When Imitating a Jaguar Isn’t Flattery—But Is Vindication in the End

• The original court ruling required Swede Karl Magnusson to destroy his car, which was just reversed on appeal.

• The costs were awarded against Jaguar Land Rover, but Magnusson has already had to sell car collection.

• Jaguar Classic is building its own C-Type replicas—and can now prevent any others from doing so.

When a retired Swedish car designer called Karl Magnusson built a replica of the famous Jaguar C-Type, he was not expecting a long legal battle, one that brought him close to personal bankruptcy. But that’s what happened when Jaguar Land Rover sued him for copyright infringement. The British company won the first round, with Magnusson ordered to both pay substantial costs but also—at the behest of the court in Sweden—to destroy his replica. He opted to appeal instead, and now the original verdict has been (mostly) reversed—although JLR has also been awarded copyright for the design of its famous car, something it was denied in the original trial.

The C-Type’s combination of stunning looks and mechanical simplicity have inspired many imitations. The original’s hand formed aluminium bodywork and tubular frame chassis, with power from a tuned version of Jaguar’s much-produced six-cylinder XK engine, mean that the barriers for replica makers have been low. Anyone with the time and skill has been able to make a close facsimile for vastly less than what would be the eight-figure cost of buying one of the 53 originals that were made between 1951 and 1953.

Magnusson, now 71, had a long personal history with Jaguars before he decided to create his own C-Type replica. He tells Autoweek that he bought his first, an E-Type, in 1976. Since then he has owned many more, and has also been an active member of one of Scandinavia’s largest Jaguar clubs. His decision to create his own C-Type was not made in secret, and actually used many original drawings that Jaguar had shared with previous replica builders. Magnusson says that he used his Computer Aided Design skills to create a digital model that would become the basis for both his own car and, he admits, two other versions he planned to sell to fund the project.

Which is where things got litigious. Having told Jaguar Classic of his plans—and he says even discussing them with a JLR employee who was building his own C-Type replica—Magnusson was sued for copyright infringement in 2018 shortly after he completed his car. Losing the case risked financial disaster; Magnusson says he was forced to sell his car collection just to keep going, leading to his decision to appeal.

JLR denies directly demanding Magnusson’s replica be destroyed, but also says that the fact more than one car was going to be made meant the project was a commercial endeavour that was effectively competing against Jaguar Classic. That became literally true when Jaguar announced plans to build its own officially sanctioned ‘Continuation’ C-Type replica in 2021, this being a run of 16 cars priced at £1.5 million each. It wasn’t just Magnusson receiving legal paperwork; in Britain, the largest maker of replica C-Type kits was sued shortly after the original Swedish case concluded, subsequently going bankrupt.

Although unacknowledged, there may have been additional motivation for JLR’s legal case due to the fact it had lost a similar battle with INEOS Automotive over design rights for the original Land Rover Defender—giving an impetus for the company to try and protect the intellectual property of the rest of its back catalog.

But in legal terms, the battle with Magnusson had JLR cast as a massive corporate Goliath, with the win doing substantial damage to the big automaker’s relationship with many fans of its classic models, especially as many replica makers were using and supporting the same parts suppliers.

Then last month, Magnusson won his appeal in Sweden after, he says, proving to the court that Jaguar had given ‘general consent’ for the creation of C-Type replicas since the 1970s, both by sharing documents but also encouraging builders. “They had even started a racing series where they were welcoming replicas,” Magnusson says, “and we had pictures of an [autoshow] in China where they had replicas on their official stand.”

While much of the original verdict against Magnusson was reversed by the higher court in Sweden, the appeal also gave JLR full copyright of the C-Type design. So although Magnusson’s own replica is no longer under threat of destruction, it seems that JLR will be now be able to prevent any fresh examples from being built—in Europe, at least.

Magnusson will also be getting some of the huge amount of money he has spent fighting the battle back. “We have still spent more money on this than we will get back, but the court says we will now get some compensation,” he says. “Not everything, but better than nothing.”

There is still the possibility that JLR might choose to appeal against this appeal and take the battle all the way to Sweden’s Supreme Court. When we asked JLR for comment, it refused to rule this out, or to put a spokesperson up for interview, but did issue the following statement:

“Jaguar Land Rover takes the protection of its intellectual property very seriously and reserves the right to protect it from those intending to infringe it for profit.

“We are committed to the preservation and heritage of our brands and classic iconic designs, and we are pleased with the court’s decision to recognise our ownership of copyright in the shape of C-type. The judgment reinforces that JLR has the exclusive right to decide if the shape may be commercially exploited by companies other than JLR.”

And will Magnusson now get to enjoy the replica he has fought such a costly legal battle over?

“I still have it in my garage—it has done 500 miles since it was ready in 2018 because I could not drive it during the court case,” he says. “Knowing what I know now I should have dropped Jaguar 50 years ago and gone for a Chevrolet Corvette or something else. There are a lot of beautiful cars out there, I would pick one that would be easier to own.”

Share your thoughts on this case in the comments below.