D
Well,
Having purchased a vehicle from both BVLR and the Charlotte LR dealer I can honestly say I would rather deal with BVLR any day. Even after buying a new Freelander from LR Charlotte they always make some comment about the BVLR tire cover on the back of my DISCO. They are always quick to say that BVLR sells an inferior product, and that it can't be trusted. Correct me if I am wrong but it is still a Land Rover is in not? As Ken states in his Letter to Land Rover, all his purches are bought directly from Land Rover themselves, so IMHO the dealers are just upset because BVLR is under selling them. Other opinions welcome.
Having purchased a vehicle from both BVLR and the Charlotte LR dealer I can honestly say I would rather deal with BVLR any day. Even after buying a new Freelander from LR Charlotte they always make some comment about the BVLR tire cover on the back of my DISCO. They are always quick to say that BVLR sells an inferior product, and that it can't be trusted. Correct me if I am wrong but it is still a Land Rover is in not? As Ken states in his Letter to Land Rover, all his purches are bought directly from Land Rover themselves, so IMHO the dealers are just upset because BVLR is under selling them. Other opinions welcome.
What a joke. Makes me not want to ever purchase FORD again. Stupid lawyers most likely. Ford doesn't have enough money and needs to pick on a small business. BS! Not calling BVLR small but small compared to Ford. There is no end to peoples greed of money. Sad!
Silly Lawyers. Corporations the size of Ford must be really bored to come up with kind of shinola. Nex thing you know, Ford will want all second hand dealers to strip the LR logo off of the vehicles they're selling unless they pay a licensing fee....
i've heard for years that LRNA are a bitch to deal with or get in contact with. We purchased our TReK with BVLR 7 months ago. I found it on their website where it has always stated that they have no affiliation with LRNA or Ford Motor Company. They are as easy to deal with as Cole European, both the best dealership relationship's i've ever had worldwide. I guess land rover doesn't like that BVLR is snatching buisness from not only the surrounding dealers, but dealers nationwide.
Ron L said:
Help me out here. To me, this comment doesn't make sense within the context of this thread...
Pugsly, it does not surprise me that you dont understand this.
The name of the company has LAND ROVER in it. If I paid a bitch load for a brand name and own it outright I would be pissed if someone else tried to profit from it using MY BRAND NAME.
What part of that do you not understand?
The name of the company has LAND ROVER in it. If I paid a bitch load for a brand name and own it outright I would be pissed if someone else tried to profit from it using MY BRAND NAME.
What part of that do you not understand?
D
dent
Guest
sam
Ron, i agree with what you're saying but in this case i beleive it's different. LRNA was selling them the trunks. If the dealership and an issue with it then they should take it up with LRNA. If LRNA didn't want BVLR to sell the trunks, then don't sell it to them. Simple as that.
It's like you wanting to buy a Gateway computer. You can go to the Gateway store or go to Circuit city. One is an autherized dealer, the other is a reseller. Then Gateway turns around and sues Circuit City for selling their computer when Circuit City was and is still selling their computers to Circuit City.
Kinda stupid if you ask me....
sam
Ron, i agree with what you're saying but in this case i beleive it's different. LRNA was selling them the trunks. If the dealership and an issue with it then they should take it up with LRNA. If LRNA didn't want BVLR to sell the trunks, then don't sell it to them. Simple as that.
It's like you wanting to buy a Gateway computer. You can go to the Gateway store or go to Circuit city. One is an autherized dealer, the other is a reseller. Then Gateway turns around and sues Circuit City for selling their computer when Circuit City was and is still selling their computers to Circuit City.
Kinda stupid if you ask me....
sam
dent said:
I assume trunks = trucks
I don't think the reselling of the trucks is really the point. I think the point is that Bear Valley is using the LAND ROVER in their name. I understand where LRNA is coming from, from the casual observer that doesn't understand what a true LR dealership looks like, they might mistake BVLR for a factory autohorized dealership.
Granted, none of us would make an error like that, we know how LR operates, and we know that a DISCOVERY is a Land Rover not a Range Rover and that Land Rover is a MFG name not a type of car made by some mystery manufacturer over in england somewhere.
Ron L said:
Boy, who pee'ed in your cornflakes?
Ron L said:The name of the company has LAND ROVER in it. If I paid a bitch load for a brand name and own it outright I would be pissed if someone else tried to profit from it using MY BRAND NAME.
What part of that do you not understand?
Maybe your just trolling, but I'll try to answer your question seriously.
LRNA has tolerated, and in fact supported, BVLR's use of the Land Rover name (with BVLR's own distinctive logo) since 1996. If you don't protect your mark then it weakens and you no longer can stop others from using it.
As the number one Land Rover buyer in the US, LRNA certainly has profited from the relationship!
What about all the other folks that use Land Rover in their name or in their advertising? www.lrx.com? Land Rover Monthly? Land Rover Owner International?
So your telling me that LRNA is dumping used vehicles on BVLR? I doubt it. Could they be buying them from a local dealership? Maybe. Could there be a special relationship with the dealership and BVLR? Maybe. I read everything on there, to me it sounds like they were double dipping. Who is responsible? The small guy is, Why? Probably because LRNA does not want to take it out on one of there independantly owned Dealerships.
Trolling? PUH-lease Get a life. Why did Land Rover Unlimited change their name?
Now who owns LRNA?
