- Joined
- Aug 26, 2018
- Messages
- 720
- Points
- 93
- Location
- DALLAS AREA
- Roxor Ownership
- No longer own
- Roxor #
- :-(
ooooooooooo
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ITC document clearly states Roxor DOES NOT infringe on the 4 trademarks related to 'Jeep 7 slot grill'. The trade dress, which has now acquired a 'secondary meaning' and has been found to be violated, has got to be related to the Importation of overall shape, and not the grille. The overall shape is not similar to Willys MB and thus didn't infringe on the silhouette claim by FCA. I had posted details of all 5 trade marks which weren't violated.
I believe the true explanation of this Determination could be known only when the 'secondary meaning' of the trade dress is made public.
To me, this Determination is biased. FCA has nothing on Roxor wrt the documents submitted as claims. 5 of them were disregarded, and a 'secondary meaning' BS had to be cooked up to try reign in the Roxor. MANA has every reason to fight this nonsense.
BDRAG
The pessimist in me says Mahindra knows it will lose. Hence the new grill...
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
FCA looking to block Mahindra
- Thread starter visbeenk
- Start date
Av8tor
New member
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Av8tor
New member
That slotted grill looks good though!!!
This whole lawsuit is dumb!!!
Guarantee there is not one customer out there going....
“Should I buy a $40k SUV called a Jeep or a NON STREET LEGAL remake CJ 7 Roxor for $15k”.....
They are just pissed and being territorial..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This whole lawsuit is dumb!!!
Guarantee there is not one customer out there going....
“Should I buy a $40k SUV called a Jeep or a NON STREET LEGAL remake CJ 7 Roxor for $15k”.....
They are just pissed and being territorial..
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2018
- Messages
- 247
- Points
- 43
ITC document clearly states Roxor DOES NOT infringe on the 4 trademarks related to 'Jeep 7 slot grill'. The trade dress, which has now acquired a 'secondary meaning' and has been found to be violated, has got to be related to the Importation of overall shape, and not the grille. The overall shape is not similar to Willys MB and thus didn't infringe on the silhouette claim by FCA. I had posted details of all 5 trade marks which weren't violated.
I believe the true explanation of this Determination could be known only when the 'secondary meaning' of the trade dress is made public.
To me, this Determination is biased. FCA has nothing on Roxor wrt the documents submitted as claims. 5 of them were disregarded, and a 'secondary meaning' BS had to be cooked up to try reign in the Roxor. MANA has every reason to fight this nonsense.
MikeT
Active member
Trade dress refers to the overall image. FCA is claiming the roxor shape is too close to their jeep image. For some clarification from legal summary:
In Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana (1992)‚ the United States Supreme Court held that trade dress can be inherently distinctive. When trade dress is inherently distinctive‚ it does not require secondary meaning to be eligible for trademark protection.
Trade dress that is inherently distinctive may be subject to trademark protection even if it has not acquired a secondary meaning. A mark may be trademarked if it is distinctive, per the Lanham Act. A mark is distinct if it is either (1) inherently distinctive, or (2) has acquired a secondary meaning. Secondary meaning refers to that situation where an aspect of a product that is not necessarily distinctive on its own has, either through successful marketing or some other mechanism, become associated in the public mind with that product. As a consequence of these definitions, a mark cannot be both inherently distinctive and have secondary meaning at the same time.
I’m not a lawyer but it appears clear that FCA is claiming the jeep shape is infringed upon in the USA by the Roxor, and that the jeep shape has achieved secondary meaning
In Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana (1992)‚ the United States Supreme Court held that trade dress can be inherently distinctive. When trade dress is inherently distinctive‚ it does not require secondary meaning to be eligible for trademark protection.
Trade dress that is inherently distinctive may be subject to trademark protection even if it has not acquired a secondary meaning. A mark may be trademarked if it is distinctive, per the Lanham Act. A mark is distinct if it is either (1) inherently distinctive, or (2) has acquired a secondary meaning. Secondary meaning refers to that situation where an aspect of a product that is not necessarily distinctive on its own has, either through successful marketing or some other mechanism, become associated in the public mind with that product. As a consequence of these definitions, a mark cannot be both inherently distinctive and have secondary meaning at the same time.
I’m not a lawyer but it appears clear that FCA is claiming the jeep shape is infringed upon in the USA by the Roxor, and that the jeep shape has achieved secondary meaning
Another article: Indian off-road vehicle infringes Jeep trade dress: USITC
Thar
New member
By secondary meaning, maybe it's like, a car's general silhouette has not achieved secondary meaning, thus not an infringement. But the old original war era jeep silhouette achieved it and is thus not a general shape like a car.
Seeing as how that classic front body design was mostly thanks to Ford for the US military, I find this defense sketchy at best to stand on.
Bantam (BRC-60) and Willys (MA) had rounded fronts similar to trucks of the era. The Willys MB was mostly Bantam mechanical and Ford front body design resulting in the timeless look we all know. Both the Ford and Willys concepts copied Bantams original mechanical concepts.
Willys -> Kaiser -> AMC -> ChryCo -> Fiat's concept military Jeeps were too fat and only really ended up bringing the GoDevil engine to the design. Funny how history repeats itself.
Bantam (BRC-60) and Willys (MA) had rounded fronts similar to trucks of the era. The Willys MB was mostly Bantam mechanical and Ford front body design resulting in the timeless look we all know. Both the Ford and Willys concepts copied Bantams original mechanical concepts.
Willys -> Kaiser -> AMC -> ChryCo -> Fiat's concept military Jeeps were too fat and only really ended up bringing the GoDevil engine to the design. Funny how history repeats itself.
Last edited:
https://www.carscoops.com/2019/11/j...s-on-jeeps-trade-dress-recommends-sales-stop/
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2018
- Messages
- 720
- Points
- 93
- Location
- DALLAS AREA
- Roxor Ownership
- No longer own
- Roxor #
- :-(
Well I guess I'll ask Santa for commonly needed spares for Christmas. Brake pads, filters, maybe a set of seat covers? What else. Lol. Dang!
BDRAG
928dennis
Active member
There getting there ass handed to them. If FCA get's there way they are done here as we know them. If your thinking of buying one or know someone better get it done. FCA is trying to get a cease and decease order in place to stop sales. They are playing hardball for sure. Bottom line is it dose not matter what we think here.
Last edited:
928dennis
Active member
There also going to try and recapture the profits Mahindra has made off the Roxor. This could be a very expensive lesson.
No it won't.
The pessimist in me says Mahindra knows it will lose. Hence the new grill...
Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
Rmodel65
New member
If they were smart they would build exact copies of the willys they have the rights to with their diesel 5spd and disc front brakes
928dennis
Active member
There will be a Roxor but not what we have now, Who knows maybe it will be better looking.
Av8tor
New member
Looks perfect now-
Especially with an after market grill.
Am concerned about parts and service down the road if the stop selling them-
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Especially with an after market grill.
Am concerned about parts and service down the road if the stop selling them-
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
