Raptor, Afinta Motor Corporation
Raptor, Afinta Motor Corporation, South Africa, built and attempted to market counterfeit Sprinters. Pre 2000. They were dumb enough to display their model next to the Daimler exhibit at the required demonstration held by the agency requesting bids.
Daimlerchrysler Aktiengeselleschaft and Daimlerchrysler South Africa (Pty) Ltd. vs. Afinta Motor Corporation [2001]
http://www.wptn.com/wptn/IssuePages...edate=30 Nov 2000&topic=Trademarks and Brands
https://www.bowmanslaw.com/insights...munications/protecting-the-shape-of-vehicles/
From http://ip-med-portal.net/sites/default/files/IBA shapes (1).docx:
The well-known Mercedes-Benz Sprinter vehicle featured in Daimler Chrysler Aktiengesellschaft v Afinta Motor Corporation (Pty) Ltd.i Here large parts of said vehicle was copied. Apart from ruling in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of passing off, the court also granted relief on the basis of unlawful competition. The court stated in this regard, amongst others, that:ii
Raptor, Afinta Motor Corporation, South Africa, built and attempted to market counterfeit Sprinters. Pre 2000. They were dumb enough to display their model next to the Daimler exhibit at the required demonstration held by the agency requesting bids.
Daimlerchrysler Aktiengeselleschaft and Daimlerchrysler South Africa (Pty) Ltd. vs. Afinta Motor Corporation [2001]
http://www.wptn.com/wptn/IssuePages...edate=30 Nov 2000&topic=Trademarks and Brands
https://www.bowmanslaw.com/insights...munications/protecting-the-shape-of-vehicles/
From http://ip-med-portal.net/sites/default/files/IBA shapes (1).docx:
The well-known Mercedes-Benz Sprinter vehicle featured in Daimler Chrysler Aktiengesellschaft v Afinta Motor Corporation (Pty) Ltd.i Here large parts of said vehicle was copied. Apart from ruling in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of passing off, the court also granted relief on the basis of unlawful competition. The court stated in this regard, amongst others, that:ii
“Although he talks vaguely about the design and other criteria which the respondent was obliged to meet the respondent's deponent Mr Nicholls furnishes no detail at all about how the respondent designed the exterior of their AMC bus. With regard to the sloping front design of the bus ie the cab section, he contends that this is used by most manufacturers of vehicles within this category and is the result of wind tunnel evaluations of the drag coefficient. He also alleges that modern computerised evaluation processes have led to the fundamental designs of vehicles being almost identical and that for this type of vehicle there is only one shape which the front of the vehicle can take if one wishes to optimise the aerodynamics of the vehicle. He also deals with certain other details of the AMC bus. It is striking that Mr Nicholls does not deal with any wind tunnel or computerised evaluation process followed by the respondent in order to arrive at the shape of the AMC bus and in particular its front end or cab and the wheel design. It therefore must be accepted that the applicant's work and effort in creating its Sprinter vehicles has not been matched by the respondent.”
Last edited: