Michael Porter wrote:
But, to refer back to Patrick's original post, he did mention that the
trademark registration was for "parts and supplies." This suggests to
me
that BMIHT-authorized parts are at the heart of the reason for the
registration, and I would hope that John Macartney would weigh in on
this possibility, since he's a lot closer to the action than those of
us on this side of the pond.
Geographically closer perhaps - but by no means more informed, or even
informed at all! I can't get a handle on the parts side of things
because that all seemed to die a death when BMW ditched Rover.
While the museum side of British Motor Heritage went to Ford through
Land Rover, the bodyshell business that I had understood was once
going to be the mainstay of the former BMW retro British parts
operation via BMIHT, stayed with BMW and is allegedly for sale. As no
new owners have been announced over here, should one assume the
queue for acquisition is short? I also noted recently that the TR6
bodyshell has now been discontinued (at least, Rimmers aren't selling
any more after their stock is exhausted) and there are rumbles that
the licensing for 'classic' Mini bodyshells by BMH has also gone a bit
pear-shaped.
Then we have MG, now co-existing with Rover under the Phoenix banner,
so where does this place BMW/BMH in continuing with original tooling
for MG shells when they don't "own" the MG label? All rather muddy ...
But to re-registering a name for parts and supplies?
I can't see why BMW would want to do that as the BMH bodyshell
business appears to be a mere husk of what it once was and Munich has
divested itself of what it once had to make the concept possibly
viable.
Patrick Bowen wrote:
Eight or nine years ago would anyone have thought they would bring
back the MG
Respectfully, Patrick - the MG in sports car form in the MGF came
about very shortly after BMW bought Rover. I'm not so sure Munich
would claim it was responsible for resurrecting the MG as a sports car
and I suspect it was a new project at an advanced stage that they
inherited when buying Rover from British Aerospace - but I stand to be
corrected on that. Prior to the MGF coming on the scene, the MG name
had been appearing on any number of badge-engineered saloons (Maestro,
Montego, Metro) under BL / Leyland / Rover manufacture. To many in the
States, an MG saloon may be an oxymoron but in the distant past when
real MG's were made at Abingdon, plenty of MG saloons came out of that
little plant to enthusiastic buyers.
To us on this side of the pond an MG saloon is
by no means as unusual as it might be in the States. The MG name never
really died long-term, though I agree that slapping those two letters
on a cooking saloon car with a bit of fancy trim, didn't excite a lot
of
people - but the rest of the product range 10-15 years back
didn't excite a lot of people either.
So why not another wildcard concept based on current assumptions for
parts
and supplies, the non-sale (?) of BMH at Witney and the abandoning of
the TR6 bodyshell. Why don't BMW do an updated TR6 bodyshell with a
modern lump in it and follow what was done 10 or so years back when
the Rover (ex Buick) V8 was slotted into an updated MGB and called the
MG RV8? Only about 2500 were made but they're collectors pieces now.
Nah ....wouldn't meet crash regulations and all that other garbage
the politicians wish upon us.
Now, if they took a leaf out of Morgan's book, went back about 60
years and built something really retro with a straight eight lump in
it and the Globe in a place of prominence.......?
Now that WOULD be interesting.
It might even give some credibility to the *proper* use of the name
after a too long time - but its way too much to expect.
Jonmac
|