Greek Court Clears Chinese Smart Clone

Alex Kambas
by Alex Kambas

In March 2008, China’s Shuanghuan (SH) Auto presented the Noble to the Greek media. The two-door may look like Daimler’s Smart, but there are crucial differences. The three meter long Chinese vehicle can can carry up to four people; Daimler’s mini (not MINI) mobile seats two. The Noble is a front-engined, front wheel-drive car with a unibody structure; the Smart’s engine is underfloor with a rear-biased drivetrain, built around a “Tridion” safety cage. Yes, well, in April 2008, Daimler’s crack legal team moved quickly to prevent import and sales of the [alleged] Chinese Smart clone. This week, a judge struck down Daimler’s case.

“Common sense prevailed” according to the Judge’s final ruling. “The impression the Noble makes on a third and informed party by its visual appearance is different to the one that is made to the same person by the Smart . . . It is commonly accepted that the decision over buying a new car cannot be based only on the exterior characteristics but many other technical specifications such as the power of the engine, fuel consumption, trim specification, retail price and dealers’ network.”

The ruling states that the latter party’s doings “cannot possibly misguide the public” as the German company claimed in its legal request. The judge noted the salient fact that “the plaintiff is no longer selling the specific generation of the Smart which claims to have been copied, but a different vehicle, with much different characteristics.”

The judge also accepted in whole the defendant’s argument that cars of the same segment cannot avoid a certain level of resemblance due to technical restrictions, similar purposes and goals, especially when it comes to such small cars that present a challenge to design.

The ruling concludes that “there is no competition between the two companies.” [That would be Daimler A.G. and the Noble’s Greek importer, vs. (or not) Dealmar S.A. and its subsidiary China Motors Hellas.]

[Daimler has also taken the Italian importer to court over the same issue. The Greek ruling came first. The Noble’s Italian importer has now joined forces with the Greek importer. They’ve filed suit against Daimler seeking damages for keeping Noble off the market for so long.]

Thanks to this ruling, SH Auto can now sell its cars throughout EU at prices as low as half the price of Daimler’s Smart. It could also unleash the long-predicted wave of Chinese automotive exports into the Eurozone.

Alex Kambas
Alex Kambas

More by Alex Kambas

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 16 comments
  • AJ AJ on May 21, 2009

    I saw a Smart Car on the interstate recently, and I was scared for the driver. Oh, yesterday I was a the Indianapolis Motor Speedway (it was community day) and they allowed anyone with a ticket to drive the track. Well after watching 30 or so Corvettes drive around the track, probably 30 or so Smart Cars also went by showing off how environmentally friendly they are. PHOTO: http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5299/img6637.jpg What was funny was I commented to my friends that I wondered if the owners actually drove them to IMS or trucked them in? On my way out, I saw one that was trucked in! How environmentally friendly is that?! LOL PHOTO: http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/6227/img6643.jpg

  • Niky Tamayo Niky Tamayo on May 22, 2009
    jkross22 : May 21st, 2009 at 9:53 am So I suppose it’s okay to import fake Rolex’, TAG’s and Raymond Weil’s. After all, it’s only the face of the watch that’s similar, right? Nobody sells fake Rolexes that look similar to the original. They sell fake Rolexes that look absolutely identical. - If the styling were identical, then IPR is violated. Similarity is not a violation of IPR, otherwise BMW could sue Toyota et al to high heavens for mimicking the Bangle-butt and Hoffmeister kink, and VW would be even more obscenely rich than they are now from royalties for "goatee grilles". Further weakening DAG's case is the fact that the Toyota iQ has a similar (though not as similar as this) look. If your car is in the same market segment, it's inevitably going to have a very similar shape. Well... of course it's a Smart clone... but as long as they're fully au fait with the law, there's nothing DAG can do about it. And RE: the failure of the Smart... wasn't just the marketing... it was the engineering itself. They went completely out of their way to "reengineer the wheel", so to speak. If they hadn't spent such ridiculous sums of money on things that were only of marginal improvement over other cars, the car would have been more realistically priced, and would have represented a better return on investment.
  • El scotto Dale Carnegie had his grandkids do some upgrades?
  • El scotto Work it backwards. How many people use Tesla Super Chargers: Primary Charging Point - this is my normal charging station; Secondary charging station - at a retail location or planned on trips, Rarely or Not at All.
  • FreedMike Some clarification would make sense here: Tesla is laying off the team responsible for BUILDING NEW Supercharger stations. Apparently the ones already being built are going to be completed. The folks who maintain the current network are apparently unaffected. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/business/tesla-layoffs-supercharger-team.htmlAlso, many other other manufacturers are switching to NACS in the upcoming years, and some of those companies are already providing Supercharger adaptors for their non-NACS vehicles. Some Superchargers can already accomodate non-Tesla vehicles with a built in adaptor called the "magic dock."Given all this, my guess? They're trying to maximize utilization of the current system before building it out further.
  • Dartman Damn Healey! You can only milk a cow so many times a day! Don’t worry though I bet Flex, 28, 1991, and all the usual suspects are just getting their fingers warmed up!
  • FreedMike Your Ford AI instructor:
Next