U.S.: Supreme Court holds Batmobile protected by copyright

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal against a decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the Batmobile should be protected by copyright, and therefore that Mark Towle infringed copyright in it when he produced cars in the same shape. Interestingly, it seems that there isn't much of an argument that copyright could protect the design of the car itself: the original judge, and the appeal court, took the view that the car was a character in the Batman stories and that was what ensured it was protected.

Motor Law Conference 2016

This year's conference will take place on 25 February, at the RAC in Pall Mall as usual. This year it includes a lecture in memory of Anthea Worsdall, and I'm only sorry that it has taken me so long to get round to organising it. The memorial lecturer is Prof Geoffrey Woodroffe, author of the leading textbook on consumer law, Woodroffe and Lowe's Consumer Law and Practice and formerly of Brunel University - it will be very interesting to hear what he has to say about the new Act.

As well as Geoffrey there's a great roster of speakers and subjects, including aspects of the topical emissions scandal, how software copyright law might affect maintaining vehicles, and lots more about the Consumer Rights Act.

The early booking discount has been extended to 10 February, so please book your place now! Booking forms can be downloaded from here, and the conference programme (which is still a work in progress) can also be found there.

Right to repair your four-wheeled computer

According to this story in WIRED (hat-tip to Warwick Rothnie for posting it on Facebook) John Deere and General Motors are trying to change the very idea of ownership, of tractors and cars at any rate. Actually, personal leasing plans in the motor sector (and, no doubt, similar arrangements in the agricultural machinery sector) have already years ago changed the ownership equation, but in a rather different and direct way than what is described here.

The simple fact is that, because vehicles rely increasingly on software to operate them, the owner of the hardware is beholden to the owner of the copyright in the software running on it. As with computers, so with tractors and cars. To characterise this as the manufacturer retaining ownership of the hardware is at best hyperbole, at worst downright wrong. But it nevertheless appears to pose problems for owners in the USA.

Would it happen here? I think not. First, an owner deprived of the ability to repair his or her car or tractor (or anything else) would be able to refer to the House of Lords decision in that great case, British Leyland Motor Corp & Ors v Armstrong Patents Company Ltd & Ors [1986] UKHL 7 (27 February 1986) where their Lordships (or at least a majority of them) held that the owner of a motor car had the right to repair it as economically as possible, and that to use intellectual property rights to thwart the owner was a derogation from grant which the courts would refuse to uphold. And since 1986, the software directive has introduced several provisions (in particular section 50A and 50C of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) to permit "reverse engineering" of software and the fixing of problems with it. So, between those two pieces of law, one judge-made and the other statutory, I don't see much to worry about: except, of course, for the fact that if a large multinational leans on an individual car-owner or farmer there is a good chance that they will prevail regardless of the merits of their legal case.

For more see Autoblog.com, Automakers to gearheads: Stop repairing cars

Chrysler sued for royalties by music industry

Chrysler sued for royalties by music industry, Automotive News reports (a few weeks ago, now) - in the US, that is, not here,and it's not the first time that a car manufacturer has been sued though no cases appear to have reached court yet. The argument is that the hard disk in the in-car entertainment system is a recording device within the meaning of the Audio Home Recording Act of  1992, which means that royalties are due from the manufacturer for the music that it is assumed will be recorded onto it. Chrysler (with Ford and GM, sued earlier) think otherwise.


If a hard disk gives rise to a claim for royalties (as seems to be the case), it hardly matters whether it is in a car, a computer or a hi-fi component. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see how this case turns out. There should be no danger of it happening in the UK, though: there is no statutory right to royalties on recording media of any sort, and CBS Songs v Amstrad back in about 1986 relieved the manufacturer of any liability for copyright infringement just because they marketed a recording device.

Motor Law conference report

We are greatly obliged to Motor Law's good friend Steve Hamilton of Auto Retail Manager for writing this report of proceedings at Motor Law's 2013 conference, and to Frank Dumbleton for the photos ...

