In the run up to a potentially devastating ruling, Mahindra has introduced a refreshed Roxor for the 2020 model year. The new front grille drops what was perhaps the most significant resemblance to Jeep: the five vertical slats between the headlights. It is unclear if Mahindra’s legal woes directly contributed to the change. But given the timing, it’s more than likely the reason for the tweak.
This is an extremely important year for Mahindra. The Indian automaker suffered a setback last November when an administrative law judge determined the Roxor did in fact violate Jeep’s “trade dress,” or the visual features that give a trademark product its distinct appearance. One of FCA’s primary grievances concerned the vertical slats, which can be seen in the picture above.
The grille represented one of several issues FCA had with the Roxor:
The case has many facets, but FCA was primarily concerned the Roxor uses six features – known as “trade dress” – that are distinctively Jeep. These include: exterior hood latches, “door cutouts above the bottom portion of the side body panels,” and a “boxy body shape with flat appearing vertical side and rear body panels ending at about the same height as the hood.”
Some of FCA’s concerns could be applied to other vehicles and seem far too broad to be considered legitimate violations. And as Mahindra previously pointed out, FCA repeatedly failed to demonstrate how the Roxor diluted their brand and they want the ability to define and redefine the Jeep trade dress based on their interpretation, not actual trademarks.
While the Indian automaker presents a compelling argument as to why they should be allowed to manufacture and sell the Roxor in the United States, the side-by-side is inextricably tied to Jeep, and even the CEO of Mahindra Automotive North America couldn’t state otherwise:
In a deposition, Mahindra Automotive North America CEO and President Rick Haas didn’t deny this as he said the Roxor “has the appearance of a [Jeep] CJ” and added the model “does look like a CJ.” He went onto claim the Roxor is “actually a CJ” and stated “everyone understands that our vehicle is a CJ.” However, he admitted “The CJ is a Jeep brand vehicle.”
The head of Mahindra’s American operations probably should have rehearsed a bit before being deposed. In any event, if the International Trade Commission rules that the Roxor violates Jeep’s trademark, it will likely be based on the idea that Jeep’s visual heritage cannot be fully extracted from Mahindra’s off-roader. That’s a reasonable conclusion based on FCA’s argument, but the Roxor’s specs clearly demonstrate its inability to compete with a modern Jeep product.
Top speed of 55 mph from 62 horsepower engine. Beyond the simple fact that the Roxor is not even street legal, there’s not much in these figures to suggest that a sane shopper would compare the Roxor to a Wrangler or Gladiator.
In any event, the ruling is expected to be issued soon, as the 60 day review period ends on March 13, 2020. An FCA victory will probably result in the Roxor’s demise. Mahindra is currently one of several automakers interested in building the next generation of postal carriers, so an unfavorable ruling might not be fatal. But it would deal a blow to the side-by-side market and enthusiasts looking for a unique off-road vehicle.
I can see both sides of the argument. Which makes sense, because these things never get this far in the dispute phase when they are more clear. On one side, Mahindra is selling something that looks like a Jeep product that has not been built for 40 years and is certainly not like anything the company is building today.
On the flip side, Mahindra is making money from Jeep’s earlier work, designing their vehicle as an obvious knock-off. You don’t think GM would go off if some company started selling near-replicas of C2 Corvettes?
Which all makes me wonder why FCA isn’t building these. A purely off-road CJ5 or CJ7 would be pretty popular, I would think. Of course perhaps modern product liability laws would make their lives miserable the first time someone got hurt from the 1950s design.
To my knowledge, the public has never seen the licensing agreement between Willys and Mahindra. If it’s open-ended and doesn’t preclude sales in the US, FCA doesn’t have a case. But if it is indeed open-ended and doesn’t preclude sales in the US, I would think that Mahindra would have entered it into the court documents sometime in these proceedings.
As for the 55mph top speed and 62hp engine, I suspect that’s right in line with the CJ-2A.
I much prefer the new grille to the old one, that five-slatter with the short center one is visually off-putting, the new one looks great. Were I in the market for something like this, I would now be more likely to buy it which is probably not what FCA is wanting…
FCA needs to complain as if they don’t, then others will be emboldened to come out with faux-Jeeps as well and be able to point to Mahindra as an example of FCA not caring (if they hadn’t complained). By going after Mahindra with which there is apparently a licensing agreement in place I would think it would serve notice that any company without such an item would have even more difficulty.
