BYD Land Rover Defender: Why JLR Bailiffs Raided BYD Over the Ti7

The commercial stakes are plain. BYD has priced the seven-seat Ti 7 at £47,995 in the UK, while the Defender 110 starts at £68,465, a gap of more than £20,000. The allegation is JLR's alone: no court has found that BYD copied anything. Below: what was reported, which rights a car's shape can carry, how Dutch evidence seizure works, how JLR fared protecting the Defender's shape before, and what car makers can do about lookalikes.

What happened in the BYD Land Rover Defender dispute

In short: JLR obtained a Dutch order letting bailiffs secure evidence at two BYD sites, and is now pursuing an IP claim in The Hague. According to the Sunday Times, as reported by the Guardian, JLR suspected BYD had reverse-engineered some technology that could be used in the Ti7 and wanted the records secured before they could be destroyed. CarExpert likewise reported that the court-ordered raids sought evidence over claims the Ti7 infringes JLR's intellectual property in the Defender.

The court order has not been released. That is normal: evidence orders of this kind are made without notice and are not published while proceedings run, so every detail of the claim's scope is reported rather than confirmed.

The Ti 7 and the Defender: the facts on each side

The BYD Ti 7 is a seven-seat plug-in hybrid SUV that motoring writers have compared to the Defender since it went on sale in China in 2025. BYD UK's 31 July 2026 announcement confirmed a £47,995 on-the-road price, a 408PS DM-p plug-in hybrid powertrain, first cars in showrooms in November and customer deliveries in January 2027. BYD's own copy describes "an unapologetically boxy profile" that delivers an imposing, chunky design.

Point	BYD Ti 7	Land Rover Defender
Maker	BYD, China	JLR, UK, owned by Tata Motors
UK starting price	£47,995 (seven seats)	£68,465 (Defender 110, seven seats)
UK timing	Showrooms November 2026, deliveries January 2027	On sale; 29,500 retail sales in July to September 2026
Position in the dispute	Alleged infringer; declined to comment	Claimant; declined to comment
Status of the allegation	Unproven; no court ruling on infringement has been reported

The Defender matters to JLR's results. The Guardian reported 29,500 Defender retail sales in the three months to September 2026, up from 25,370 a year earlier. Commercially, a cheaper rival is a threat either way; legally, likeness alone is not infringement.

Which rights can protect a car's shape?

A car's appearance can be protected in Europe by registered and unregistered designs and, more rarely, by a three-dimensional trade mark; its engineering can be protected by patents and trade secrets. JLR has not disclosed which it relies on, so the table shows the options, not JLR's case.

Right	What it protects	Key test	Duration
Registered EU design	Appearance shown in the filing	New, with individual character; infringed by designs giving no different overall impression	Five-year terms, up to 25 years
Unregistered EU design	Appearance first disclosed in the EU	Same tests, but only copying infringes	Three years from disclosure
3D (shape) trade mark	Shape as a badge of origin	Must be distinctive; certain shapes are excluded	Ten-year terms, renewable
Patents and trade secrets	Technology, data and know-how	Novel invention, or confidential information	Patents for a fixed term; secrets while kept confidential

EU designs

Under the EU design regulation, consolidated from 1 May 2025, the former Community design is now the EU design. A design is protected if it is new and has individual character, meaning it produces a different overall impression on the informed user, judged in light of the designer's freedom. A registered EU design lets the holder stop others making, offering, importing or using products that give no different overall impression. An unregistered EU design is infringed only by copying; independent creation is a defence.

Jurisdiction is a strategic point. An EU design court in the member state where the defendant is domiciled can rule on infringement across all member states, and any member state's courts can grant provisional measures. A Dutch-domiciled defendant can therefore face EU-wide relief in The Hague. Our explainer on cross-border infringement claims after BSH v Electrolux covers the parallel question for patents.

