[Al.Macrest]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Al.Macrest]

Did you name your car company "A1 Quattro" after your hometown?

Oyster & Pop is selling a clever children's learning tool. Rolex is selling overpriced fashion watches to tools. Big difference.

You don't seem to get that Rolex's actions actually have nothing to do with Oyster & Pop. If Rolex, or any other company selling any other product, does not enforce their TM, they lose it. Rolex wouldn't be afraid of Oyster & Pop nor would they want to squash them. What they more rightly are concerned about is if they don't defend the TM, it allows knockoff manufacturers to start using the Oyster name. Oyster & Pop should have been a bit more diligent in doing a trademark search before putting the Oyster name on a timepiece. It doesn't matter that the timepiece looks nothing like a Rolex. It's a timepiece, and if Rolex lets it go, it opens the door for any knockoff to use the name. Rolex, or any other company in a smiliar situation, wouldn't have a choice. Once Oyster & Pop used that name, it tied their hands.

I'm way more irritated with Oyster & Pop because I don't believe that they intentionally tried to use the name. IMO they were just sloppy about considering naming and the legal implications. Rolex isn't the first cause here, and now that they forced Rolex's hand, they're playing the victim.

 

[Al.Macrest]

Hey they will rebrand, get free press, get a pop of rev and be happy. Due diligence is important if you have any questions in your process, seek a consultant. At the end of day they still profit off this gimmick or unintentional flub.

Yes, and I see that they made a couple of sales right in this forum from the attention! I have nothing against Oyster & Pop, and nothing for Rolex. If my statements are strong it's because I'm seeing an influx of nasty statements against Rolex based on lack of knowledge of how TM works. If it wasn't Rolex, if it was some other brand, I'd still defend them against ignorance of the law. In these situations, it's the TM owner who is the victim because of the bad press.

 

[Al.Macrest]

Rolex has every right to protect its trademarks, but the solution they have proposed is not the only way. The claim that Rolex lawyers have made, that a reasonable consumer will be confused, and come to believe these children's clocks are made by Rolex, is absurd. Rolex clearly thinks their customers are complete idiots based on this.

Rather than force this company to change their name, they could simply request a disclaimer, that these clocks are not affiliated with Rolex. Companies do this all the time on their web sites with respect to Rolex, and Rolex is fine with it. The manner in which Rolex is enforcing their rights is the issue for me personally.

Archer, the devil's in the details on this one. Have those other web sites actually entered into an agreement with Rolex to use one of their trademarked names? Or do they just sell watches that look a lot like Rolex, and may even descriptively mention Rolex in the nominative sense ("similar to..."), and have posted a disclaimer of their own accord to cover their bases? I can't see Rolex (or any major successful brand) entering into an agreement to let someone else use one of their names with just a disclaimer. So long as a TM'd name isn't used, no agreement of any kind is necessary.

The issue at hand with Oyster & Pop is that they're using a trademarked name. This is just conjecture on my part, but I think it's possible they never consulted legal counsel about the company name. Any competent lawyer with experience in trademark law would have done a TM search. Heck, any competent lawyer is probably wearing a Rolex, is intimately familiar with Oyster, and doesn't have to bother searching.

I try to stick to what I know and not what I assume or don't know. WRT the wording in the Rolex complaint, the law is filled with nomenclature and language mechanics that are specific and must be followed. For all I know, the product confusion language is standard wording for a TM complaint. Just as "A novel method [or device]..." is standard wording on a patent application. I know patent examiners. I've spoken to them at length, and the wording has to be a certain way. So I'm going to err on the side of not casting aspersions on the TM owner over legal wording.

 

[Al.Macrest]

@Al.Macrest @Panerol Forte
Let it be. It seems that most people here are no longer interested in facts, but only in getting one over on the hated Rolex SA, at least verbally. The fact that every brand owner can lose the rights to his brand, which has usually been built up with a lot of effort and money, if he does not defend it, is also of little interest.

"Against stupidity, even the Gods fight non-victorious."

 

[Al.Macrest]

Now if Rolex is willing to allow this - places selling actual parts for their watches so the association couldn't be more clear - without taking any action, then why would they go after a small operation like Oyster & Pop, where there's clearly (to anyone with even 1/2 a brain) no connection to Rolex?
...
So in this context, where companies regularly sell products with Rolex trademarks on them, and sell products for Rolex watches without any legal action from Rolex, does it not seem a bit much that they go after a couple of women making clocks for kids with no real connection to Rolex or any of their products?

No, it doesn't seem a bit much because there's a huge distinction.
These examples are parts, and references to Rolex trademarked names are in the nominative sense as references. There's nothing illegal about that, nor could Rolex do anything about it. Oyster & Pop are using a trademarked name as a part of their trade name within the same trade. That's what got them in hot water. Rolex is not trying to bully them, but they're forced to do something about it because if they don't, other people making knockoff watches could use the Oyster name and there's nothing Rolex could do about it. This isn't really about Rolex bullying Oyster & Pop. It's about Oyster & Pop putting Rolex in a position where they have to defend the trademark so other entities don't abuse it. I can't make it any clearer than that.

