China Car Forums banner
1 - 20 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
hmm how about toyota copying chyrslers minivan? oh wait there is also honda odyessy, wait no how about the chevy venture/ pontica montana? oh or maby the ford windstar? i thought chyrsler was the one who invented the minivan, now everyone started making the minivan.
ok now who is the one who started making the first double story bus? wait no now theres alot of double story buses. ok, so now who was the one who decided to make a shuttle bus all rectangular? now everyone is making shuttle bus rectanguar. now that the germands decided to cut a corner off the bus, sooner or latter everyone is going to do this. its just that the chinese would the be first one to do it, and suffer all the pain of people saying that they are copying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
hmm how about toyota copying chyrslers minivan?
???

i thought chyrsler was the one who invented the minivan, now everyone started making the minivan.
Well, everybody else making minivan is fine, replicating somebody else's design is not.

ok now who is the one who started making the first double story bus? wait no now theres alot of double story buses. ok, so now who was the one who decided to make a shuttle bus all rectangular? now everyone is making shuttle bus rectanguar. now that the germands decided to cut a corner off the bus, sooner or latter everyone is going to do this. its just that the chinese would the be first one to do it, and suffer all the pain of people saying that they are copying.
Too bad that arguement wouldn't hold in non-Chinese courts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Sorry I agree with 'Real_I_hate_China' for once. The Chinese must stop ripping off other companies designs. The Cherry QQ is a joke. The 11 factories copying Jeeps is wrong, as are these buses. The Chinese companies must be prosecuted. It's just bad business.

I see Ford are now contemplating sueing SAIC for using a brand called Roewe and a badge that is too similar to Rover's. Quite right. SAIC had the chance to work with the real thing and blew it allowing Nanjing and Ford to legitimately clean up all the key assets.

Chinese companies are getting a bad reputation for knocking out dodgy copies of other companies products. They should all learn from Nanjing who seem to be the most 'proper' company of the lot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
They should all learn from Nanjing who seem to be the most 'proper' company of the lot.
Nanjing too is an auto pirate; Rover 25, Rover 75, and K-series engine, cough cough.

Only three Chinese brand companies are playing by international standards.

SAIC : Aside from the Roewe brand(which is technically not illegal, because it does sound different and badge design is also significantly different from Rover's), SAIC is pretty clean on IP issues.

Geely : You can laugh at Geely all you want, but at least Geely designs are not straight replicas like its competitors; Geely does its own derivative work on old Daewoo chassises and pays for them.

Brilliance Zhonghua : While their designs resemble BMWs, the chassis and styling are their own and 100% legal. This is the role model that other Chinese companies should look up to.

Chinese must understand the difference between "Being Inspired By" and "A Straight Replica"; the former is legal by international law; the latter one is not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
834 Posts
Real_I_Hate_China said:
Nanjing too is an auto pirate; Rover 25, Rover 75, and K-series engine, cough cough.

Only three Chinese brand companies are playing by international standards.

SAIC : Aside from the Roewe brand(which is technically not illegal, because it does sound different and badge design is also significantly different from Rover's), SAIC is pretty clean on IP issues.

Geely : You can laugh at Geely all you want, but at least Geely designs are not straight replicas like its competitors; Geely does its own derivative work on old Daewoo chassises and pays for them.

Brilliance Zhonghua : While their designs resemble BMWs, the chassis and styling are their own and 100% legal. This is the role model that other Chinese companies should look up to.

Chinese must understand the difference between "Being Inspired By" and "A Straight Replica"; the former is legal by international law; the latter one is not.

I fully agree with this statement RIHC :)

Funny how Neoplan bus was only released a month ago (@ IAA 2006 I think) and the Chinese have copied it so fast :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Real_I_Hate_China said:
Nanjing too is an auto pirate; Rover 25, Rover 75, and K-series engine, cough cough.
So Nanjing paid 53 millions for all those assets from MG-Rover still makes them a pirate? How does that work?
Nanjing can base their cars on the MG ZR, ZS and the ZT, and they recieve advance development (EURO-IV emission stuff) on the K-series from the sale.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
So Nanjing paid 53 millions for all those assets from MG-Rover still makes them a pirate?
Nanjing didn't pay for Rover25, 75, and K-series IP. The administrators could not sell what they didn't own.

How does that work?
When you build cars whose IP you don't own.

Nanjing can base their cars on the MG ZR, ZS and the ZT
ZS is out of question since this is really Honda Civic.

What Nanjing bought :

- MG Brand
- Longbridge machinery
- MG ZF IP

Why SAIC isn't sueing.

- SAIC did threaten to sue, but Nanjing went to Chinese community party for a "mediation" and Chinese communist party's order silenced SAIC.
- But Nanjing is still an automotive pirate under the international practive; it is Chinese communist party that is preventing an all out lawsuit war.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
The affluent part of the world still has blockages in their hearts to accept Hyundai and KIA although their heads say otherwise. So where does the Chinese stands in the next 10 years?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
This outright "exact" copying has got to stop. I'm sure just as work as to be put in to replicate an exact copy as to "alter the design".

