Jaguar Land Rover Defender, left, and BRP Inc. (Bombardier Recreational Products)'s Can-Am Defender, right. Photo: Jarretera/Scott Kenneth Brodie/Shutterstock.com Jaguar Land Rover Loses Trademark Case 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
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
© 2024 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 All
'New Circumstances': Winston & Strawn Seek Expedited Relief in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute read
Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
'Stock Car Monopoly'?: Winston Lawsuit Alleges NASCAR Anticompetitive Scheme
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Considering the Implications of the 2024 Presidential Election for Jurors in White Collar Cases
- 22024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
- 3What We Heard From Litigation Leaders in 2024
- 4Akin and Simpson Create New Practice Groups With Integrated Teams
- 5Thursday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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
