mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 4/8/09 at 08:28 AM |
|
|
Some historical reading material for you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood_Engineering
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=225134&i=80
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZASCA/1998/44.html
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 4/8/09 at 09:18 AM |
|
|
why? reading all that ranting and I may lose the will to live
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
mookaloid
|
| posted on 4/8/09 at 09:40 AM |
|
|
Because I have a life to live 
Can anyone translate the Birkin case judgement for me - into about 2 or 3 sentences?
Like Caterham won or Birkin won with some conditions?
Cheers
Mark
"That thing you're thinking - it wont be that."
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 4/8/09 at 11:12 AM |
|
|
i'll pass thanks
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 4/8/09 at 11:45 AM |
|
|
I hope that you're not trying to stir up a heated debate, Mr Mango! 
|
|
|
Marcus
|
| posted on 4/8/09 at 12:09 PM |
|
|
In the Birkin case, they won the appeal and are allowed to use the shape and the number 7 when producing cars. As far as I can see, this only applies
to cars sold in South Africa though. It does seem that Caterham were not licenced by Lotus to produce the series 3 even though they genuinely thought
they were!
The initial agreement between Caterham and Lotus had been misinterpreted 
Anything before 1988 was not argued by Caterham, hence the pre litigation Westfields etc. I think we need to see the notes from any UK case to make a
decision on copyright / passing off etc.
Marcus
Because kits are for girls!!
|
|
|
mangogrooveworkshop
|
| posted on 4/8/09 at 06:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Marcus
In the Birkin case, they won the appeal and are allowed to use the shape and the number 7 when producing cars. As far as I can see, this only applies
to cars sold in South Africa though. It does seem that Caterham were not licenced by Lotus to produce the series 3 even though they genuinely thought
they were!
The initial agreement between Caterham and Lotus had been misinterpreted
Anything before 1988 was not argued by Caterham, hence the pre litigation Westfields etc. I think we need to see the notes from any UK case to make a
decision on copyright / passing off etc.
Smart lad
Birkin v Caterham
It was probably this case that allowed haynes to publish The build your own caterfield with out Caterham jumping on them......and all the mk`s vientos
ect.
Interestingly Westfield has to destroy a prelits old chassis if they replace it with a new one. So the number of prelits dont increase under the terms
of the litigation.
Robin hood had their collar felt
|
|
|