 

Block Exemption and the car market

Joseph Vogel, a French avocat specialising in competition and distribution law, said most manufacturers appeared to be sticking with the qualitative and quantitative system that has been dominant under the existing regime – at least for now, and partly due to the fragile nature of the economy. “Manufacturers recognise that now is not the time to be making major changes,” he said.

Looking at the new clauses and obligations that were likely to feature in new dealer agreements, he said that overall there was generally less protection for retailers. For example, he said, most agreements have retained the two-year notice period, but the need to give good reasons for termination has gone.

Obligations around the transfer of contract business (i.e. if a dealer wants to sell to another dealer) have gone from most contracts – and that is a good thing, Mr Vogel said. Similarly, the possibility of opening a secondary outlet no longer exists in most contracts.

The requirement for referring to arbitrators or independent experts is no longer a condition, but remains in most contracts – albeit often limited to disputes about objectives.

Brand exclusivity can be enforced if a network has less than a 30% market share, usually for a period of up to five years.

Many networks are currently in the transition phase towards setting up a new distribution system and one way of doing that, according to Mr Vogel, is to terminate all contracts with two years’ notice, simply on the grounds of the need to adapt. Alternatively, a manufacturer could propose a new contract, or an amendment to distributors, and only terminate if there is a refusal to accept the changes.

Block Exemption and the aftermarket

Should spare parts be treated as brand-specific? That was the question posed by Marjorie Holmes of Reed Smith, and the answer will determine the nature of the contract that manufacturers can write with their dealers and repairers.

If you take the brand-specific view, she said, you have automatically defined a narrow market and inevitably the vehicle manufacturer will be deemed to have a dominant position – which automatically gives rise to competition law problems.

However, if you take a more generous view of spare parts and include all the generic manufacturers in the market as well, then the vehicle manufacturer’s position is much smaller.

Block Exemption FAQs

Barrister Jonathan Turner looked at the EC’s FAQ document on Block Exemption, noting where they go further than the competition regulations (such as the supply of parts to independent repairers), and where they are perhaps more lenient (for example on making bonuses or rebates for captive parts conditional on the sourcing of captive parts).

On the subject of supplying technical data to tool manufacturers, he said he would be nervous about restricting the supply of information about a new multi-brand tool on the market. And while the FAQs say a requirement to use specified electronic tools or equipment for servicing or repairs would be unlikely to lead to a breach of EU competition rules, Mr Turner said he was unsure about this – if it is more than five years it is probably anti-competitive, he said.

However he warned that the courts could take a different view on some issues, given that judges tend to operate based on the merits of the parties involved and not necessarily on the best interests of consumers.

Cartel investigations in the parts market

The world’s biggest ever competition law investigation is focused on the parts industry right now, Alex Haffner of SNR Denton said, involving a co-ordinated approach across different jurisdictions.  Australia is the latest country to come on board with regard to the supply of wire harnesses, and others are expected to join.

Ultimately, Mr Haffner said, it could lead to lower Original Equipment prices.

Japanese executives have already admitted that procurement processes have been rigged for more than the past ten years. Most manufacturers will have been affected, and follow-on actions for damages have already started.

In the USA for example, total fines of more than $800 million have been levied (including $471m against Yazaki) against suppliers of wire harnesses, thermal system controls, instrument panels and automotive bearings, and a number of executives have been jailed. There are also various investigations pending, in the areas of safety equipment, brakes, bearings and fuel systems.

Within the EU, no formal sanctions have yet been imposed, but formal proceedings have been instigated against some wire harness makers. There have also been some ‘dawn raids’ in relation to other car parts, including safety systems, ball bearings and thermal systems. Leon AG, for example, has confirmed that it is under investigation.

Mr Haffner suggested that, within Europe, the UK could become the forum of choice for would-be complainants – and that while the big losers in all this have been the car makers, because their procurement processes were rigged, potentially anyone who has bought a car in the past ten years could be in line for damages.

