{"id":3243,"date":"2022-04-08T14:52:08","date_gmt":"2022-04-08T14:52:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/scienceandnerds.com\/2022\/04\/08\/the-bluetooth-group-is-fighting-the-maker-of-dodges-and-jeeps-for-not-paying-twice\/"},"modified":"2022-04-08T14:52:09","modified_gmt":"2022-04-08T14:52:09","slug":"the-bluetooth-group-is-fighting-the-maker-of-dodges-and-jeeps-for-not-paying-twice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/scienceandnerds.com\/2022\/04\/08\/the-bluetooth-group-is-fighting-the-maker-of-dodges-and-jeeps-for-not-paying-twice\/","title":{"rendered":"The Bluetooth group is fighting the maker of Dodges and Jeeps for not paying twice"},"content":{"rendered":"

Source: https:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2022\/4\/7\/23015034\/fca-bluetooth-radio-case-first-sale-doctrine-appeals-argument<\/a>
\n
<\/br><\/code><\/p>\n

\n

A US appeals court has decided that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (or FCA) has a valid argument in a trademark case brought against it by the standards organization behind Bluetooth. The case being litigated could end up setting a precedent about whether automakers can buy radios that are already certified for Bluetooth or whether they will also have to pay the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG) to certify the cars<\/em>, too, adding cost at a time when car prices are already ballooning<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Bluetooth SIG sued the automaker \u2014 now known as Stellantis after FCA merged with Peugeot \u2014 back in 2018. At the time, it said that FCA was improperly using its trademark on cars like the Jeep Wrangler and Dodge Grand Caravan, which Bluetooth SIG hadn\u2019t certified. The appeals court\u2019s decision means that the case is being sent back to the lower court, which will now have to listen to the automaker\u2019s argument. You can read that decision at the bottom of this post.<\/p>\n

FCA\u2019s defense, which was initially rejected by that lower court, is that Bluetooth SIG is trying to double-dip by saying that both the car radio and the car itself have to go through certification. Its basis is something called the first sale doctrine<\/a> \u2014 a concept that\u2019s meant to allow the resale of copyrighted works. In this case, FCA is saying that it applies because it buys its infotainment systems from companies like Alpine, Harmon, and Panasonic, which have already paid fees and gotten their products certified for Bluetooth. Why should it have to re-certify what\u2019s already been certified just because it slotted those products into a dashboard?<\/p>\n

Bluetooth SIG thinks it should. In its complaint<\/a> (PDF), the group argues that FCA was trying to get \u201ca free ride\u201d by putting Bluetooth branding in cars and ads \u201cwithout paying requisite product declaration fees\u201d or getting its cars certified. The group\u2019s argument doesn\u2019t seem to be that the automaker is tarnishing its brand with a bad experience \u2014 its complaint doesn\u2019t mention compatibility issues at all. Basically, the group is upset that the automaker is getting to say that its cars have Bluetooth just because it bought a radio that was certified for Bluetooth. <\/p>\n

\n