Y'all sure this bus is not legal???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Real_I_Hate_China said:
Nanjing too is an auto pirate; Rover 25, Rover 75, and K-series engine, cough cough.
I was going to agree with you (a first) until this post.

The Chrysler minivan created a SEGMENT and others joined in. I don't see that as copying by Toyota or Honda or Ford or anyone else. They made ORIGINAL models to compete in the same segment. Nobody (with any automotive knowledge) is going to confuse a Chrysler minivan with a Toyota Sienna or Honda Odyssey.

But Nanjing actually BOUGHT the K-Series...and the smaller Rover designs and (by some odd legal quirk) the Rover 75. It's true.

By the way, are we entirely sure that this bus isn't a Neoplan-licensed bus? Neoplan has no fewer than TWO joint-ventures in China.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Real_I_Hate_China said:
Nanjing didn't pay for Rover25, 75, and K-series IP. The administrators could not sell what they didn't own.

When you build cars whose IP you don't own.
Well, SAIC only has the IP of 25 and the 75, but not the ZR and the ZT, therefore Nanjing can still build those MG cars and not violating IP laws.
To be specific, SAIC has the IP of the pre-facelift 25, 75 and 75 tourer (estate), as well as the Streetwise which is derived from the 25.
The IP that SAIC has shouldn't cover the MG cars.

ZS is out of question since this is really Honda Civic.
Honda would have talked to Nanjing about this, would they?
Source has it that Honda went as far as destorying the blueprint, but Nanjing could still build the ZS if they try.

Why SAIC isn't sueing.

- SAIC did threaten to sue, but Nanjing went to Chinese community party for a "mediation" and Chinese communist party's order silenced SAIC.
- But Nanjing is still an automotive pirate under the international practive; it is Chinese communist party that is preventing an all out lawsuit war.
Well... that could be true. Who knows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
lol check this article..

MAN, that bus looks familiar

BEIJING - As China's automobile industry rapidly expands, more and more domestic manufacturers are being accused by foreign car makers of copying their car and car-part designs.

In the latest case, German commercial-vehicle manufacturer MAN AG, Europe's third-largest truck maker, announced last Friday that it had filed a lawsuit against Chinese industrial and automotive group Zonda for design patent infringement and damages.

"The Zonda A9 is a copy of the Starliner, a coach developed by
Neoplan Bus GmbH, a subsidiary of MAN AG," the German company said in a statement
.

The Neoplan Starliner coach was launched at the International Automobile Show in Germany in September 2004, but has so far not been sold in China, said the German company.

"The unique design of the Starliner is protected by international patents and is protected in China by a registered design patent," said the statement.

In its complaint, the German company requested that the court order the defendants to cease manufacturing and selling the Zonda A9 and pay appropriate monetary damages and costs normally granted in such cases internationally.

This action is part of MAN's continuous efforts to protect its intellectual-property rights worldwide, it said in the statement.

MAN said the case, which will be heard in Beijing's No 1 Intermediate People's Court, has received support from third-party advocates including the German Embassy in China, the German Chamber of Commerce in Beijing and a Chinese company, Jinhua Neoplan-Youngman.

The past several years have seen a sharp increase in intellectual-property disputes in China's automobile industry between domestic and foreign manufacturers.

At the end of 2002, Japanese auto maker Toyota filed a lawsuit in Beijing against Geely, a fast-growing domestic automobile manufacturer based in eastern China's Zhejiang province, for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

In the case, the first in China's automobile industry after the nation entered the World Trade Organization, Toyota asked for a total of 14 million yuan (US$1.77 million) in damages, calculating the amount by charging 1% for each of the more than 20,000 cars sold. In addition, Toyota also petitioned to be recognized as a "well-known trademark". But the court did not support any of Toyota's claims.

And in June 2003, General Motors claimed that Chinese firm Chery's QQ model was a copy of its Spark, a model manufactured by GM's South Korean subsidiary GM Daewoo. Chery maintained that there had been no infringement, and said it had obtained 24 patents for the QQ.

GM Daewoo later took legal action against Chery. In December 2004, GM initiated a series of invalidation actions against Chery's design patents. And in May 2005, GM Daewoo filed an unfair-competition lawsuit against Chery in Beijing.

This high-profile dispute was resolved last November when the parties reached a settlement and all claims were withdrawn.

(Asia Pulse/XIC)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
KING_OF_HILL said:
Maybe they just twins ... :lol:

Trust me, they can't do a thing about this in chinese court
Yes they can GM won a similar case over the Cherry QQ. In addition I can't see the EU accepting this much longer. All they have to do is start banning the import of Chinese clothes until these issues are resolved and I think you will see China stamp down pretty quickly. The combined EU economy is the worlds largest with a turnover of 6 trillion dollars a day!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
561 Posts
E46DinanM3 said:
Thats not a Zonda, this is-


Does the name Zonda have any meaning in Chinese? or are they still desperate for car names?
i have no idea why you brought up the zonda, there is only one zonda in china. which wsa some big news when this rich chinese guy bought it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
I was just bringing up that they completely copied the name for that bus from the Italian supercar. Yet another stolen name unless someone can explain another reason it was named as it was.
 
1 - 20 of 69 Posts
Top