[odarg64]

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.


View attachment 17177785

My kids love it, I put it in their playroom.

How loudly does it tick? I'd be interested if it's reasonably quiet.

 

[odarg64]

It sweeps, so there’s no annoying ticking at all. That was a big winner.

Excellent. Thank you!

 

[odarg64]

Frankly, I don't understand the outrage towards Rolex. Apparently, the Swiss have had various names and terms protected for use as trademarks on watches and wristwatches. So the fault here clearly lies with the company "Oyster & Pop", who obviously didn't bother to find out if the term "Oyster" is already protected.
If I start building cars tomorrow and call my company "A1 Quattro", the day after tomorrow the legal department of Audi AG will knock on my door and more or less kindly ask me to come up with another brand name – and rightly so.

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.

 

[odarg64]

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.