Shape trade marks

Registering a vehicle's shape as a trade mark is harder. The EU Trade Mark Regulation, article 7, refuses marks devoid of distinctive character and signs consisting exclusively of a shape that results from the nature of the goods, is necessary to obtain a technical result or gives substantial value to the goods. Distinctiveness is the usual stumbling block, as the General Court's Chiquita ruling also shows.

How evidence seizure works in the Netherlands

A Dutch evidence seizure (conservatoir bewijsbeslag) lets an intellectual property owner have a bailiff secure documents, files or goods before the other side is warned, so the evidence cannot vanish before trial. It implements article 7 of the IP Enforcement Directive, which requires every EU state to offer prompt and effective provisional measures to preserve evidence, even before proceedings on the merits begin, to an applicant who presents reasonably available evidence of infringement.

The legal test and the ex parte order

Under article 1019b of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Rv), the preliminary relief judge may give leave for measures to protect evidence to an applicant who has made it sufficiently plausible that its intellectual property right has been or is about to be infringed. The measures include conservatory evidence seizure, a detailed description and the taking of samples of allegedly infringing goods, the materials used to make them and related documents. They can be ordered without hearing the other side, in particular where delay would cause irreparable harm or evidence is demonstrably at risk. Leave is refused if confidential information is not protected.

What the bailiff does

Under articles 1019c and 1019d Rv, the seizure follows the ordinary rules on protective attachment. A bailiff records any description on site in an official report, which can include images; samples go to a court-appointed custodian. Seized material is often placed with a judicial custodian, and the seizure lapses once the main case is finally decided.

Seizing is not seeing

The claimant does not get to read the material automatically. Article 1019a Rv treats an IP infringement as a legal relationship that supports a separate claim for disclosure, again subject to confidentiality. In AIB v Novisem (Hoge Raad, 13 November 2015), digital files and records seized in March 2013 sat with a judicial custodian while the claimant brought summary proceedings to inspect them. The Supreme Court noted that the plausibility needed to seize evidence may be reached sooner than that needed to inspect it, one reason a hearing months after an August seizure is unsurprising.

Safeguards for the target

The Directive guarantees the target notice straight after execution, a review with a right to be heard, and possible security from the applicant. If no proceedings on the merits are started within the period the court sets, or otherwise within 20 working days or 31 calendar days, whichever is longer, the measures can be revoked, and the applicant may owe compensation if no infringement is later found. Targets can borrow from our guide on how to prepare for a dawn raid, though this is a civil measure, not a regulator's inspection.

What happens at the hearing in The Hague

The court in The Hague will hear JLR's case this week, but it has not been publicly confirmed whether the hearing concerns access to the seized records, an injunction or the merits. The Guardian says it will decide whether BYD has a case to answer. Outcomes could range from access to some seized material to dismissal; an injunction would be a separate, more demanding step.

Until a court rules, BYD is free to market the Ti 7, and a Dutch ruling on EU rights would not of itself cover Britain, where UK rights apply. Advisers in the jurisdiction are listed on our Netherlands experts page.

The Defender's shape in court before: JLR v Ineos

JLR has tried to monopolise the Defender's outline before and lost. In Jaguar Land Rover Ltd v Ineos Industries Holdings Ltd [2020] EWHC 2130 (Ch), decided on 3 August 2020, the High Court dismissed JLR's appeal against the UK Intellectual Property Office's refusal of four applications to register the shapes of the Defender 90 and Defender 110, with and without rear-mounted spare wheels, as UK trade marks.

• No inherent distinctiveness. The shapes did not stand out from sector norms; the judge found no error of principle in that finding.
• No acquired distinctiveness. JLR had not shown that a significant proportion of consumers saw the shapes alone as identifying its vehicles.
• Bad faith in part. The applications were also found to be in bad faith for vehicles other than 4x4s.

That ruling left the Defender's outline without UK trade mark protection and helps explain why a shape-mark route against a new rival is unlikely to be JLR's first choice. Design rights and technology claims are more natural tools. For how marks work across borders, see our guide on registering a trademark internationally.

