Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Motorsport' started by prisonermonkeys, Sep 27, 2010.
Kovalainen having fun with a Caterham Seven in Team Lotus livery
Go back and re-read my post - Fernandes is doing this in stages rather than all at once so as to make it look like this is his idea and part of a grand plan rather than a sudden backflip.
That's not the kind of image I'm talking about.
The courts will hand down a decision today.
Keep us posted - I expect to read it here first
One thing that is clear is that there'll be no outright winner; both parties feel they've paid for legitimate naming rights of one sort or another.
There's been so much hyperbole and flim-flam that it's hard to see wood for trees.
Apparently its a Group Lotus win, but TF keeps the TEAM Lotus name.
In other words, everything stays the same.
Group Lotus: http://www.lotuscars.com/news/en/naming-dispute
TF on Tiwtter: We won. I'm over the moon. Team lotus belongs to us. Our chasis name stays lotus. No one can use the chasis name. We are the only lotus. Team lotus.
Well done to everyone at team lotus and thank you to all our fans for supporting us. The good do always win. Judgement was just given by Justice Smith a few mins ago.
The statement on the lotus cars website contradicts what was said on the TF tweet.
Yeah, the F1 Fanatic article is kind of vague, implying that both teams have won the court case.
And it seems like Group Lotus is going to appeal still about the naming rights. I don't understand what is so wrong with Group Lotus. Sarah Price, head of legal at Group Lotus is said to be worried about the sport and brand image yet she or they're just causing a whole lot more confusion into this matter. They're dragging this everywhere!
Here is the Autosport article on it:
Team Lotus allowed to keep name
Actual document here:
Group Lotus Plc & Anor v 1Malaysia Racing Team SDN BHD & Ors  EWHC 1366 (Ch) (27 May 2011)
Any lawyers here to see who really won? I guess it is a draw which Group Lotus are not entirely happy about as they wanted to win fully and force Team Lotus to be named something else like 1Malaysia Racing Team.
Well, the best outcome was always going to have one side declared to be Lotus and the other forced to change their name. The funny thing is that Group Lotus' statement about launching an appeal because they believe there should only be one team stands out because that's what their entire thing about the breach of contract was about: they wanted nothing more to do with Fernandes, but believed that if he ran a team as Team Lotus, there would be an implied connection between the two teams. So it really feels like half a verdict.
Basically both teams have operated with their versions of the Lotus name and the judgement finds no likelihood of confusion between the two.
Team Lotus have lost the original use of their trademarks while retaining the right to use the Team Lotus name. They CAN use their trademark as applied for in 2010 due to the 'goodwill' that they own with the Team Lotus name.
Group Lotus retain the right to use the trademarks as they were associated with the road-car division BEFORE the racing division.
'JPS' alibi colours are NOT the property of Team Lotus by implication, goodwill or otherwise and do not need to be changed.
Team Lotus did not succesfully submit their application for use of TeamLotus.com and lose that right. I'm sure that's what it says... but seems odd somehow.
EDIT: Group Lotus to 'seek clarification' via appeal. Quelle surprise
Er, why? The best outcome is the current one - where Lotus Cars stick around to help fund the Renault team and Team Lotus gets to keep their FOM money and stick around.
I would hate to see either team struggle due to this silly mess (either Renault struggling for cash if Lotus Cars left or Team Lotus struggling after losing the TV money).
Because having two Lotuses (Lotii?) on the grid could be confusing. The hardcore fans know the difference, but the casual viewers shouldn't have to wade through a mass of lawsuits and name-calling just to understand who is who.
Team Lotus certainly did the right thing pushing ahead with their use of the name... the tone of the judgement suggests that if they'd let the name sink into obscurity it could well have stayed there.
The Judge was quite clear though; F1 fans (who both teams cited in application) would be aware of the history of Lotus AND of the legal wranglings and should therefore be able to know the differences.
It's probably the right decisions - I was struggling to see who had the greatest right in this case.
What about newcomers who joined the sport this year and only had a passing interest in the sport?
