China Car Forums banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,061 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Hello Dragin, thanks for your list.
I can't find any case (only threads, like we are going to sue!) about your number 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10.
I didn't include number 9 as it is about motorcycles. I also didn't include the Neoplan-Zonda case as it is about buses.
Yes, I missed number 3, I will include it but I can't find any judgement. I also missed number 6, which I will include too.
Number 7 and 8 were already in my list.
Greetings!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,061 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
This is my list till now (see http://www.chinesecars.net/index.php?page=59).

Lawsuits
1. Toyota Motor Corporation versus Geely.
Accusation: Geely Merrie trademark is a copy of Toyota's trademark.

Date: End 2002.
Court: Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court, China.
Claim: 14 million yuan in compensation.
Judgement: The court didn't sustained any of the claims raised by Toyota.
(After the court's decision Geely withdraw the Merrie logo.)
Outcome: Toyota lost the case.

2. GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Co. Ltd. versus Chery.
Accusation: Chery's QQ copied the design of the Daewoo's Matiz, the two models are shockingly similar.
GM Daewoo also claimed that Chery used a Spark disguised as a QQ in a crash test for safety.

Date: June 2003, December 2004.
Court: Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court, Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate Court, China.
Claim: 80 million yuan
Settlement: In November 2005 the partners reached a settlement, which solved all the disputes and all the claims have been withdrawn. The Chinese government has played a role in the negotiations, all parties highly appreciated the efforts made by the relevant government authorities.

3. Honda versus Shuanghuan Auto.
Accusation: Honda accused Shuanghuan's Laibao SRV of copying its CR-V.

Date: November 2003.
Court: Beijing High People's Court, China.
Claim: 100 million yuan.
Judgement: No hearing was ever held at the court.

4. Dongfeng Peugeot-Citroen Automobile Co. Ltd. versus Shanghai-Maple Auto Co. Ltd.
Accusation: Dongfeng-Citroen alleged that Shanghai Maple used Citroen's core chassis technology in producing its models.

Date: November 2005.
Court: Wuhan Intermediate People's Court, China.
Judgement: We couldn't find any result of this case.

5. Shenyang Jinbei Brilliance versus Qinghuangdao Jincheng Automobile.
Accusation: Jincheng Minibus is a copy of the Jinbei Haise Aiwing.

Date: January 2006
Court: Beijing, China.
Judgement: Jincheng was found liable of copying the exterior appearance of Jinbei's modified HiAce.

6. Neoplan (M.A.N. A.G.) versus Zonda Bus & Coach Group.
Accusation: Zonda's A9 Bus was a copy of a Neoplan bus named Starliner.

Date: September 2006.
Court; Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court, China.
Judgement: Zonda Industrial Group was ordered to pay 20 million yuan in compensation to Neoplan. Zonda was also ordered to stop making & selling the A9 Bus and to pay 1.16 million yuan in legal costs.

7. BMW versus Shuanghuan and European Importers.
Accusation: Shuanghuan SCEO is a blatant copy of the BMW X5.

Date: June 2008.
Court: Munich, Germany.
Judgement: The court prohibits the importer, China Automobile Deutschland GmbH, from selling the SUV in Germany and China Automobile must destroy all models it still had in its possession.
Outcome: Shuanghuan (China Automobile) lost.

Date: December 2008.
Court: Milan, Italy.
Judgement: The Shuanghuan SCEO large SUV isn't a clone of the BMW X5. BMW lost the court action in Italy against the local importer Martin Motors.
Outcome: BMW lost.

8. Fiat versus Great Wall.
Accusation: the Great Wall GWPeri is a copy of the Fiat Panda.

Date: July 2008.
Court: Shijiazhung Intermediate People's Court, China.
Judgement: The exterior design of the GWPeri can be easily distinguished from the Panda. Fiat lost and had to pay US$ 1290.- court fees.

Date: July 2008.
Court: Turin, Italy.
Judgement: Great Wall is banned from selling the GWPeri compact car in the EU. GWPeri is simply a Panda with a different front. The court imposed a euro 15.000.- fine for the first imported GWPeri and Great Wall will be penalized euro 50.000.- for each GWPeri it sends to the EU.
Outcome: Great Wall lost.

Date: January 2009.
Court: Hebei Province People's High Court, China.
Judgement: The Court dismissed a claim by Fiat alleging infringement of a Fiat patent. So the appeal was rejected.
Outcome: Fiat lost.

9. Daimler A.G. versus Shuanghuan and European importers.
Accusation: Shuanghuan Noble (Bubble) is a copy of the Smart Fortwo.

Date: December 2008.
Court: Bologna, Italy.
Claim: Martin Motors (the importer) is forbidden to exhibit the Bubble at the Bologna Auto Show.
Temporary judgement: The court prevented Shuanghuan from showing their Bubble from making its public appearance at the Bologna Show. Martin Motors brought the Bubble to the parking lot of the Show anyway, despite the court order.

Date: May 2009.
Court: Piraeus, Greece.
Judgement: An informed buyer would not confuse the Noble with the Smart Fortwo. The Noble differs significantly in technical specification from the Smart.
Outcome: Daimler A.G. lost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,061 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
In the Chinese cases the judgement is based on the fact if the copyrights of the foreign car are properly registered in China. Not on the basic question if the car is a copy. That's why Neoplan won and Fiat lost their cases in China.
After BMW lost their case in Milan in December, Daimler-Benz was already afraid to loose their case against the Bubble. As they did now in Greece.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top