This is an issue I have some familiarity with from work experience, and you are basically correct, Jim. “Trade Dress” serves to identify the source of a product through designs, shapes, and appearance, and as such is Intellectual Property. If a company doesn’t legally defend their trade dress, they can lose legal ownership of that design. The legal ‘strength test’ for cases like these always ends up being somewhat subjective, but if the IP owner can show they’ve invested in the trade dress and it has “fame” (folks generally know who the source is based on the appearance), they will (or should) almost always win. Even though the target customer for the Roxor is completely different from that of the Jeep, losing a case like this could/would have huge brand ramifications for Jeep/FCA.
Just did some additional reading on this, and saw that DC lost a case in 2002 against GM and the Hummer H2’s grille: https://www.paulweiss.com/media/1932358/webclayton_nylj.pdf
Could be interesting to see how this plays out, as I’m sure that case will be referenced in the Mahindra one.
So let me get this straight, it’s not even road legal? Who on earth would buy it and what for? Surely there’s still a huge number of older Jeeps to chose from in the US if you want something basic to use on a farm, right? Honestly, if I wanted a basic off-road vehicle I’d have looked for a half decent CJ, sorted out any problems and laughed at any depreciation (there’s none).
It’s a recreational side-by-side all terrain vehicle that looks like an old Jeep. Much lower tech and performance but with a nostalgic style, compared to the Japanese, Canadian, and Polaris SxS vehicles which dominate this big market in North America. Not particularly marketed for farm use.
I actually had the Polaris type vehicles in mind when I wrote the above and still cannot see how they would sell more than very few, to me not worth the grief. The kind of guy who buys a Polaris won’t look at the Mahindra twice; the rock-crawler who’s into Jeeps would already have a… Jeep. They should go back to the drawing board and design something which is road legal. There is a demand for a no-frills off road vehicle but it has to be road legal also.
Yes but now the grille somewhat resembles the FJ Cruiser. Do you think they’re opening up a lawsuit with Toyota?
I find that lawsuit so frivolous but I guess as Jim Klein suggests, it’s to make an example.
A Roxor customer and a new Wrangler customer is certainly not the same person. The Roxor is not street legal and anyone cross-shopping a Roxor with an actual Jeep is going to get some ’76 CJ5 shitbox off Craigslist – which FCA would see no revenue off of.
Nice bit of free publicity for Mahindra and FCA just looks petty minded about a vehicle they had nothing to do with, Mitisubishi built jeep clones not long ago and Jeep didnt say boo Getting a judges decision in the incredibly corrupt USA is only a matter of dollars this was a tempest in a teacup.
Mahindra have been building Jeeps under licence longer than FCA has been in existance.
Looks better without the vertical slots, and Jeep has sullied their own design heritage by placing it on Fiat-derived anonymous crossovers anyway. The Roxor is cooler than anything Jeep currently offers, so perhaps FCA was embarrassed and lashing out.
The original grille does just seem to be a ‘condensed’ version of the current corporate look, to suit the smaller width of the Roxor. The utes and SUVs they sell in Australia all have seven openings that fan outwards, like this.
Roxor buyers will just order a Indian-market grille from the Thar to attach to their Roxor which looks exactly like the 7-slot Jeep grille, right?
My thoughts exactly. Like Holden badges on the Chevy SS
Actually you can buy US made aftermarket Jeep style grill panel to replace the original Roxor grill.
Lots of US Youtube videos posted, seem to have a cult following.
Pricey compared to Indian built That that was sold in NZ and you can’t compare to a used Jeep, I doubt you could rebuild a CJ3 for the same money to the same spec using a brand new Cummins 2.8 turbo diesel crate engine with a 5 speed manual or 6 speed Auto.
Actually new grill seems to be a rip-off of the first gen Daihatsu Taft/Toyota Blizzard.
There’s a certain novelty factor to buying a jeep from someone who wasn’t an Axis power when the jeep was making its name.
So let me get this straight. They develop a vehicle that looks like a Jeep Wrangler and they give it a grill that looks like a Jeep. They get sued. So theY redesign it and put on the grill of the first Toyota Land Cruiser. Ok Toyota, call the lawyers.
All this makes me dream of a suzuki come back in America so that they can offer us their latest very attractive Jimny . Kind of hitec Roxor wih road legal amenities .
I remember when jeep tried to sue Hummer for using a seven slotted grill
When I first saw the Roxor from a distance, I assumed that they were building “kit car” YJs or CJs with authorization from FCA. It’s a knock-off Jeep for sure.
What I couldn’t understand was why anyone would pay $17k for a new Roxor when you can buy a decent CJ or YJ, which is more capable and has the option of being road legal, for a third of that all day long. A friend pointed out that people buying used YJs are paying cash but financing is available for financially illiterate Roxor customers.