How the Chinese Evoque clone is Land Rover’s own fault

There’s no doubt that Landwind is wrong for cloning the Evoque’s design. But, thanks to a loophole in Chinese law, Land Rover deserves some blame

4y ago

Let me preface this by disagreeing completely with what Landwind—the Chinese car company with Ford interests—has done, when it released the X7, the infamous Range Rover Evoque clone, in 2015.

But it is a matter that Jaguar Land Rover can lay directly at the feet of its own lawyers for failing to protect the Evoque’s design. It’s why there’s a cheap Chinese front-wheel-drive, Mitsubishi SOHC-powered knock-off coming out of Nanjang at a fraction of the original’s price.

It’s a real shame, and a smack in the face for Chinese car manufacturers who are trying to do the right thing by investing in their own designs—and, to be fair, nowadays there are more doing the legit thing (e.g. Senova, Geely, Zhonghua, Qoros, MG and Roewe) than those who aren’t (Zotye, who started off licensing before they went cloning, some of the models from BYD, and Yema, who started off making things on an Austin Maestro platform). And if you read the Chinese motoring press, the journalists there are as condemning of copies as their colleagues everywhere else.

We can conclude, for starters, that there’s no way Landwind would have come up with the X7 independently, and, if put before most occidental courts, there would be a finding in favour of Jaguar Land Rover.

Landwind has maintained that it’s had no complaints from Jaguar Land Rover, while JLR’s CEO Dr Ralf Speth went on record in 2015 to say that he will complain. Considering it had been five years since the Evoque was launched, and news of the copy, and Landwind’s patent grant from 2014, have been around for a while, then saying you will complain in 2015 seems a little late.

In fact, it’s very late. What surprises me is that this is something already known in China. As I understand it, a firm that shows a product in China at a government-sponsored show, if it wishes to maintain its “novelty” and prevent this sort of piracy from taking place, must register it within six months, under article 24 of China’s patent law. It states, in part, ‘Within six months before the date of application, an invention for which an application is filed for a patent does not lose its novelty under any of the following circumstances:
(1) It is exhibited for the first time at an international exhibition sponsored or recognized by the Chinese Government;
(2) It is published for the first time at a specified academic or technological conference; and
(3) Its contents are divulged by others without the consent of the applicant.’

The author’s press car, a Range Rover Evoque Si4 Black Edition, as featured in Lucire, photographed by Stuart Cowley.

The author’s press car, a Range Rover Evoque Si4 Black Edition, as featured in Lucire, photographed by Stuart Cowley.

The Evoque was shown at Guangzhou at a state-sanctioned motor show in December 2010, which meant that Jaguar Land Rover had until June 2011, at the outside, to file this registration. JLR reportedly missed the deadline, with the patent office receiving the application on November 24, 2011.

The consequence of missing the period is that an original design becomes an “existing design”. While it’s not entirely the end of the road for Jaguar Land Rover in terms of legal remedies, it is one of the quirks of Chinese intellectual property law, which, sadly, is not as geared to protecting originality as it is in the west.

The approach one would have in, say, a common law jurisdiction, to prove objective similarity in the cases of copyright (and, as I understand it, a similar approach under patent), does not apply there. (Incidentally, this approach is one reason BMW could not have won against Shuanghuan for its CEO, which is usually mentioned by Top Gear watchers as an X5 copy. Look more closely and the front is far closer to a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado’s, and there’s neither a kidney grille nor a Hofmeister-Knick. It’s a mess, but Shuanghuan could easily argue that it picks up on period SUV trends, like the triangular sixth light found on an Opel Astra is part of a 2000s æsthetic for hatchbacks.)

If you go back to November 2014, the South China Morning Post reported on this matter, again quoting Dr Speth.

He’s found it ‘disappointing’ for a while, it seems, but back in 2014 there was no mention of going after Landwind. An A. T. Kearney expert backs him up, saying, ‘… copying by Chinese original equipment manufacturers is still possible and accepted in China.’ It’s increasingly unacceptable, but, there are loopholes.

I’m not arguing that this is right, nor do I condone the X7, but you do wonder why JLR hasn’t taken action. The above may be why JLR has stayed largely silent on the whole affair.

This is why I read nothing on any action being taken by JLR when the Landwind was first shown, when a patent was granted (in April 2014), or when the X7 was last displayed at a Chinese motor show.

The SCMP piece is a much fairer article, noting that Chinese car makers have become more sophisticated and invested in original designs. It also notes that consumers are divided: while some would love to have the copy, another felt ‘ashamed about Landwind,’ points usually ignored in the occidental media.

Land Rover has traditionally been swift in taking on copycats, and it had fought Landwind’s EU trade mark registration in 2006. This firm is known to them.

On the Evoque, JLR really needs to be asking its lawyers some serious questions. •


Note: This piece originally appeared on my blog,, and at AROnline. The Range Rover Evoque photo appeared in Lucire, in print, and online at

Join In

Comments (0)