This thread seems to have attracted a lot of heated debate and a fair amount of misinformation.
Apologies up front for the length of this reply, but I think it is important to get the historic facts correct first.
So, a little bit of history – and this subject could easily make an entire book, so I’ve tried to summarise it as much as I can.
Mini became a brand name in its own right in November 1969, with the launch of the ADO20 Mk3/Clubman range, under the umbrella of the Leyland corporation.
As Graham Robson says in
Mini: A Celebration "From this point, all such cars were Minis - not Austins and not Morrises but Minis - so no matter which showroom one patronised, the cars were totally identical. Henceforth there was just one range of badges, grilles and colour schemes and all cars were fitted with the corporate British Leyland roundel on the front wings, immediately behind the front wheel openings."
In 1971 Mini production at Longbridge reached an all-time high of 318,475, so Leyland was doing something right (at least in the early days).
While Mini was by now a separate marque, or brand, it was not a separate company.
Interestingly, in Australia Mini was NEVER a separate brand. It was always a Morris or Leyland. Even the last Minis in 1978 were badged Leyland Mini. The Moke was also a Morris, BMC then Leyland Moke, though they were never badged a Leyland (but that’s another story)
It is also interesting to note that when the Clubman model was introduced there was a fair bit of negative feeling toward "what Leyland had done to the Mini". However, it should be pointed out that it was BMC who designed the original concept of the square-nosed Clubman back in 1967, before BMC became part of Leyland.
Fast forward to 1994 when BMW bought the Rover Group (as Leyland had become after a number of corporate restructurings and ownerships) for 800 million pounds from British Aerospace.
Immediately, BMW told the Rover engineers to start looking at a replacement for the Mini. As we detailed in Issue 1 of
The Mini Experience, the Rover engineers, took a two-pronged approach. The first was an evolutionary one, resulting in the Minki - a slighter wider version of the Mini with a K-series engine. The other was a revolutionary one, resulting in the Spiritual and Spiritual Too - pre-empting the current trend of one-box designs by nearly ten years.
However, BMW designers were also working on the problem, and took a more middle-of-the road approach. Graham Robson quotes, in his book
New Mini, one Rover engineer who was at the presentation to Rover engineers from their BMW counterparts. "When we saw their models it became clear that they had already settled on a theme, and we were looking at variations on that theme. They were...gratifyingly close to the front engine, front-wheel-drive 'Evolution' ideas we had already done. For us, it seemed, this was one possible way of perpetuating the Mini, but for BMW, clearly this was the only way."
The design that was finally approved was penned by Frank Stephenson.
On 26 May 1996, the entire design was then passed to Rover engineers, who were given the task of making it viable to manufacture. They had to sort out all the problems that arose with the suspension, drive train, body development, etc. According to Robson, work on the new MINI in Germany stopped, and whole responsibility was handed over to Rover’s small and sportscar platform director, Chris Lee, overnight. The packaging of the mechanical components and the interior design were to be the responsibility of Rover, but were handicapped by BMW’s insistence that the driving position be similar to that of the then current 3 Series BMW.
BMW also made it clear that the K-series engine was not an option, and that a totally new engine would need to be developed.
It was around this time that Mini was separated from the Rover Group into its own company under the BMW umbrella.
It would seem that even at this early stage, BMW was laying the groundwork to ensure Mini as a brand could be divorced from the Rover Group without relying on any existing Rover parts or infrastructure.
In early 2000 BMW, apparently not satisfied with the rate of progress (although the MINI was virtually finalised) shifted control of the entire project back to BMW in Germany.
Almost immediately afterwards, BMW announced its decision to sell off the Rover Group, except the MINI, due to the huge losses being incurred. The company was cut up and sold in portions. Land Rover & Jaguar to Ford, and MG & Rover to the Phoenix consortium (that in itself is a long story).
BMW also kept Cowley (now called BMW Plant Oxford) and MG-Rover got Longbridge (resulting in a major upheaval as Rover 75 production was moved to Longbridge, and the MINI production line, already virtually complete but not yet operational, was moved to Cowley). The upshot was that many people lost their jobs, and Birmingham lost the Mini – which the population is still very dark about, as I found out when I was there in a new MINI in September this year.
