absolutely no danger of the letters being taken as indicating that BMW had made the components.
However, some commentators believe that the outcome of the design case goes against the spirit, but not the letter, of the law. They expect a further appeal.
Bayerische Motoren Werker Aktiengesellschaft v Grandmark International (Pty) Ltd and Another (722/12) [2013] ZASCA 114 (18 September 2013) and see the Afro IP blog here.

Magna, IAC, Faurecia part of German price-fixing probe

Magna, IAC, Faurecia part of German price-fixing probe

As autonomous vehicles gain traction, industry needs one standard, experts urge

As autonomous vehicles gain traction, industry needs one standard, experts urge