What could be less obnoxious than sending a private notice to the company? You say you don't blame Rolex, yet you blame Rolex. You say you get IP but it seems like you don't understand TM law. If you understand TM law, then you would know that Rolex had no choice but to defend the TM, otherwise they wouldn't be able to prevent knockoffs from using the Oyster name on their watches. Any brand would have had to do the same thing, whether they like it or not.I ordered one as well. I had an AA-battery powered clock in the kitchen for convenience and it's dying so I'll replace it with this one. Bought it off Amazon. Certainly all of my average, reasonably well informed friends will see it and be impressed that I have a genuine Rolex plastic clock in my kitchen.
You know, I don't blame Rolex for defending their trademark. I hold a couple U.S. patents with a couple more pending - so I "get" intellectual property. But I think there are certainly less obnoxious ways they could have gone about it. Also their statement that the average, reasonably well informed consumer would likely call the Rolex line of watches to mind when looking at the Oyster & Pop logo is so preposterous that they should be charged with perjury should they ever dare to utter it under oath.
The only reason this case seems obnoxious is because the clock company chose to rely on the ignorant court of public opinion for sympathy, by publicizing the situation. After all, they didn't have to talk to the press, right? I find them to be a bit disingenuous in playing the victim, given that their legal counsel would have explained the TM law to them.