Looks like FCA wants to block Mahindra from building the Roxor...
Fiat blocks Mahindra's second coming in the US, says Indian co copying its model
Fiat blocks Mahindra's second coming in the US, says Indian co copying its model
ooooooooooo
Preach it brother! As a bonified Jeep guy, this rig is the real Spiritual Successor to the CJ7.
Heck, Mahindra could simply slap on any Jeep style body from any manufacture stil the same. Make it look like an old Soviet UAZ Jeep if they want. I’d still get one before a grocery getter
FCA looking to block Mahindra
- Thread starter visbeenk
- Start date
Sonnyd
Active member
Screw crysler! If the roxor had fallen flat on its face they never would have said a thing. The fact is jeep stopped making anything that resembles an actual jeep a long long time ago were as mahindra has been making it all along. Maybe if crysler made us a vehicle that resembled a jeep and sold it for a fair price this forum wouldn't exist. Mahindra has created hundreds of American jobs, an entire industry is forming around this little vehicle and all crysler has done is cry about it. Why don't the re release a real willys to compete with the roxor! That would be good for everybody including them.
Agreed!
Attached is the public notice of the the compliant. Trying to locate the actual filing.
View attachment dn_3330_notice_08012018sgl_0.pdf
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
View attachment dn_3330_notice_08012018sgl_0.pdf
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Preach it brother! As a bonified Jeep guy, this rig is the real Spiritual Successor to the CJ7.
I agree, I'm sure Mahindra had dealings with FCA before all this, now they are looking for holes to retract.
Only because the ROXOR is killing it and extremely well received with groups who Jeep thought were faithful flock. We're faithful to the vehicle, not the company, that just so happens to no longer make a worthy vehicle. lol
Got that right. Lol.
Need to pin your post in FCA's page. Hahaha.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Need to pin your post in FCA's page. Hahaha.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
This is going to backfire on FCA IMO. People don't like whiners. They certainly don't like whiny companies who try to defend "IP" they aren't even using anymore. They triply don't like it when the "IP" in question is something people obviously want but is being kept from them.
People are voting with their wallets, and FCA is whiny about the results.
If I were M&M, I'd walk in the court and ask Jeep to "Show me your leaf sprung, diesel, manual UTVs. It's ok. I'll wait."
People are voting with their wallets, and FCA is whiny about the results.
If I were M&M, I'd walk in the court and ask Jeep to "Show me your leaf sprung, diesel, manual UTVs. It's ok. I'll wait."
Good idea, Could be one of the last few. lol.
BradsRoxor
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2018
- Messages
- 47
- Points
- 8
- Location
- Springfield, MO, USA
- Roxor Ownership
- Roxor Owner
- Roxor #
- 1426
I saw this coming a mile away. I did not waste anytime buying my Roxor. I figured something like this may happen.
My Roxor will be in next week.
Screw FCA! I’m not buying another Jeep or a Ram when it is time.
I hope Mahindra did their homework to avoid having to stop selling the Roxor.
My Roxor will be in next week.
Screw FCA! I’m not buying another Jeep or a Ram when it is time.
I hope Mahindra did their homework to avoid having to stop selling the Roxor.
i303
Active member
I find it weird FCA now addresses the issue. This is where I can see Mahindra say it’s a UTV (non vehicle) “intended” for off road use only. Which is exactly what Jeep tries to pass the Weangler off as. Former AMC was the last of the Jeeps to make one that looks like the Roxor. That was 1986, or 96 if the YJ fits the bill but no way FCA owns the rights to that body style. Cut the front end off any US made pick up and see how many people can make the difference.
Heck, Mahindra could simply slap on any Jeep style body from any manufacture stil the same. Make it look like an old Soviet UAZ Jeep if they want. I’d still get one before a grocery getter
B
Bister
Guest
Here’s Mahindra’s full statement:
We understand that a complaint has been filed by FCA with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) against Mahindra. Mahindra has not yet been served with the complaint and we prefer not to comment at length on the dispute at this time. However, we have reviewed FCA’s core filing and find it to be without merit. Mahindra has a historic relationship and agreements with FCA and its predecessors that go back seventy years. The relationship began in the 1940’s with the original agreement with Willys and continues to this day, with the most recent agreement executed with FCA (then Chrysler Group LLC) in 2009. Our actions, products, and product distribution (including ROXOR) both honor the legacy of the relationship and the terms of our agreements with FCA. Mahindra has been co-existing with FCA (and the Jeep brand) for over 25 years in India and in many other countries. The ROXOR is a derivative of Mahindra vehicles distributed in those markets. Based on these agreements and our history, we believe that FCA’s claims are baseless and Mahindra is well within its rights to both manufacture and distribute the ROXOR off-road vehicle.