Now, things are a little more complicated, as Ford got the Land Rover facility at Gaydon, but not the British Motor Heritage Trust, which is an independent non-profit organisation. British Motor Heritage was a subsidiary of Rover, and separate from BMIHT, but in 2001 BMH was sold by BMW as an independent company, which it still is.
MG-Rover was permitted to continue building the Classic Mini (as it had become known), but only until the already decided end of production (we’ve got a feature on the final series of Minis in Issue 13 of TME – out now) in October 2000. Meanwhile, BMH, which was already building replacement Mini body shells (Mk3 to Mk5) when owned by Rover, was allowed to continue building the shells and other parts under license from BMW.
After a number of failed attempts to form manufacturing partnerships (Daewoo, Proton, China Brilliance) MG Rover reached an agreement with Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC), which would see the production of Rover cars in China, as well as Longbridge.
Keith Adams explains on his unofficial Austin-Rover website (
www.austin-rover.co.uk): “Between the rather unusual (it smacked of a controlled leak) press announcement of November that MG Rover and SAIC would be entering into 'a £1bn' Joint Venture (called the JVC in lieu of a more permanent title) deal, which would secure car production at Longbridge, but also mean several lines moving to Shanghai. In the months leading up to the planned inking of the JVC deal, MG Rover executives handed over the Intellectual Property Rights of the 25, 75, TF and K-Series engines in two tranches for a sum not much north of £67m - believing that these could be held in Shanghai, where much of the JVC management would be taking place.”
However, in March 2005 the deal collapsed, and MG Rover was left without the rights to the Rover cars or the K-Series engine. That only left them with production of the MGF, but in need of a completely new engine, or a partnership deal for an engine from another manufacturer.
The company was put into receivership, with car production halted, on 7 April 2005.
The remains of the company were bought by Nanjing Automobile (Group) Corporation later in 2005. NAC also bought the engine manufacturing company Powertrain Ltd, and intended restarting production of MG cars at Longbridge in 2007 (which has not yet happened as far as I know) as well as in China. Nanjing also announced its intention to reintroduce the Austin marque, though how they got the Austin name is not clear.
Are you as confused as me with all this?
So, in terms of the Mini brand name, BMW own the rights to the name, BMH build Mini body shells and parts under license, Rover continued to make the Mini under agreement only up until October 2000, and any other parties who want to manufacture parts, or use the Mini name in their business name have to reach an agreement with BMW.
However, when BMW forced many Mini businesses to change their names, by threatening legal action, prior to the release of the new MINI, a small band of UK businesses held out and took BMW to court – the basis of their case being previous use with the full knowledge of, and without objection from, the brand name’s previous owners. It would seem that they had success with this, as a number of UK businesses continue to use the Mini name.
Anybody else who has begun manufacture of products bearing the Mini name, design, or logo, is seen to be trying to capitalise on the name, and is being pursued by BMW in the courts, or at least with the threat of the courts.
I agree that the way they have handled this has been heavy handed and detrimental to the overall good will of the MINI product name, but I also accept that they have the right to protect their intellectual property. Some people, though not all involved I am sure, might simply be ignorant of the IP laws, and think that because Rover is dead that the name of the Mini is essentially public property, but it doesn’t work that way.
BUT, in Australia the ownership is less clear. BMC Australia was a wholly-owned subsidiary of BMC (UK), with Leyland Australia in turn being owned by Leyland in the UK. However, when Leyland was nationalised in the UK, Leyland Australia became Jaguar-Rover-Austin (JRA), which is now Land Rover Australia and owned by Ford. It is not clear, and nobody has yet been able to adequately explain to me, who owns the IP from BMC Australia, if indeed the BMW takeover of Rover Group UK included Australian subsidiaries, and to what extent that included retroactive appropriation of IP.
Basically, BMW owns the world rights to the name MINI, as well as the design of all components, but who owns the IP rights to such things as brochure design, films, photographs, etc, that were commissioned by BMC Australia?
Now that is something to digest.
Cheers,
Watto.
but doesn't mini and MINI mean some thing different 
