My first point alludes to the fact that journalists are naming the manufacturer of the Landwind X7 as Jiangling Motors Corporation. This is incorrect as the name would be Jiangling Holdings Co. Ltd., a.k.a. Jiangling Motor Holdings Co., Ltd. Jiangling Motors Corporation is a JV of Jiangling Holdings Co. Ltd. and Ford. Alternatively, they may have been referring to the parent company Jiangling Motors Group Co., Ltd. as Jiangling Motors Corporation. This part is not related to the ruling.
I haven't read the actual ruling, but it was reported that the court took cognizance of "five unique features" that were common to/same for the L538 Evoque and the 2014 Landwind X7, and which established the fact of design infringement. I do not know what this list of features was, but besides the general profile of the car, the rear end/tailgate+lamp assembly and the front wheel arches must have been considered as strong evidence.
In the X7 Jinyue model introduced in 2017 (the facelift), several features have been altered, and these include the rear end (now significantly different) and the shape of the front wheel arches. So at least two of the five features have definitely been changed. This will allow Landwind's legal counsel some leeway to to claim (in an appeal) that the current design of the X7 (Jinyue) technically differs from the subject of the original litigation, and therefore "sales, manufacturing, and marketing" of the X7 Jinyue be permitted to continue. Landwind can also declare that they have, in good faith, truly ceased and desisted from pursuing "sales, manufacturing, and marketing" of the X7 as the court had ordered (since the "model" has been replaced anyway!).
4