Last edited by a moderator:
Finally found the full complaint.
Attached PDF
Attached PDF
TomV
New member
JMB3
New member
Only a few days are open for public comment at this stage https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/dn_3330_notice_08012018sgl_0.pdf
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2018
- Messages
- 247
- Points
- 43
Follow the discussion on this matter here at the biggest automotive forum in India.
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/inter...nt-against-jeep-lookalike-mahindra-roxor.html
And this is what Mr. Anand mahindra, the group Chairman tweeted.
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/inter...nt-against-jeep-lookalike-mahindra-roxor.html
And this is what Mr. Anand mahindra, the group Chairman tweeted.
B
Bister
Guest
I found this comment at the end of one of the numerous articles on the web. I thought it was a filed law suit already, but this sheds a different light on things...a bit, but I do lawns, I’m not a lawyer. Lol
But who knows how accurate this statement is either.
This story originally said FCA presented these claims in a lawsuit. As of now, it appears to just be a complaint to the U.S. International Trade Commission calling for the organization to open an investigation into the matter.
But who knows how accurate this statement is either.
This story originally said FCA presented these claims in a lawsuit. As of now, it appears to just be a complaint to the U.S. International Trade Commission calling for the organization to open an investigation into the matter.
TomV
New member
Here's my take if it means anything... According to the complaint filed by FCA, (in short) the Roxor body styling infringes on what FCA considers to be "Trade Dress", claiming that certain styling features are trademarked features of their Jeep Wrangler line and that the "Iconic" design features are integral to the "Jeep" brand.
Two things to consider here:
1. If, in fact, Mahindra has a valid license to produce the vehicle, it stands to reason that said license would be very specific about how closely they are to reproduce the design and how far they are allowed to stray from it. When licensed to manufacture a specific vehicle, it also stands to reason that said specific vehicle would be a close facsimile, if not an exact copy of the vehicle they are licensed to reproduce or manufacture. It should also address who they can sell it to, export it to, and how many reproductions they are allowed to make, as well as for how long they are allowed to reproduce it under license.
2. As far as Trademarked, "iconic" design features, or "Trade Dress" are considered, it also must be considered that if, in fact, Mahindra has held a license to reproduce or manufacture the design, and the license was held in good standing without interruption since 1947, as they claim, then the "iconic" design of the vehicle didn't become "iconic" until many years AFTER the issue of the license to reproduce the vehicle. If they had an issue with Mahindra manufacturing the vehicle, it should have been addressed at the time the design features were becoming "iconic" to the brand or at the time the design was officially trademarked. Not decades after the vehicle had ceased to be produced by the original manufacturer.
Two things to consider here:
1. If, in fact, Mahindra has a valid license to produce the vehicle, it stands to reason that said license would be very specific about how closely they are to reproduce the design and how far they are allowed to stray from it. When licensed to manufacture a specific vehicle, it also stands to reason that said specific vehicle would be a close facsimile, if not an exact copy of the vehicle they are licensed to reproduce or manufacture. It should also address who they can sell it to, export it to, and how many reproductions they are allowed to make, as well as for how long they are allowed to reproduce it under license.
2. As far as Trademarked, "iconic" design features, or "Trade Dress" are considered, it also must be considered that if, in fact, Mahindra has held a license to reproduce or manufacture the design, and the license was held in good standing without interruption since 1947, as they claim, then the "iconic" design of the vehicle didn't become "iconic" until many years AFTER the issue of the license to reproduce the vehicle. If they had an issue with Mahindra manufacturing the vehicle, it should have been addressed at the time the design features were becoming "iconic" to the brand or at the time the design was officially trademarked. Not decades after the vehicle had ceased to be produced by the original manufacturer.
Last edited:
