What a jerk - I would never buy from him either! As far as the suit is concerned, Kubota did not make the first tractor, or the first orange tractor. They also did not invent the modern CUT from whole cloth one day either - that was a long evolution of several manufactures in several countries, driven by different agricultural and economic conditions than were found in the states. Kubota was simply the first of the Japanese tractor manufacturers to market their products in North America under their own name. Iseki, Yanmar, Mitsubishi, and others decided to partner with existing US manufacturer instead. Daedong claims to have made their first tractor 36 years ago, and if you look at what Kubota was making in 1968, I'll bet it was pretty crude, so I would say Daedong has been part of the evolution too.
A look at the grey market tractor websites will show you that all of the Asian CUTs have that boxy monster look, so I hardly think Kubota has any rights to it. In fact, Kioti has moved on to a much sleeker look than you'll find on any Kubota (CK series).
Actually, if you put a set of R4s on a MF 231S and look at its specs, you'll find that it compares pretty well with the larger 2WD CUTs produced recently, and that is a direct decedent of an old MF35, and my TO20. The darn thing has been in production almost 55yrs! At the time the Japanese manufacturers started making tractors I'm sure they were looking at units like the MF35, but probably needed something a bit smaller and cheaper, while at the same time the US brands were moving to bigger and more expensive units. Now their products have moved up into this size range.
As far as the color orange, I seem to remember another company that sold orange tractors.....Why didn't Kubota pick purple or pink when they started bringing tractors into NA? Kubota suing Daedong for using the color orange is as silly as if they sued them for using the 3PH that they & everyone else swiped from Ferguson.
Apparently some folks can't separate marketing hype from reality. Things said by corporate marketing guys and lawyers are not required to have any relationship with fact, they are said to make money, and if they happen to be true, that's just a happy coincidence!
Ok, I feel better now!