Summing up, he highlighted the risks involved in exchanging information, for example in collaborative ventures. Even bilaterally exchanged information between two suppliers could be enough for the authorities to take an interest, he said, adding that car makers would have to look at how they run their procurement processes. We could see non-price comparators like quality and innovation playing a larger role.

The return of copyright protection for car parts?

Patent attorney David Musker (Jenkins), a long-standing conference favourite, took as the title of his talk "Section 52 and all that", reviewing the history of copyright protection in designs for car parts from the Morris Marina to the recent Star Wars case in the Supreme Court (Lucasfilms v Ainsworth). Section 52 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 would be repealed when the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill becomes law - a reform required by EU designs law. It would not mean the return of copyright to the car spares industry, because section 51 is the provision that prevents BL v Armstrong coming back to haunt us - but there is no guarantee that it will not fall victim to some similar tidying-up exercise. Meanwhile, the so-called "repair clause" (Article 110 of the Community Designs Regulation) has been considered by the courts, in BMW v Round, and found wanting, leaving the UK's "must match" clause still governing designs for replacement parts and the old Ford case still good law.

The connected car

IHS Automotive recently predicted that by the end of next year, for some of the bigger brands, “every vehicle they sell will offer some sort of connectivity” via internet screens installed on the dashboard, and looking further ahead several companies are working on driverless vehicles.

Adam Aldred of Addleshaw Goddard predicted that not only will we soon be able to stream movies from the web to the car, but that car promotions would start focusing on the apps that are available to go with certain models, for instance to aid the driver or to keep other passengers entertained. 

Given that today’s smartphones, for example, are out of date within a few months, marrying what’s happening technologically with the lifespan of the typical car will be a big challenge for manufacturers, Mr Aldred said. But rather than create an environment in which the technology could be updated for subsequent owners, he said it might be in the manufacturers’ interest for their products to become obsolete within a few years – potentially eliminating the used vehicle market.

He also said that, because of concerns about hacking, manufacturers would have to ensure that the multi-media element was separate from the vehicle’s critical systems, and that the issue of driver errors due to distractions would have to be addressed. It is a criminal offence to use a mobile phone while driving (unless it is hands-free) so where, he mused, will the law draw the line with in-vehicle infotainment?

On the subject of location-based services such as remote diagnostics/repairs provided in future by OEMs and roadside assistance operators, Mr Aldred said that data protection could be a sensitive issue.

The changing face of motor finance

Responsibility for the regulation of consumer credit will move from the OFT to a new regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, from April 2014, although there will be a transition period that runs into 2016. The initial consultation runs from April to June this year.

The licensing regime will change and businesses will need to re-apply, Stephen Dawson of Shoosmiths said, adding that although there was very little detail at present the deadlines are set in stone and that the Treating Customers Fairly guidelines give a good indication of the regulator’s expectations.

He said retailers needed to look at the aspects of their business that might be affected, and at the relationship with their captive finance house. Are your policies and procedures up to date, for example?

The FCA will be a very pro-active body and will be able to move much more quickly than the OFT has in the past, Mr Dawson stressed.

He also had some good news for the industry with regard to electronic signatures on finance documents. “By 2014, every captive will be doing it,” he said. “From a legal point of view, they need to be no less effective than a handwritten signature and I am certain they pose no issue or risk.”

He said the best method of capture would be software solutions based around an electronic pad with a stylus in the showroom. Not only is it quicker and more convenient for customers, it also means a faster payout and lower costs for retailers. “It’s the future for sure,” he said.

Consumer law update

Adrian Watts of WattsLegal brought the conference to a close with an overview of some significant trends and cases in consumer law over the past 12 months.

These included FSA v Digital Satellite Warranty Co, where the Supreme Court affirmed that FSMA authorisation was required for contracts assuming ‘risk of loss attributable to insured person’ (regardless of whether it is an obligation to repair/replace or reimbursing the cost of doing so); and R v Derby Car & Van Contracts, concerning the sale of pre-registered vehicles. A car was initially registered in the name of a third party to obtain a fleet discount, but was not registered in the customer’s name until up to six months later. Because this information was not disclosed, it left the customer exposed to offences under the Vehicle Excise Act and could also prejudice any insurance claim they made.

