Jaguar Land Rover Loses Trademark Case Against Bombardier Over Defender SUV
The company had been seeking $130 million from Bombardier Recreational Products over its "Can-Am Defender" off-road vehicle. Wilmer Hale persuaded a Detroit jury there was no likelihood of consumer confusion.
January 18, 2019 at 06:23 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. has lost a bid to hang a $130 million verdict on Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. (BRP) in a trademark jury trial.
Jaguar was seeking all of the profits from a BRP off-road vehicle called the Can-Am Defender, contending that BRP was infringing Jaguar's mark on its Defender SUV. Jaguar called Defender “the heart and soul of the Land Rover brand,” though the company has not marketed the vehicle to U.S. consumers since 1998.
A federal court jury in Detroit apparently concluded that there was no likelihood of consumer confusion. “That was the fundamental dispute in the case,” said Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr partner Louis Tompros, who led BRP's trial team.
“We are pleased that the jury recognized the Can-Am Defender as a unique and distinctive product,” Martin Langelier, BRP's general counsel, said in a written statement.
The verdict was returned Friday in U.S. District Judge Gershwin Drain's courtroom.
BRP was spun out from Bombardier Inc. in the early 2000s. It launched the Can-Am Defender, a side-by-side offroad vehicle, in 2015. Tompros said his team introduced survey evidence showing that the two vehicles served different industries and markets across different eras.
Jaguar hadn't revealed that it would seek all of BRP's profits on the Can-Am Defender until the eve of trial, Tompros said. “It's been a very successful product” for BRP, he added.
BRP had also asked the jury to find that Jaguar abandoned the Defender mark and made false statements when renewing its U.S. trademark registration. Jaguar argued that after 1998 it continued selling new Defenders to the military; manufacturing Defender parts, accessories and merchandise for sale in the U.S.; and selling and servicing pre-owned Defender vehicles.
The jury ruled for Jaguar on both those questions.
“I'm absolutely fine with them hanging onto their registration as long as we got what we want”—the finding of non-infringement, Tompros said. Assisting him at trial were Wilmer associate Colleen McCullough; Dean Amburn and Lisa Asmar of Giroux Amburn; and Yves St. Arnaud of BRP.
Jaguar Land Rover, which had won a similar case against BRP in the European Union two years ago, was represented by Brooks Kushman.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllShareholder Democracy? The Chatter Elon Musk’s Tesla Pay Case Is Spurring Between Lawyers and Clients
6 minute readLitigation Leaders: Mark Jones of Nelson Mullins on Helping Clients Assemble ‘Dream Teams’
Litigators of the Week: Rolling Back Elon Musk's $56B Tesla Compensation Package
Litigators of the Week: Quinn Emanuel Slashes $137M Racial Discrimination Verdict Against Tesla by Nearly 98%
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250