Formula 1 fight for right to race as Nelumbo Nucifera

It may not be F1-friendly, but at least
this vehicle has a tail-gate fit for a Kat
The IPKat, like most other felines, has struggled to master the art of Formula 1 motor-racing, not least because once he's in the driving seat he's never quite sure where to put his tail.  However, he always watches out for intellectual property issues and, if they happen to concern fast cars and life in the fast lane in general, he is always well disposed to comment on it.  Here he reports on a little news item which is hot off the track.

Team Lotus famously raced in Formula 1 events between 1958 and 1994, achieving great success. Financial difficulties followed and the team has not raced since. A dispute has now arisen over the right to return to the grid under the name Team Lotus. The business of making and racing race cars under the name Team Lotus, which the legendary Colin Chapman kick-started in the 1940s, is currently owned by Team Lotus Ventures. The very same Colin Chapman however started another business in the 1950s, manufacturing other cars under the name Lotus. That business is owned by Group Lotus.

All this happened in the days when people were more excited by fast cars than by intellectual property -- but now we can fast-forward to modern times. During the 2010 Formula 1 season, 1Malaysia Racing Team Sdn Bhd entered a team under the name LOTUS RACING, having taken a licence to the right to use the name from Group Lotus. That licence terminated recently amid disputes between the parties. However, 1Malaysia and related companies, having recently acquired Team Lotus Ventures, have now announced their intention to compete as TEAM LOTUS in 2011. Group Lotus denies that they are entitled to do so, challenging the rights that are said to have been acquired from Team Lotus Ventures.

Although details of the claims by either side have not yet been reported, the IPKat notes that Group Lotus is the registered proprietor of a number of trade mark registrations for the word LOTUS and for the roundel (which includes the monogram CABC, the initials of Colin Anthony Bruce Chapman) bearing the word LOTUS. Team Lotus Ventures, on the other hand, owns registrations for TEAM LOTUS and the roundel featuring the words TEAM LOTUS. ...

The IPKat suspects that, just as each Formula 1 season consists of a sequence of competitive races, so too will this litigation consist of a sequence of fiercely-fought actions. But the winner won't be the team with the most podium points; it'll be the team that crosses the line first in the final race.  Merpel says, Chapman's a bit of a tautological name really, since "chap" is another word for "man".

Lotus Cars here; Lotus Racing here; Team Lotus here
Lotus fruit (nelumbo nucifera) here
Men saved from Lotus Eaters here
Lotus recipes here
Lotus position for dummies here
Formula 1 fight for right to race as Nelumbo Nucifera Formula 1 fight for right to race as Nelumbo Nucifera Reviewed by Jeremy on Sunday, October 17, 2010 Rating: 5


  1. The monogram should be ACBC, not CABC. Colin was Chapman's second name.

    I'm not sure if I should be apologetic for being so pedantic to pick this up, or for knowing that you have his initials incorrectly ordered in the first place.

  2. @Pedantic anonymous: thanks for your information concerning the correct order of names, which I shall be happy to relay to my otherwise impeccable informant.

  3. Another pedantic note: "Chapman" is not a tautology but an archaic term for a travelling pedlar.

  4. @Philip. My turn to be pedantic. Chapman may not be tautological as a word, but Merpel says it's tautological as a name.

  5. It is true that his name was in fact Anthony Colin Bruce Chapman. However, he adopted Colin as his first name, the monogram in the logo reads CABC (whether the letters are read in ascending or descending order of size) and that is how the trade mark registrations are described.

  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.