[Team] Team 'Lotus' ?

[courageous]

Do we know what part of the license Team has been done for breaching?

[Fox89]

Originally Posted by courageous

Do we know what part of the license Team has been done for breaching?

Wasn't it to do with T-Shirts or something like that? Lotus Racing were slapping the logo on merchandise and other marketing materials outside of things covered by the contracts. I might be remembering it wrong but I think that's what it was all about.

[GTRMagic]

Team Lotus is Go!

For now... but you cant help thinking Caterham will get itself in there somewhere

[Ralf's Girl]

Originally Posted by Fox89

Group Lotus are "seeking leave to appeal"

How is the issue of use of the Lotus brand ever going to get resolved? If the ruling states that Team Lotus are allowed to be called Team Lotus and Group Lotus are allowed to use plain old Lotus, how is anybody supposed to decide in future that one of them can't use the name that has been judged to be 'theirs'? Presumably as things stand, Group still can't have their own team and call their chassis a Lotus because F1's rules don't allow it, and I guess that's what they're trying to change, but you would think as part of the court case that Tony Fernandes & co have proved to the judge's satisfaction that they do indeed own the rights to use Team Lotus, so Group would have to go some to convince an appeal court otherwise...this is a bit much for my brain on a Friday afternoon.

[Fox89]

Originally Posted by Ralf's Girl

Group still can't have their own team and call their chassis a Lotus because F1's rules don't allow it

I think this is why they want to appeal, yeah. Not sure what the rules are in regard to Chassis though, the way I understand the ruling is that Lotus can call themselves/anything they like Lotus, and Team Lotus can call anything they like Team Lotus.

I don't see why that would stop there being a Lotus chassis and a Team Lotus chassis, but the consensus seems to be that that wouldn't be allowed so maybe I don't understand the rules 100%.

[jab]

I think it's quite telling that Group Lotus published the full verdict of the judge while Team Lotus' reaction has consisted of Fernandes saying "yay we won" and another self-congratulatory PR statement

But such is the shrewdness of Fernandes' positioning of himself as the underdog, most people have believed him over them. Goes to show how powerful a good PR team is

[Fox89]

But such is the shrewdness of Fernandes' positioning of himself as the underdog, most people have believed him over them.

Also it helps if you think he is in the right/more in the right than Group. I was quite surprised that the verdict both said that Team Lotus has full rights to the Team Lotus name, but Group are allowed to use the iconic Team Lotus colours and, presumably, not face charges for the "7 Times F1 World Champions" they've had slapped over their Elise adverts over the years.

Seems a bit contradictory to me, as the verdict seems to categorically confirm that Group do not own the Team Lotus brand, but there we go.

[jab]

Originally Posted by Fox89

Also it helps if you think he is in the right/more in the right than Group.

If you look at it objectively, I don't see how anyone could see that he is. It's just clever PR that has helped him portray himself as the underdog in this. Everyone has seemingly forgotten that he's the Asian Richard Branson. He's incredibly rich. And yet when the verdict came in, I read someone automatically assuming that it was Group Lotus that gave the judge a payment, not him, when I'm sure he'd have more than enough to do exactly the same thing if he wanted

That's how clever it all is. It's so subtle that most people haven't noticed. It's a device that's used quite a lot - making yourself look like the outsider, the underdog, the one you shouldn't be supporting. It's also used by people on the right like Richard Littlejohn and Jeremy Clarkson - making it seem like holding politically incorrect views about things like immigration is in the minority when in actual fact it's not. The theme may be different but the application in the same

[Fox89]

If you look at it objectively, I don't see how anyone could see that he is

Ah well. I did and I do. The Team Lotus logo in my avatar may suggest bias but that only went in after seeing the arguments from both sides, and deciding that Fernandes had the high ground. Yes, they breached some aspect of the license agreement and have rightly had to pay damages for that. I'm not saying he was 'in the right' to break the terms of an agreement, but it's all relative.

In every other respect I feel Group Lotus were in the wrong. They launched this vendetta trying to stop someone else using the Team Lotus name, which they have no right to as they don't own it. As this judgement showed. And seeing as they don't own Team Lotus, they are, in my eyes, very lucky to get away with the aforementioned ties to the Team Lotus history.

Edit: Jonathan Noble has linked to the full trial notes and I'm reading through them now... my opinion may change over the course of this lol

[jab]

Originally Posted by Fox89

In every other respect I feel Group Lotus were in the wrong. They launched this vendetta trying to stop someone else using the Team Lotus name, which they have no right to as they don't own it.