Fortunately I've never had to explain the difference between the Lotus teams, although I did have to explain Toro Rosso and Red Bull a few times. At least the Lotus teams have different enough liveries to easily distinguish them as two teams.
Still, it's better than having to explain the grooved tires from a few years ago. "Y NO SLICKS?"
That's a good point, but it wasn't part of the submission from either side and therefore couldn't be considered in judgement.
Both sides relied on F1 historical knowledge on the part of 'observers'. Please note that the part you quoted was from the Judge's summary, not from my own opinion
Well, there is a second, bigger problem:
When Group Lotus terminated the licencing agreement with Fernandes, it was because they felt Fernandes had mis-used their name. The judge's statement is a little bit vague, but the implication is that he has agreed with them on this, and that they had grounds to terminate the contract. Although it has been legally declared that there is a distinction between Group and Team, it doesn't address the fact that both teams are competing under almst identical names. The fans having the knowledge to distinguish between the two teams is one thing, but Fernandes using a name almost identical to one that he was told he could no longer use is another issue entirely.
People don't get confused with Manchester United and Manchester City. The Judge made this point - the fans know the difference, the sponsors know the difference, so the problem isn't that big. The potential marketing gains are still huge for both teams.
On the BBC coverage at least, everyone seems to refer to Renault Lotus as Renault and Team Lotus as Lotus. There hasn't been much, if any confusion with newcomers I've spoken to.
Not just BBC though, it's been like that to almost all the commentators around the world including ESPNStar's. Also when the race results being handed out after each race, LRGP is still registered as Renault while Team Lotus registered as Lotus Renault. There seriously shouldn't be any much of a confusion honestly...
Plus people don't seem to get confused with the "-Renault" engine tag, just like McLaren-Mercedes and Mercedes or Sauber-Ferrari and Ferrari.
It does address that and it does so in detail
Fernandes was told he couldn't use the name by Group Lotus, not by a court... that was (as you know) the reason for both parties seeking judgement. The original contractual termination refers to use by TL of the logo on merchandised sports bags.
It's well worth reading the judgement in its entirety. There are several confusing sections due to there being three Lotus teams in the equation (not just the two F1 teams)... in my view the Judge has found a balanced solution to the problem, namely that the ipso facto situation that exists is actually the natural and legal conclusion to the affair.
And the ruling supports that. The "Lotus" name Fernandes used in 2010 was issued under licence by Group Lotus. It was technically Lotus Cars that had the naming rights to that team. Group Lotus stopped Fernandes from using that name - and by agreeing that Group Lotus were well within their rights to do so, the court supports them.
We're going around the houses somewhat... but the ultimate judgement is that Team Lotus have the right to continue to use the name independently of any pre-existing arrangement that may or may not have occured with either Classic Team Lotus or Group Lotus.
The sub-section that finds against Team Lotus is specifically in the context of a GL agreement. The judgement finds that the grounds for GL to make such an agreement were limited beyond GL's own original beliefs.
The Judge finds each party to be correct in a certain number of their respective arguments and incorrect in others. The bottom line in terms of naming rights is that Team Lotus may continue to use their full name. Group Lotus may not.
Ardius are Sauber just Sauber-Ferrari or are they still BMW Sauber-Ferrari, sorry thats a bit off topic but I did find it funny after BMW withdrew from the sport
They are now just Sauber-Ferrari. The only reason they kept the BMW naming was that Peter Sauber didn't file a name change request in time.
And also BMW did help fund Sauber's 2010 season, hence the lack of sponsorship that year (same as Brawn and Honda). So perhaps Peter was willing to leave it on anyway as a sign of good will (or he just didn't care that much).
There's a sequel in the works: Dany Bahar is now taking action against Tony Fernandes for "confusing" customers over the ownership of Caterham because of its historical connections to Lotus Cars.
I have no confusion at all with this matter. So what Dany Bahar doing now is going to do more and even more damage to Lotus Cars and probably scratching the shiny surface of Caterham Cars...