If a traffic warden can do it, you can't use a CCTV car

In a recent decision of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, it was held that when the driver of a council CCTV equipped car left his vehicle to check whether a parked car was displaying a disabled badge, it demonstrated that a traffic warden on foot would have been able to do the task. The motorist's appeal against the penalty he'd been given for parking on a yellow line was upheld. The story is on the Telegraph website here. There is nothing to be found on the Tribunal's website. 

Class action for loss of value of Toyota vehicles following recall rejected by judge

In another US class action, Toyota have won tentative dismissal of some claims by plaintiffs who said their vehicles lost value because of the automaker's recalls for sudden, unintended acceleration-related issues, Reuters reports. U.S. District Judge James Selna will hand down a definitive judgment shortly, after hearing oral argument. The case is Toyota Motor Corp Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 10-ml-2151.

Should the block exemption be less generous to independent spares?

An article from law firm Reed Smith here argues that the way the block exemption deals with independent spares is out of step with the realities of a market in which people hold on to their cars for longer. In particular, because the Commission starts from the (rebuttable) assumption that authorised networks will have more than 30 per cent of the market, because the markets for spares and repairs are brand-specific, the block exemption will never apply. The article calls this "favouritism" towards the independent sector, and argues that manufacturers and their networks need to be able to recoup from the aftermarket what they don't make on the primary market when they sell vehicles.

Twas ever thus, wasn't it? I remember a few years ago hearing Prof Garel Rhys explaining how cross-subsidisation between was never a good idea: vehicle sales, parts sales and maintenance and repair have to stand on their own feet, and that is what the Commission is trying, with the blunt instruments at their disposal, to achieve.

Amendments to driving licences regulations

The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 implement Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences. They make a great many amendments to the  Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/2864) - far too many to try to set out here.

US price-fixing case: Denso executive will plead guilty

Automotive News reports that a Japanese executive with component maker Denso is going to pay a $20,000 fine and do a year and a day in prison for his part in the bid rigging scandal involving heater control panels. The Department of Justice press release is here.

D and G - David and Goliath?

Motor Law's friends at Auto Retail Network report how two partners in a Fife-based garage business received a notice of threatened opposition from Dolce & Gabbana when they tried to register their trading name, D + G Autocare. The Italian fashion house claimed that the business, which has nine branches in Scotland, could be confused with it if the trade mark application were allowed to proceed. Are they serious?

The garage business is run by George Simpson and David Hunter, hence the name. Mr Simpson told the Daily Record (which has the story here): ‘it was outrageous. How on earth could a garage that knocks out £35 MoT tests be confused with a company known for its £735 handbags?’ (I see that Mr Simpson spotted the "David and Goliath" analogy - I can only say that I thought up the title of this post before I read the Daily Record website.) Their lawyers replied with what Auto Retail Network called "a stiff rebuttal", leading to a sensible compromise: so long as the garage kept ‘Autocare’ as part of its trading name, the fashion house would withdraw its objections. I can't find the trade mark application online, but I bet that it corresponded to the company name and therefore the "Autocare" part was there anyway, which makes Dolce & Gabbana's threats even less justifiable.

There is protection in the Trade Marks Act 1994 for businesses that just use their own name, even if that name is invented. However, they can only do so if it is in accordance with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters - which would exclude trying to take a free ride on the reputation of an earlier business. Hard to see how the Italians' reputation could help with car servicing in Fife ... Perhaps they just want to monopolise the style "D&G", like so many big brand owners. The Act also protects companies with a local reputation, who can't be forced out of business by trade mark bullies, but they don't have a right to register their trade mark. Fortunately, common sense seems to have prevailed here, but it's such a shame that they should have been put to the trouble and expense. The trade mark system consistently fails the small business community.

Theseus's Bentley in the Court of Appeal

Back in October 2010 (how time flies), before this blog started, the Motor Law newsletter carried a report on a case concerning a Bentley Speed Six which evidently was not what it seemed. It was not quite a case of the chassis plate being the only original part, but it came close: and in particular the engine was not an original Speed Six engine, but a different Bentley unit which had been modified to Speed Six spec.

The trial judge held that the car was, essentially, not a Speed Six. The decision caused consternation in the vintage car market, not surprisingly, for how many cars of that age are there around which are original in sufficient respects not to have a judge hold them to be misdescribed? Indeed, it was a problem for the whole world of antiques - old cars are not the only things that might have replacement bits and pieces on them.

Now the Court of Appeal has overturned that judgment. I'll cover it in the March/April edition of Motor Law but in the meantime here's the story on the Daily Telegraph website, and here's the judgment. The appeal court was pretty critical of the judge's handling of the case: the fact that he issued no fewer than five judgments - four of them different iterations of the trial judgment (the fifth being concerned with  ancillary matters such as leave to appeal).

All these years writing Motor Law, and now blogging too, I have come to love cases like this. They allow a commentary on the law without much risk of the reader getting bored. And this one has delivered twice over.