I don't see it as a "vendetta" as such. Look at it another way - say someone (knowingly) registered here with the name Fox98. Would you not be annoyed and want the mods to get him/her to change it?

For me, the license breach is the most interesting part, even though we don't know what that breach was. Because that now means 1Malaysia weren't allowed to call their team Lotus Racing. The order of it thus changes - it means Fernandes was bringing the Team Lotus name in after Group Lotus had already established a presence in F1, effectively making them "2nd in the Lotus queue"

[Fox89]

Right, I've read pretty throughly the 'conclusion' parts and would like to share some thoughts. Here's THE most relevant part in regards to the names/logos and who has the rights:

The goodwill associated with Team Lotus and the Roundel has devolved to TLVL. The marks however in my view ought to be revoked for non use between 2003 and 2008 but the goodwill remains and is still protectable.

Equally GL has the goodwill associated with Lotus and its Roundel and it is free to compete in F1 under that name using that Roundel.

Accordingly save in respect of the revocation proceedings the Claimants' claim fails. Equally the Defendants' counterclaim fails in its entirety.

Basically, the entire naming row comes down to the legalities of 'Goodwill'. Which in legal terms means association with a name through direct involvement over a number of years, even if they don't have relevant paperwork.

Team Lotus as a trademark has been revoked due to non-use. However, 1Malaysia have 'Goodwill' via their acquisitions with TL and the TL Roundel, so they can use them. Group do not, but they DO have Goodwill with everything else Lotus. I believe Fernandes and co are reapplying for the trademarks, which I think will just be a formality.

There are also a lot of things in that report about how "the defendants made such and such a claim, but did not do so at the outset and have not provided substantial evidence, so that claim is now dismissed". This is stuff like Group Lotus 'passing themselves off' as Team Lotus with their advertising materials and colour schemes. It seemed obvious to me that they were guilty of that, and from the wording of it sounds like lazy legal work on the 1Malaysia front. This is evident in a few places.

In regards to the JPS colour scheme, the reasoning behind allowing group to use that is: "Well, JPS aren't objecting, Team Lotus do not own the scheme, and if Mclaren or someone were to use those colours you wouldn't complain. So the black and gold is 'up for grabs' and Team Lotus were beaten to it." Which is perfectly fair enough.

I have definitely changed my view of this case after reading that. This was not by any stretch a victory for Fernandes and co. It was just not a heavy defeat. Legally speaking David Hunt caused the 1Malaysia outfit a few problems by not enforcing his trademarks in the last decade. I have seen nothing that contradicts my belief that this whole mess was largely caused by the entry of Bahar and his desire to do things so differently, and from a support perspective I'm still on Fernandes' side. But from a bureaucratic perspective the Team Lotus outfit did not perform all that well.

Oh, and the 1MRT executives should be hanging their heads in shame about the merchandising breaches. This was nonsensical and completely avoidable. Check out this excerpt:

1MRT's senior executives were clearly aware of the obligations at a very early stage. On 23rd January 2010 Sir Harry Nuttall sent and email to Riad Asmat (1MRT's CEO):-

"Mate. Do we have to send visuals of every item (cars thru caps) to GL for sign off, and, in the case of merchandise, pre-sales examples also?
I worry to some small degree GL will not approve the new Team Logo as the shape is just a tad similar to ……..etc
or do we just wing it? "

No reply to that email has been produced. However it is clear that Mr Asmat, Sir Harry Nuttall and the ultimate owner of 1MRT Mr Fernandes decided not to comply with the obligations under the License Agreement and decided to "wing it". No evidence was adduced to challenge this inevitable conclusion. This non compliance is shown by the refusal to provide a copy of the License Agreement without explanation to Mr Choy. He at that time was employed by 1MRT from January 2010 to set up the marketing division of which he was the director. He left 1MRT in July 2010. He was therefore deprived of access to the documents which governed the relationship between 1MRT and GL. Mr Asmat in an email of 12th May 2010 to Mr Choy said:-

"As I discussed with you earlier almost everything we produce will need to go through GL for consent. Yes they themselves have legal issues on some products or merchandise but best to avoid them."
Mr Choy's email requesting a copy of the License Agreement reflected his undoubted frustration "this is what I mean by no transparency by the CEO. As Tho' I will pass this agreement to a competitor……Sad. We live to live another day in oblivion…I asked [Asme bin Maulud] to see the contract between [GL] and [1MRT] because, supposedly there are things we cannot do without [GL's] consent…..what are they???? God knows. Add to the Book Birth of Lotus Car Racing – chapter 11 entitled Frustrations"

He had been curtly denied access to the Agreement by the CEO the same day.

