WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner
41 - 60 of 213 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
486 Posts
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.
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,938 Posts
Suing people might be less expensive and more effective than conventional advertising. Kinda like doing a Kickstarter project when you don't need the money. There is a good chance Rolex does this on purpose to maintain their reputation and invigorate their base.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
13,840 Posts
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.
Overpriced to you, but not to the Rolex owners in this forum, and speaking of learning, your parents should have tought you not to insult people that don't agree with you; it's safer to walk around not knowing how to read the time on an analog watch, than insulting random people... just sayin'
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,322 Posts
 
Products I own:
  • +4 
Show off what you own too!
  • Like
Reactions: odarg64

· Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,322 Posts
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.
********.

It's a frivolous lawsuit aimed at going after a company that doesn't have the financial resources to fight back.

Nobody in their right mind thinks that a children's clock branded "Oyster & Pop" has anything to do with Rolex. Period.

If they labeled it "Rolex Oyster" or "Oyster Perpetual" then Rolex would have grounds - this is just meanspirited and totally turns me off their brands entirely. No longer going to buy that Tudor that was on my list.
 
Products I own:
  • +4 
Show off what you own too!
  • Like
Reactions: M111 and odarg64

· Registered
Joined
·
3,744 Posts
@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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
10,572 Posts
@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.
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,505 Posts
Just a bit of a middle finger? Not confident to go all the way up? And don’t you Brits double finger? Longbow archers and all?
We cater to our audience!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,505 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: cykrops

· Registered
Joined
·
2,163 Posts
****.

It's a frivolous lawsuit aimed at going after a company that doesn't have the financial resources to fight back.

Nobody in their right mind thinks that a children's clock branded "Oyster & Pop" has anything to do with Rolex. Period.

If they labeled it "Rolex Oyster" or "Oyster Perpetual" then Rolex would have grounds - this is just meanspirited and totally turns me off their brands entirely. No longer going to buy that Tudor that was on my list.
Yup, you show them Mark! Tudor going down due to one watch sale!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
984 Posts
@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."
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,505 Posts
Would be better if you were true to yourself. I actually prefer the British double finger version. More of a visual impact.
To be fair that’s not a British thing. It’s an English thing. I’m not English.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Msiekierski

· Premium Member
Joined
·
552 Posts
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.
Forehead Microphone Collar Dress shirt Event
 
41 - 60 of 213 Posts
Top