WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,361 Posts
There was no wait list and so I bought one. It was a bit of a middle finger up to Rolex for their nasty bullying.
(picture removed)
My kids love it, I put it in their playroom.
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.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,361 Posts
What could be less obnoxious than sending a private notice to the company?
Well, not saying insane crap like this for starters: "the average, reasonably well informed consumer would likely call the Rolex line of watches to mind when looking at the Oyster & Pop logo".

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.
I'm far from an expert on TM law (more seasoned on patent law), but I did start pulling up which classifications Rolex has trade marked the term "oyster" by itself (versus other marks like "oystersteel", "oysterquartz", "oysterlock", "oysterflex", etc.) Though I decided that nobody probably cared and stopped looking into it, it was starting to look to me like the way "Oyster" is registered in the U.S. wouldn't even apply to clocks.

Rolex's "oyster" trademark is registered in two categories:
  1. IC 018. US 001 002 003 022 041. G & S: LUGGAGE, SUITCASES, [ ATTACHE CASES, BRIEFCASES, TOILETRY CASES SOLD EMPTY, GARMENT BAGS FOR TRAVEL, SAMPLE CASES IN THE NATURE OF LARGE CARRYING CASES, SHOULDER BAGS, TOTE BAGS, DUFFLE BAGS, PURSES, WALLETS AND HANDBAGS ]
  2. IC 014. US 027. G & S: WATCHES, [ MOVEMENTS, CASES, ] DIALS [ , AND OTHER PARTS OF WATCHES ]. FIRST USE: 19260700. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19260700
Now "small clocks" is 14-168, not 14-027. And 14-027 (the category they registered it in) is "watches, movements, cases, dials, and other parts of watches". And of course clocks and watches are not the same thing.

Now I know that "famous marks" automatically get broader protection than ordinary marks. But is the "oyster" mark famous? Certainly "Rolex" is a famous mark. If you walk up to anybody on the street and ask "what is Rolex?" they will almost certainly know. But if you walk up to the average person on the street and say "what is Oyster, other than the animal?", or even "if you see a clock that says Oyster on it, what do you think of?", I'd aver that they do not answer "a Rolex wristwatch".

All of the above notwithstanding, it appears that the present action (or threat of action) is occurring in the UK. Therefore the analysis of the U.S. registrations of the word "Oyster", and the discussion of U.S. trademark law, is not particularly relevant. I have no idea how the mark is registered in the UK, nor any clue whatsoever about how UK trademark law works.

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.
Well, according to one article the Oyster & Pop folks tangled with Rolex in the U.S. when O&P attempting to register their name as a mark. Rolex objected. But then Rolex apparently agreed that if Oyster & Pop changed the category to "Childrens Toys and Games" instead of "Clocks", then Rolex would be OK with it. That seems reasonable. But then I guess Rolex decided they weren't OK with it after all.

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.
I will agree that O&P should have done a trademark search up front. But I would guess that this is a very small operation. They probably had no clue if this product would be successful or not and launched it on a shoe string budget. Once they saw they had a winner then they probably said "oh man, we better protect this name". And then they found out they had a problem.

Now all of that is speculation, but this certainly does not appear to be a case of some major manufacturer like Hasbro or Mattell launching a new product and having ample resources to do all of the things that we might suggest that O&P should have done. And of course I know that none of that matters in the analysis of the IP issues involved here. I'm just saying that not every little endeavor is going to begin with a discussion with an IP attorney. But yes, of course they proceed at their own peril for not doing so.

With what I've looked at so far, if their registered marks in the UK are similar to their registered marks in the US, I'm not even certain Rolex has the legal ability to prevent O&P from using the word Oyster the way they have. But they have the money to bully the defendant into submission, so that wouldn't matter much. If however they do have the legal right to preclude O&P from using the mark, then yes, they must defend their mark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ScootGaloot

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,361 Posts
Thanks for the well-reasoned post.

If I was Rolex, I would settle with the company with some really small, nominal licensing fee to use that word. In the licensing agreement, I would limit the use of the word "oyster" for wall clocks only used primarily as a learning tool for children, and not in anything else, whether it be T-shirts or the like, unless they were willing to pay an additional fee for the use of the word in marketing materials.
Given that there is exactly zero risk of confusion between O&P's clocks and Rolex, I think this would be a sound course of action for Rolex to take. If it actually diluted their trademark at all, then no, but in this case, you're right - this would be a win-win.

BTW, from what I read, Oyster & Pop was told that using "Oyster" in the category of timekeeping devices would present problems. Oyster & Pop decided to get cute and instead use Oyster in the "children's toys" or "educational devices" category. So O&P had some inkling this could be a problem and went forward anyway.
From the handful of articles that I've read O&P came on Rolex's radar in the first place due to their filing for a trademark on Oyster&Pop. Prior to that it seems Rolex was unaware of them (no doubt as was most of the world). One article I read said that it was Rolex themselves that said if they'd change the category to "Children's toys and games" Rolex would withdraw their objection. But the article wasn't 100% clear on that point.

The Oyster&Pop trademark application in the US shows as "abandoned" in TESS. The article I read suggests that the Oyster&Pop trademark application in the UK is still alive, with Rolex objecting of course.

So one way forward for this would be if the UK trademark office rules for O&P, despite Rolex's objection, and allows the mark. Then Rolex has done their due diligence to protect their mark, and the usage is blessed by the government and they can't be accused of not defending it - the matter is out of their hands.

I have no idea how either the US or the UK system works on matters like this. I would think if it was Rolex&Pop (Rolex being a contrived word and clearly a famous mark) then they would certainly rule against the newcomers. But since "oyster" is a generic word, and I'm not sure that "oyster" qualifies as a famous mark, it seems there might be room for the UK agency to grant the O&P mark. But that's wild speculation on my part with absolutely no knowledge or information to support it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bluco

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,361 Posts
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...
The topic title of this thread was clearly sarcasm/humor and not meant literally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cykrops

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,361 Posts
I got the call today and went and picked up my awesome new Oyster wristwatch. I'm concerned that the case is a little too big for me and it makes my wrist look small. Any tips for a good NATO strap for this?
Plant Hand Watch Gesture Clock
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
1,361 Posts
Just got the call from the AD (Amazon Driver) and rushed out to
take delivery before they let it go to someone else.
(snip)
Clock Measuring instrument Watch Circle Font
I see you went with the sportier dial - I guess yours is a "professional" reference. I went with the dressier dial as I think I'll tend to wear mine more with a suit.

Something seems off about the font on yours. I would say that perhaps you should get it checked to make sure it's not been re-dialed, but I know you got yours directly from the AD, so it should be fine.

I don't know if you're having the same problem as me, but it's not the thickness that's making it difficult for mine to slip under a shirt cuff, it's the diameter. I know everyone here says it's fine, but this really does wear large compared to my other Rolex watches.

Plant Hand Watch Gesture Clock
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top