When he finally saw the Agreement in June 2010 he sent an email to Nik Faruk on 18th June 2010 stating:-

"We have breached every clause in this Agreement there is to be breached".

In that he is correct.

[Paradise City]

That shark Bahar is now tied up in knots having ran around with Team Lotus' heritage.

Congratulations to Tony and Team Lotus. A worthy succesor to Chapman.

[höller]

1. <LI value=2>First there is the issue as to whether or not the Claimants and/or the Defendants have the right to race in Formula 1 ("F1") racing in cars which bear the name "Lotus" or "Lotus" in combination with the word "Team".
   
2. Second (and perhaps less important) is a dispute over a License Agreement ("the License") dated 21st December 2009 granted by the First Claimant Group Lotus ("GL") to the First Defendant 1Malaysia Racing Team ("1MRT") whereby GL granted 1MRT various rights including the right to race in Formula 1 under the name "Lotus Racing".

So this isn´t just a phyrrhic victory for TF imo. He has reached his main goal which was to keep on racing in F1 under the "Team Lotus" badge. The license breach is assumed as superior. And he is the only one to do so because:

36. Before 2011 it is important to appreciate that GL never raced in F1 directly in its own right. At best it can say that it raced through TLL and TLIL from 1960 to 1994 and through 1MRT (it's Licensee) in 2010. There has never been a car racing in F1 under the name Group Lotus or just Lotus (...)
41. Until the 2011 season GL had never directly raced in F1. It is important to appreciate that the entirety of its claim to be entitled to race under the name Lotus and to stop TLL from racing under Team Lotus is based on its claim that it has the goodwill and the Marks which gives it the sole rights in respect of F1 despite that lack of direct involvement in F1 activities both before and after the creation of GL. All racing was done under the name Team Lotus. It was not ascribed to any company formally until an agreement in 1985 (see below) although it was clearly for the reasons above intended to be run through TLL. If the F1 activity was to be regarded as a GL activity it would become exposed to precisely the potential claims which had led to the deliberate creation of TLL. Colin Chapman raced under that name from 1947 but there was no incorporation of a Team Lotus Company until 14th February 1961.

(...) For the Claimants to succeed in claiming the rights not only to Lotus and Lotus Cars but also the use of the name Team Lotus it seems to me they must explain how given that history of use they can assert the right to control it. In my view they fail so to do. Equally their arguments in my view are completely inconsistent with the terms of the 1985 Agreement as I shall show below. I will deal with the other submissions they make in relation to the nature and extent of the goodwill when I deal with goodwill separately in this judgment below.

1. Probably the most important provision is 6.2 which provides:-
   

   "[GL] hereby acknowledges the right of [TLIL] to continue to use the names of "Team Lotus" and "Club Team Lotus" in relation to its business and the right of Team Lotus to use the [Lotus Roundel], with or without the words "Team Lotus" (examples of which are contained in the 6th Schedule hereto) in relation to its business and Team Lotus acknowledges the right of [GL] to continue to use the names "Group Lotus" and "Lotus" and [the Roundel] (a representation of which appears in 7th Schedule in relation to its business."

[Joe Taylor]

Originally Posted by jab

And yet when the verdict came in, I read someone automatically assuming that it was Group Lotus that gave the judge a payment, not him, when I'm sure he'd have more than enough to do exactly the same thing if he wanted

Obviously you missed the long running joke on here of Danny Bahar buying all the nice comments about Group Lotus from various former drivers last year.

[ensign14]

I'm a little surprised by the judgment. In that, once he found Team Lotus had lost the right to the trademark, that anyone other than Group Lotus could use it. Especially given Fernandes licensed it from GL.

Had he not made that finding, I'd've agreed with the outcome; TL came first, GL basically traded off TL's reputation rather than vice versa. So when TL and GL separated TL should have first dibs on the name in F1, and that was backed up by the various inter-company agreements. But once TL lost the right to lose the name, surely anyone wanting to use Lotus in F1 would be trading on GL's reputation. I couldn't start Pagani F1, even though Pagani has never raced.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Joe Taylor

http://www.lotuscars.com/news/en/naming-dispute

Brown envelope?

What are you suggesting? (Genuine question)

EDIT: Oh, I see. I think.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by ensign14

I'm a little surprised by the judgment. In that, once he found Team Lotus had lost the right to the trademark, that anyone other than Group Lotus could use it. Especially given Fernandes licensed it from GL.