JLR's earlier copycat win in China

CarExpert reports that JLR sued Jiangling in a Beijing court in 2016, alleging that the Landwind X7 copied the Range Rover Evoque; JLR won in 2019, and Jiangling was ordered to stop producing the model and pay 1.5 million yuan in compensation. The Guardian describes it as a three-year court battle. That case was fought under Chinese law; the BYD claim is being pursued in Europe. See our China experts directory.

What car makers can do about lookalikes

The BYD Land Rover Defender dispute shows that protection is built before a rival appears and enforcement depends on fast evidence. A practical programme:

1. File registered designs early. Cover the vehicle and key parts in the EU and UK before launch; unregistered rights are short and need proof of copying.
2. Treat shape marks as a bonus. Reserve them for features consumers genuinely recognise.
3. Protect technology separately. Patents and trade secret controls cover what reverse engineering targets.
4. Move quickly on evidence. An ex parte seizure where the rival has premises can preserve proof before it disappears.

For first steps when a competitor's product looks too close, see someone is using my trademark, and for the unified patent route, what UPC patent litigation involves. Specialists are listed under intellectual property and dispute resolution and litigation.

Frequently asked questions

Why were BYD's offices raided?

Bailiffs acting for JLR under a Dutch court order reportedly seized digital records at BYD's Schiedam and Hoofddorp offices in August 2026, to preserve evidence for JLR's claim that the Ti7 infringes Defender intellectual property. Neither company has commented.

Has BYD been found to have copied the Defender?

No. The copying claim is JLR's allegation and no court ruling on infringement has been reported. An evidence seizure requires only that infringement is made sufficiently plausible, not proved. The case is due to be heard in The Hague this week.

Can a car's shape be protected by a trade mark?

Sometimes, but it is difficult. EU and UK law refuse shapes that lack distinctive character or that give substantial value to the goods. In 2020 the High Court upheld the refusal of JLR's applications to register the Defender 90 and 110 shapes as UK trade marks.

What is an evidence seizure order in the Netherlands?

It is a court order under article 1019b of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure that lets a bailiff secure evidence of an alleged IP infringement, often without warning the other side. The material is usually held by a court-appointed custodian, and the claimant needs a further order to inspect it.

Does BYD have to stop selling the Ti 7?

Not on the reported facts. An evidence seizure preserves proof; it does not stop sales. An injunction would need a separate decision, and a Dutch ruling would not automatically cover the UK, where deliveries start in January 2027.

How long does an EU design last?

A registered EU design lasts five years from filing, renewable up to 25 years. An unregistered EU design lasts three years from first disclosure in the EU and only protects against copying.

Sources

1. The Guardian, Chinese carmaker BYD's offices in Netherlands raided over JLR 'copycat car' claim (8 November 2026): theguardian.com
2. CarExpert, BYD offices raided over copycat design allegations, report (9 November 2026): carexpert.com.au
3. BYD UK, BYD confirms pricing and specifications of its first seven-seat SUV in UK, Ti 7 (31 July 2026): bydukmedia.com
4. Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, article 7: eur-lex.europa.eu
5. Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (Dutch Code of Civil Procedure), articles 1019a to 1019d: wetten.overheid.nl
6. Hoge Raad, 13 November 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:3304 (AIB v Novisem): rechtspraak.nl
7. Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on EU designs, consolidated text of 1 May 2025: eur-lex.europa.eu
8. Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark, article 7: eur-lex.europa.eu
9. Jaguar Land Rover Ltd v Ineos Industries Holdings Ltd [2020] EWHC 2130 (Ch): caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk

About this article

This analysis was researched and written by The Corporate INTL Newsroom, which covers cross-border legal, regulatory and business developments for lawyers, professional advisers and financiers in over 150 jurisdictions. The account of the seizure relies on press reports, as the order is unpublished and both companies declined to comment; the legal analysis was checked against EU legislation, the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure and the case law cited. It is general information, not legal advice, and nothing in it suggests that BYD has infringed any right. Last reviewed 9 November 2026. For more analysis like this, visit the Corporate INTL newsroom or subscribe to Corporate INTL.