 

[Al.Macrest]

You are a very patient man, I admire you 😉

I try, above all, to be respectful because I believe everyone deserves respect, even if they are not respectful in return. I'm not 100% successful, but everyone needs a goal. Some people are so biased against Rolex it's blatantly obvious in the twisted, tortured logic. If the company name was Sinn & Pop, and Sinn sent them the letter, there wouldn't even be a OP about it. I'm sure some people think I'm some sort of Rolex fan-boy, but all I'm trying to do is shine a flashlight in the dark. If it seems like I'm always defending Rolex, it's because Rolex is always the one people jump on. I would have defended any watch company that sent the letter.

Sucess is its own worse enemy. What I have noticed is that people resent success in others, be it people or companies. The greater the success, the greater the resentment. Read the news, see the patterns. Success means power and the more powerful companies or people become, the more other people fear them. Don't like Rolex? Build a better company instead of cursing the self-imposed darkness. People love to commiserate about these things because misery loves company.

 

[Al.Macrest]

You are certainly right Archer, you did well correcting @Al.Macrest, even though he used the adjective "biased", not the word "bias", but nevertheless, you should send a letter to those ignorants at Oxford that seem to also not understand the meaning of "biased" (they are not the only ones, but I'll let you expose the others). Keep on the good work Archer, you have my full support
View attachment 17182822

biased adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

Definition of biased adjective in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Meaning, pronunciation, picture, example sentences, grammar, usage notes, synonyms and more.

www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com

Thanks, but I'm not expecting a "Mea Culpa" anytime soon. When I have to fight a battle over the English language, I'm done.

 

[Al.Macrest]

So you believe that Rolex business practices are all fair and good?

It doesn't even matter. How is it germane to this thread? The incident is an independent event. When folks say something to the effect of, "You see? This is exactly what I expect from Rolex, and proves my point about them," what is exhibited is confirmation bias. Look it up. BTW, being biased doesn't require lack of foundation, it only requires that a person be prejudicial. Therefore your argument is flawed. Asking if Rolex practices are all fair and good is an exhibition of confirmation bias, as if some opinion you hold about them has anything to do with this one independent event. The brain wants to believe it all fits a pattern, therefore Rolex is in the wrong here by this way of thinking.

 

[Al.Macrest]

You have made an accusation of bias in people’s reactions to this. It’s only bias if if the criticism is unfair, that’s the point. If you don’t believe there are patterns in the way businesses act, that’s surprising...
View attachment 17183301

So now you're going to lecture me on the use of a word you incorrectly accused me of misusing earlier? Ok.

It’s only bias if if the criticism is unfair, that’s the point.

Then your point is wrong. Read the definition again. Notice the word "especially" because I think that's what you're misreading. Unfairness is not a requirement for bias to be present. And people who exhibit confirmation bias don't know they're doing it, or they wouldn't be doing it. Because if they knew they were doing it, well, that falls under other terms, like strategy, or gaslighting.
You asked:

So you believe that Rolex business practices are all fair and good?

That has nothing to do with the thread, and implies that your feelings about the company inform your position on this event. If that's what's happening, that's confirmation bias. On the other hand, I don't follow the actions of Rolex or any other watch company. I'm just not that into it. Although if you work in the industry, I could see how you would experience the contrasting differences in how watch companies operate and I think that's why we see this differently. As someone who's not looking at Rolex's history of behavior, I see this thread as reflecting an independent event. As such, I don't see their actions to be egregious. They're in the right, they know they're in the right, they're operating within the bounds of the law in protecting their trademark, and they'll win. OTOH if a person has a long disgust of the company, then this event represents one more piece of kindling on the already-lit fire. That's where the confirmation bias kicks in.

 

[Al.Macrest]

I don’t disagree that Rolex has the right to protect their trademarks. I disagree with how they are going about it. If some of the previous information posted is true, it appears that there may have been some agreement between the two parties to have the O&P trademark registered under children’s education and toys. If that’s true, then this is pretty typical of how Rolex does things.

I understand you are ignorant of how they work in the industry, so you don’t see how they abuse their business partners, and have done so over decades (even requiring government intervention, a consent decree, and fines for violations of same in the US). What you call bias is my experience and recognizing the reality of how “charitable“ this company really is. Ignorance isn’t usually a valid defence, but I suppose it works in the Rolex subforum.

I also note that the Rolex defenders who jump on any criticism made against the company, didn’t bother to take issue with the OP calling the British company “sleazy” which seems quite unwarranted. But I don’t expect unbiased opinions (using your definition) here I suppose...

Cheers, Al

I didn't even notice what forum this was posted in. I don't visit the Rolex forum. This thread just showed up in my "Recommended" list (and how it determines that I have no idea). If you say Rolex has done bad things, I believe you! I have no reason to believe you're lying about that. But still, that history doesn't make actions in this specific case more or less egregious than they are. That would be confirmation bias. I didn't take issue with anyone treating the British company negatively because of what I read here. If I understand this correctly (please note the conditional), the British company knew they might have trouble with the name and proceeded anyway. To then turn to the press and cry foul is a bit (insert any number of adjectives here). So no, I'm not going to defend them.