Had he not made that finding, I'd've agreed with the outcome; TL came first, GL basically traded off TL's reputation rather than vice versa. So when TL and GL separated TL should have first dibs on the name in F1, and that was backed up by the various inter-company agreements. But once TL lost the right to lose the name, surely anyone wanting to use Lotus in F1 would be trading on GL's reputation. I couldn't start Pagani F1, even though Pagani has never raced.

I'm trying to get my head around this judgement too. On the face of it, it doesn't make sense. As I expected, TL did loose the right to the Mark and GL did continue to trade on the Mark. That meant anybody wishing to use the Mark in an automotive context would need to license it via GL... which is what TL did. He seems to have based his findings on the intrinsic goodwill of the TL Mark which is different to the Mark itself. Determining where the goodwill in a Mark lies is one of the foggiest aspects of trademark law. If the parties are so minded... this could spend a lot of time in appeals.

[höller]

http://www.lotuscars.com/news/en/naming-dispute

Nice....But looks like they lost on the REAL key issues I think! Thats why they make appeal, otherwise it wouldn´t make much sense if you´re the big winner, wouldn´t it? So -at least for the insiders up to now - there is only one Team Lotus left in F1. If Tony is patient, he should purchase the GL in a certain period of time.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by höller

Nice....But looks like they lost on the REAL key issues I think! Thats why they make appeal, otherwise it wouldn´t make much sense if you´re the big winner, wouldn´t it? So -at least for the insiders up to now - there is only one Team Lotus left in F1. If Tony is patient, he should purchase the GL in a certain period of time.

The judgement means nobody's won. Which means that both parties have lost ! Remember a Mark is only of any value if it can be protected and controlled... and as it stands now, both parties see the other as an infringer. Coexistence here is a nonsense. I can't see it going anywhere other than to appeal.

[davyboy]

This is my 4,000th post on this forum... I need to do better things with my life

[bjohnsonsmith]

This is the BBC's take on it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/form...e/13572332.stm

However there seems to be a contradiction; according to the BBC article,

"Team Lotus were allowed to continue running under that name while Group Lotus will keep the black and gold livery, but cannot use the famous badge in F1."

but according to the Judgement Summary on Group Lotus's website,

"Group Lotus has goodwill associated with the name “Lotus” in Formula 1 and is free to compete in the sport under that name using the Lotus roundel"

Somewhat confusing.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

This is the BBC's take on it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/form...e/13572332.stm

However there seems to be a contradiction; according to the BBC article,

"Team Lotus were allowed to continue running under that name while Group Lotus will keep the black and gold livery, but cannot use the famous badge in F1."

but according to the Judgement Summary on Group Lotus's website,

"Group Lotus has goodwill associated with the name “Lotus” in Formula 1 and is free to compete in the sport under that name using the Lotus roundel"

Somewhat confusing.

There are two distinct badges, a logo for Cars, the badge for Team, similiarily designed but distinctive.


Group/Cars are hurt but not completely out. They can use Lotus sponsorship to advertise their cars on the Renault but they'll never be the iconic "Team Lotus" nor can they use Team's heritage unless there are buyouts or whatever.

Although far from an ideal position Team is in the better position. They can call themselves Team Lotus and their F1 chasis is a Lotus. They can also have the option to call themselves Caterham Team Lotus.

I'm less sure about this but they may even have the option to market certain Caterham models as Caterham Team Lotus in the same way that Renault labeled certain Renault Clio's models with the brand Williams.

I presume there will be a buy-out of Group some time in the future. Their business model is very unsound and it depends how much taxmoney the Malaysians are willing to sink into the Group Lotus WorldWide Racing program.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

There are two distinct badges, a logo for Cars, the badge for Team, similiarily designed but distinctive.

Here's the Team Lotus roundel,



and the Lotus roundel,


They are very similar, especially from a distance and also if the car is going at speed. However that doesn't really deal with the apparent contradiction as to whether Lotus can use the roundel or not.

[TrapezeArtist]

From my reading of the report (I couldn't face reading the actual judgement) I'm not sure whether Tony Fernandes's cars can be called Lotus. Clearly they can call their team Team Lotus but Group Lotus have the right to the name Lotus in Formula 1. So if Team Lotus can't call their car a Lotus, do they have to call it a Team Lotus?

It seems the judge thinks his legal colleagues haven't quite relieved the participants of enough money yet, so he has left things sufficiently ambiguous to suck them into a Round 2. I just want to bang their heads together.

[JeremySmith]

We waited this long for a decision on this case and ended up with?

What a complete mess..