Jump to content

Shuanghuan Noble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 91.89.159.182 (talk) at 12:45, 30 November 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shuanghuan Noble
Overview
ManufacturerShijiazhuang Shuanghuan Automobile Co (aka Shuanghuan)
Also calledShuanghuan Bubble
Martin Motors Noble
Martin Motors Bubble
Body and chassis
Classhatchback
RelatedSmart Fortwo
Powertrain
Engine1.1 litre gasoline

The Shuanghuan Noble (also sold as the Shuanghuan Bubble, the Martin Motors Noble and the Martin Motors Bubble) is a 4-seater Chinese hatchback made by Shuanghuan. It is sold in various European and Asian countries and has generated large controversies due to its similar styling to that of the Smart Fortwo.

Controversies

The car has caused numerous controversies, with Mercedes-Benz even filing a lawsuit against Shuanghuan because of the similarities with the Smart Fortwo.[1] Mercedes-Benz also persuaded the Italian court to prohibit the car from being exhibited at the Bologna Motor Show[2], but this was violated and the car was put on display.[3]

In May 2009 a Greek judge ruled against Daimler and cleared the car allowing sales to begin in Greece. The judge answering to Daimler's demand to ban the Chinese vehicle from entering the Greek market said that “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.”[4]

File:Shuanghuan noble rear.jpg
Rear view.

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.”

References