Indeed but I can think of several similar stories where the courts deemed it highly improbable for there to be confusion between the two products or companies. If the products are not even relatively similar in any way, shape or form it will not hold up even in the most severe U.S. courthouses.

 

I agree, so many of this type of case are deemed frivolous. But with the armies of lawyers lurking here, I'm not surprised by the wasted legal efforts.

 

Of course the 3-series outsells the 1-series. I wasn't trying to suggest otherwise. The 3-series, in America, has long been a institution among driving enthusiasts. But, at least in my area, the 1-series has sold reasonably well. BMW, however, made a mitake by not marketing a lower-priced, 4-cylinder or decontented version. The American-spec 1-series is just too expensive.

Audi marketers should take note. If the A1 does come stateside, they should do a version that opens up the Audi market to those who are currently priced out, and not just do what BMW did......make it an A1 with A3/A4 engines. However, it is hard to argue against the 2.0T, if Audi decides to use it...that is a superb powerplant; one of my favorites.

 

Although this thread is about the A1 (not headed for US market anyway), I will put in my 2 cents on the 1 series since everybody else is.

The 1 series is ugly and overpriced and it's US sales rate of 1000 units a month is weak even in a recessionary economy. On the subject of making the car more downmarket (with 4 cylinder engine, etc.) in the hope of increasing sales, BMW and Mercedes have both had poor success in the US market with sawed-off, 4 cylinder, lower-priced versions of their cars.

 

You mean like an A5?

Maybe, but isn't the 'A' for Audi? Therefore, Audi-1, Audi-4, etc (I could be wrong but I *think* that's how that started)

 

I agree IS-SV, BMW making a 1 series with downsize engine or Audi selling the A1 in the US market is a mistake. It will hurt the image of the brand name. I beleive thats the reason why BMW made the 1 series so expensive, it is to not cheapen the brand name. Audi is trying to make a name for itself now in the US luxury market, it would be a big mistake to introduce a $20000 car now. I think we all have learn from Acura and what happen to them when they started making $20000 cars.

 

I disagree. Giving the 1-series the same engines (and almost the same price) as the 3-series, in America, did cost BMW some sales, although it is difficult to tell just how much. "Image" and brand name, here, is not the issue. Car buyers who wanted a more affordable 1-series could care less about brand "image". They just want the most BMW for the least money. They are basically the same type of people who buy (or bought) the Acura Integra/TSX/RSX, Infiniti G20, and Volvo C30. Audi has a chance, now, to market to them.....if the company doesn't blow it.

 

Brand name means everything to a car company like BMW, they spend years and millions trying to build it up. If one can get a BMW for around $20000, a lot of people will start to see the whole BMW line up in a different light. Thats why Rolls Royal do not sell sub compacts and that is exactly why Audi is not going to introduce the A1 in the US market.

 

I don't like it. Looks econo-car-ish. A3 looks much better.

 

If you're thinking such a car is underpowered, guess again. These modern mini engines are zippy and responsive. Cars like this don't need to be fast but they're fast in their own way (if that makes sense).

There is a Volkswagen Polo GTI in Europe, but it doesn't sell well at all. In fact, I consider the Polo GTI to be a pointless vehicle. The resale value on those things is also very poor.

 

Agreed.....to an extent. The VW/Audi 2.0T is one of the most responsive small engines, for its size, I can think of. Other good examples (with slightly larger displacement) can be found in the Mitsubishi Ralliart/Evo and Subaru WRX/STi. Many non-turbo engines that size, though, can be outrun by the average snail.