LOL, so typical of you to mention Magazines in your argument. Pathetic attempt to answer my question
Trolling? PUH-lease Get a life.
Why did Land Rover Unlimited change their name?Now who owns LRNA?
LOL, so typical of you to mention Magazines in your argument. Pathetic attempt to answer my question
Last edited:
But his point is valid Ron... What is the line that Ford will stop at? They are going after establishments that obviously are in direct competition with the new parts division devoted to the classic models they are rolling out, under the flag of "branding protection". If it was a legitimate branding issue, how come we have not heard about other LR related establishments like the magazines getting harrassed. How is it any different? What about all the clubs, personal sites?
He does have a valid point, not arguing that, however, in his argument he is stating Ford does NOT have a valid point. And this is where I am going with it.
Unfortunately I find it very hard to believe that Ford would attempt a fight with a company that generates millions in purchases from them. There is more to this. Clubs do not directly profit using the LR name, Magazines profit through advertising, if Ford wanted to shut down magazines that provide those who are curious about the product they would do so.
All this feel sorry for BVLR is a bunch of whinning. It all looks to me as a bit of sour grapes on BVLR's part as they have been riding the brandname coat tails.
I have been through this. Its cuthroat simple. They paid for it, they own it. What they choose to do with it is their business. Even if it means losing business.
Think about the facts stated on BVLR's site and ask yourself if it would really be worth Fords time to sue them if there was not more to the equation here.
Unfortunately I find it very hard to believe that Ford would attempt a fight with a company that generates millions in purchases from them. There is more to this. Clubs do not directly profit using the LR name, Magazines profit through advertising, if Ford wanted to shut down magazines that provide those who are curious about the product they would do so.
All this feel sorry for BVLR is a bunch of whinning. It all looks to me as a bit of sour grapes on BVLR's part as they have been riding the brandname coat tails.
I have been through this. Its cuthroat simple. They paid for it, they own it. What they choose to do with it is their business. Even if it means losing business.
Think about the facts stated on BVLR's site and ask yourself if it would really be worth Fords time to sue them if there was not more to the equation here.
Ron L said:
Okay, let me try this another way. I don't have a legal background, just all the business brand protection stuff that was drilled into me in years of working for big brand companies.
Brands are only preserved when they are protected by their owners. What BVLR could be trying to test is whether or not Ford (or BMW, or British Midland, etc) have allowed the brand name "Land Rover" to fall into general use.
If it is deemed to have fallen into general use (become a proprietary eponym), then Ford's ability to protect their Land Rover brand name is greatly diminished. Land Rover should never have allowed BVLR to use their brand name. The question that the courts will have to answer is whether or not Ford has allowed BVLR to use their name long enough for it to become associated in the USA with something other than just Land Rover North America.
The Land Rover name is unquestionably the property of Ford in the USA. What is being questioned is whether or not they still have the right to the exclusive use of it, or whether like JEEP it has fallen into a broader use.
I just like rooting for the little guy, so I hope BVLR pulls it off. Stick it to the man!
Pugsly, your argument is still based on morals. Bottom line if Ford was profiting in any way from BVLRS sales it would not come to this. And quite frankly you can go fetch your cheerleaders all you want, in no way could BVLR pull together a defense team to knock Ford down. It just aint happening.
They OWN it, they have every right to do with it as they wish. HELLO MCFLY! ANYBODY HOME
They OWN it, they have every right to do with it as they wish. HELLO MCFLY! ANYBODY HOME
Ron L said:
Ron, it may well be someone's personal agenda. We've seen more spectacular examples of that - like the Monica affair; was it worth time and money to fuel Starr's vendetta?
All in all, BVLR could use a little less of a green oval. Like the jeep nameplate, you can dig out something a bit more obscure, and still pointing towards the brand.
Other companies use a less direct association with LR. Rovers North, Rovertyme, BigRover, Rover Canibals, East Coast Rovers. Seems like Ford is objecting to the use of the full name and any continuing confusion that may cause. I'm sure there are some folks who think they are buying a vehicle from some agency with a close factory association. Imagine you walk into "Bear Valley Land Rovers" and all over the walls are ads, green ovals, awards from LRNA etc...you might be convinced to some degree that they were more aligned with the factory than they really are. This was probably not the main intent of BVLR, but they enjoyed the association I'm sure. Pre Ford LRNA was probably happy to have the association and ignored the infringement because BVLR promoted the brand with free advertising and helped with market share, (not to mention providing a convenient outlet for the boatload of lease turn-ins).
Same thing happens all the time. Seems like there was a similar stink a while back when a big Vette parts and restoration shop here in Florida, Eckler's Covettes, became Eckler's Inc. It's why dealer's have ad bylines
good: A-1 Coin and Pawn Inc. "Specializing in Rolex"
bad: A-1 Rolex Inc.
If BVLR loses, they should hire a new lawyer and go after the old lawyer who helped them incorporate while still using the LR name.
Same thing happens all the time. Seems like there was a similar stink a while back when a big Vette parts and restoration shop here in Florida, Eckler's Covettes, became Eckler's Inc. It's why dealer's have ad bylines
good: A-1 Coin and Pawn Inc. "Specializing in Rolex"
bad: A-1 Rolex Inc.
If BVLR loses, they should hire a new lawyer and go after the old lawyer who helped them incorporate while still using the LR name.