WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
13,192 Posts
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?
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?

it's apparent you either don't understand or simply DGAF about IP law and how it may be that the mom&pop clock shop may not have intended to be malicious initially it didn't come up on their radar but now that it has, it appears they've chosen to take it to the court of public opinion, you know, the way some people do when the manager is not available and they're very displeased with the product or service they received; the Karens and Kens of the world.

For S&G maybe look up squatters rights (as it may ring closer to home) and see how the little guy can stick it to the big guy, even if, ironically you happen to be the big guy (thing AirBnB or tenant/landlord for starters)
 

· Registered
Joined
·
13,192 Posts
I 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.
here's the winning answer, from a seasoned, Intellectual Properties barrister with years of experience in these matters. well done sir, well done
 

· Registered
Joined
·
13,192 Posts
seems to me nobody here has all of the information outside of what has been made publicly known. the sis&sis shop are playing to the public, presenting as a victim and playing on everyone's sympathy for the downtrodden. meanwhile rolex appears to be self-portraying as the ogre, not apparently caring how they are seen and only concerned that they protect their property at all costs.

insofar as I have come to understand it, the sis&sis shop appear to have escalated the situation, firstly by not taking advice as to the use of the word oyster and secondly by appealing to the court of public opinion. it won't come as any surprise if a go fund me is started for their legal defense.

because there are threads on this topic floating around like sparks from a campfire it's hard to remember who said what, where but IIRC there have been at least two lawyers weigh in on the responsibilities of trademark holder in defense of their trademark and that rolex is doing what is expected of them in order to protect and maintain their trademark. For all intents and purposes what rolex is doing is - in a way - little different than locking the door, throwing a deadbolt, checking the windows and if someone tries to break in, threatening to call the cops while standing on their side of the door with a shotgun in hand. I mean come on, there are a lot of people here who have said they would shoot in defense of their watch. figuratively what rolex is doing is the same thing; try to steal our trademark and we'll shoot.

it's understandable that people's first reaction is to come to the defense of the little person being abused by the big bad corporate wolf but Big Wolf has their own way of doing things and while appearances count...someone like rolex doesn't need to be concerned with those appearances. it certainly won't keep people from buying their product based on the oyster issue as it hasn't keep people from buying their products based on alleged supply hold backs, market manipulation or tacit approval of the gray market.

so for those that count and care, you can add one more thing to tell you what you need to know when you see someone wearing a rolex: that they side with Big Wolf and hate the little guy. and for those that wear rolex, or aspire to, you too can be assured that in doing so there will be a flurry triggered snowflakes and dandelions alike
 

· Registered
Joined
·
13,192 Posts
To me
What 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.
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 jewelery
 

· Registered
Joined
·
13,192 Posts
It 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
 

· Registered
Joined
·
13,192 Posts
so you're an IP lawyer and understand the intricacies of IP
Clearly not. I do know enough to know that Rolex is well within their legal rights here, but, I also think they're over reaching.
so then it's really NOT
when big companies piss on the little guy
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 reason
 

· Registered
Joined
·
13,192 Posts
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.
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?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
13,192 Posts
Once again, this assumes the "infringement" is real and proven. No formal judgement has been made on this...something to keep in mind...
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).
what's the saying...and the truth shall set ye free, hopefully before those villagers with torches and pitchforks get any closer
 

· Registered
Joined
·
13,192 Posts
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...
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.

Too often in a discussion, especially in a long one, people chime in only after reading the OP (some only after reading the title, it would appear) and so miss out on all of the following comments, links, citations and those ever annoying facts. Yes I heard you, not a lot of facts available yet but of the people I'm talking about, they mostly have no need for facts, it's all about the thinks and feels and, while one can't speak to their habits of reducing fats or sugars in their diets one can see that they go to great effort to live a fact-free life

haha i'm kidding...of course rolex is a mean poopy-head for profit non-charitable company out to crush the spirit of the little man
 

· Registered
Joined
·
13,192 Posts
Come tomorrow, I (or rather my 7 year old)will be the proud owner of this children's wall clock, because I will not support knockoffs or infringers
Watch Clock Font Material property Slope


to be honest, I believe it's a more clear and concise layout for a(my) child to read and understand

P.S. there are a number of very similar clocks out there and one has to wonder...is the two sisters wall clock perhaps an homage to some other one? before you back the underdog make sure it didn't actually steal a bone from another dog
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top