those other 2 threads about this weren't enough?
so ripping off a company is okay in your book (I'm making a leap here that you have at least one book) so long as it's the big guy getting ripped off by the little guy? ripping off is okay if it means it's givin' it to the man. Have you read the comments here or are you one of those people who read the title/first post, nod your head and think. 'yup...got it' and then dive in with a skewed, misinformed and highly subjective opinion?There's another example of why I love it when people make unmoral (with copyrighted name/logo) replicas of ROLEX watches, especially of "classic" models no longer made by the company. Rolex is petty and like so many more parasitic capitalists schemes subverts our rights to fair use, independent repair, they are evil. That's glock just a silly thing for children, can there be a better example of chilling overreach?
here's the winning answer, from a seasoned, Intellectual Properties barrister with years of experience in these matters. well done sir, well doneI don’t see the Rolex name or crown logo on this wall clock, so the complaint should be tossed out. The clock looks nothing like any Rolex.
Neither fan nor opponent here, just an amused observer. That said, based on the present info I do believe rolex is just defending their IP. Granted some here would defend rolex against the most horrendous charges while others would condemn there for grammar or punctuation errors. I can't imagine being that tribal or partisan over something as superficial as man jeweleryWhat we certainly don't know, is if Rolex's claims are valid. It seems the lawyers are all assuming it would be, and that Rolex is in the right - not surprising here in the Rolex forum, but viewing this as an outsider, it seems the use of the word Oyster in this context is a tenuous link to Rolex at best.
Of course, this won't ever get tested, and the Rolex fanboys will believe that Rolex is true and noble as they have always been.
so you're an IP lawyer and understand the intricacies of IPIt just happens a lot. Examples from my cycling days:
Specialized made a company called "Epic Designs" change their name because Specialized sells a MTB called the 'Epic' and they claimed Epic Designs could confuse consumers due to their name. Epic designs made frame and saddle bags to strap to your bike to carry camping gear and whatnot for multi day rides. They didn't make bicycles. Also, claiming to own the word 'Epic' is a stretch. Specialized sent a cease and desist letter, Epic Designs was a very small company (literally a handful of people) who definitely didn't have the time or financial resources to challenge one of the largest cycling companies in the world, so just changed their name to Revelate Designs.
Another Specialized example, they did a similar thing for similar claimed reasons against a shop called "Roubaix Cycle Works' or something like that, it was a bike shop that sold a few different brands IIRC....and I think they were in Canada somewhere, but my memory if fuzzy on that. Specialized makes a bicycle called the Roubaix, a name which they got from an iconic and very famous French road bike race called Paris-Roubaix that's been around long before Specialized existed. The race runs from Paris to Roubaix, which is a town that has existed since long before bicycles even existed.
Both instances Specialized claimed that using those words (Epic and Roubaix) could confuse consumers and hurt their bottom line. Just like this instance of Rolex vs Oyster & Pop, I think any reasonable person would find that to be untrue.
so you're an IP lawyer and understand the intricacies of IP
so then it's really NOTClearly not. I do know enough to know that Rolex is well within their legal rights here, but, I also think they're over reaching.
and if you "...know enough to know that rolex is well within their legal rights..." then you sure as hell know that it's NOT overreach...how can it be overreach if they are within their legal rights? sounds more like I-hate-rolex-because-rolex then for any justifiable reasonwhen big companies piss on the little guy
defend itself against infringing on rolex's trademark? maybe they shouldn't be infringing on the trademark because that's what this is all about. or have you not bothered to read all the comments here and in the other identical threads?Because the clock company doesn't have hundreds of million dollars to defend itself in court against a $13,000,000,000 company. Rolex will put them out of business.
I understand that nothing is proven; what I'm saying/reiterating is if this is a case of trademark infringement then rolex has a responsibility to protect/retain their trademark. whereas others are just jumping in and simply calling rolex out for harassing some small mom&pop business which suggests to me that those comments are coming not from any awareness of the facts but from a particularly virulent band of rolex-haters who hate rolex because...rolex (not unlike a recent discussion where someone was trashing a brand and a specific watch simply because they kept missing out on the limited edition offerings and became spiteful because of it).Once again, this assumes the "infringement" is real and proven. No formal judgement has been made on this...something to keep in mind...
I'm not saying rolex is right, only that, if they are right then they are doing what is right for them and their brand. I have no dog in this fight as I neither own nor have any interest in owning a rolex. but I am seeing people who are immediately assume rolex is at fault and cite how rolex behaves as a business as proof of their culpability in this instance. others seem to feel that even if they aren't technically at fault they are still wrong and should just let it go; not caring how IP works or what a company may have to do to protect their IP.But the other "side" of this is people simply saying Rolex is right to protect their trademark. This makes an assumption that the claim Rolex is making (that's all it is - a claim) is true. I recall a bunch of lawyers jumping in when the case was filed by employees of a Rolex AD in the US for wrongful dismissal not that long ago, saying that the claims in their filing were just that - claims, and had to be treated with appropriate caution until proven. That sort of thinking appears to have gone out the window when it's Rolex doing the claiming. There is just an assumption that Rolex is in the right by those who are spouting the law.
I think regardless of the hate or love for Rolex one might have, the inequities in the "justice" system that a case like this exposes is something we should all be concerned about. Winning shouldn't be about money, and this in case that's all it's about...