A delegate asked whether there would be any scope in writing conditional contracts, but according to the DVLA, Mr Watts said, “de-registration is not an option”.

He also addressed the log-awaited implementation of the Consumer Rights Directive, and the Consumer Bill of Rights which will introduce individual recourse and refunds for misleading statements and high-pressure sales tactics. 

Referring to the creation of a new raft of enforcement bodies this year and next, he said a lot more people would start representing themselves in person but that they would be given less leeway in court than perhaps they are today.

Law suit over replica Batmobile

Over in the US, the maker of a Batmobile replica is facing threats of legal action from DC Comics. It's reported by the American Univeristy's Intellectual Property Brief blog, which wonders whether the publisher actually owns the rights in the design anyway, and comments on a few earlier replica cases. We've had similar issues in the English courts, though not for a while: and none of them ever made the law reports, as far as I know. I remember years ago Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd used to get very excited about one John Dodd, who operated a spare parts delivery service using a vehicle known as The Beast which was connected with Rolls-Royce in that it was powered by a 27 litre Merlin engine. That Rolls-Royce's then company secretary was also called John Dodd was the source of some wry amusement. It didn't look anything like a Rolls-Royce, except for the grille, so they sued him. He drove it to court every day (it overheated and broke down in the London traffic), and I remember him turning up one day on horseback.

I also remember Ferrari threatening action over 250GTO replicas, which reproduced much more than just the grille: and the Caterham-Westfield dispute - as well as a meeting at the old Patent Office building, to which I took a delegation of SMMT members keen to obtain proper protection from replicas. The 250GTO was an interesting one, because although no-one was quite sure how many had been built it was definitely fewer than 50, so if the design were a copyright work (and it might well have come into the curious and somewhat inchoate category of works of artistic craftsmanship, having been formed out of sheet metal by Mr Scagliatti and a hammer) it would not be deprived of full copyright protection by reason of having been applied industrially. Unfortunately we never got beyond the stage of a conference with counsel ...

In many countries, making replica cars would probably be considered a form of unfair competition. We have no unfair competition law in this country, and there is little general enthusiasm for one, although it was one of the items on the agenda for that meeting at the Patent Office 25 years or so ago. The Paris Convention calls for such a law, and the UK signed it back in 1883 - the year in which Karl Marx and Richard Wagner both died, which sticks in my mind because it was also the year in which my old school was founded. I think it's important to keep unfair competition on the agenda, perhaps to try to develop passing-off law into an approximation of what we are supposed to have.

Copyright protection for car parts in Belgium

Benelux legal firm Nauta Dutilh has successfully represented two large French carmakers (I wonder who they could be?) in claims before the Court of Appeal, Mons, concerning infringement of copyright in spare parts. The firm's report of the matter is available here.

There's a short report of the case in the latest edition of Motor Law, so I will confine myself firstly to giving some additional information here, for which I am grateful to the lawyer who acted for the car makers, Philippe Péters. The case involved underlying artistic copyright works, not some sort of copyright in the design itself, and the designs were for visible car parts - body panels, mirrors, lights, bumpers and the like.

Secondly, the point about the presumption of ownership mentioned in the Motor Law report is also interesting. No such presumption would arise in English law, and the copyright would remain with the parts makers - except that there would be no copyright in the parts to begin with. However, our unregistered design right would probably give protection (if the designs qualified and were sufficiently original, which appears to be the case from what the court said) and if the designs had been commissioned the rights would belong to the commissioner - a very different situation from that pertaining under copyright law.

It's also worth observing that the designs directive says that designs can also be eligible for copyright protection to designs, but doesn't do anything to harmonise that copyright protection. The extent of copyright protection, and the conditions on which such protection is available, are for each of the Member States to decide for themselves. So a design can have extensive copyright protection in Belgium and no copyright protection worth speaking of here (although it will enjoy, of that's the right word, the brief protection of that fair weather umbrella, unregistered design).