thank you for proving my point
A sleazy British company is making a fake Rolex clock that threatens Rolexes revenues ($13,000,000,000 in 2021).
121 - 140 of 215 Posts
Just a point - the term "oyster" can be used in any other industry or undertaking in categories that Rolex hasn't registered the trademark for. So a pizza shop using the term or a sportswear company using the term wouldn't attract Rolex's ire or give them a case against that business, because they are not competing in the range of products. What brought Oyster & Pop to Rolex's attention is the fact that it's a clock, which is close enough to Rolex's business that they need to care. Usually, you don't license out trademarks. First, it dilutes your brand, because you didn't care for it enough that you traded it like a commodity and second, a trademark is meant to be your distinct mark(s) in your industry to distinguish you from all others.Confusion is not the only thing a trademark infringer can do. The trademark owner must also defend against trademark "dilution" which is the element being raised here.
Trademark "dilution" is the likelihood that the use of the mark will diminish the strength or value of the trademark by reducing the mark's distinctiveness or destroying the mark's image by connecting it to something negative or devaluing. No likelihood of confusion needs to be shown.
This can happen in one instance, or over a long period of time. For example, if "oyster" is used by O&P, and then by Tonka, and then by Mattel, and then by a pizza shop, and then by [add infringer A, B and C], then the word "oyster" becomes diminished as a brand. It's not so much confusion as the fact that it's been used so many times in so many different applications, perhaps some in a negative way, that it doesn't have any value anymore.
Or it could be one bad use, like using the word "oyster" for a drug helps that helps with constipation (with a clock symbol to boot)...just a joke example by me, but I hope you see the point.
So the word "oyster" becoming somewhat of a joke because of this issue, people buying the clock just because of the word "oyster" in conjunction with the negativity brought out by this issue, is evidence that the word "oyster" is actually being devalued.
So again, the trademark owner is under a constant duty to protect their trademark or run the risk of losing their trademark or the value of their trademark.
Rolex isn't in the watchmaking business, as its own chairman explained years ago.Rolex is really being a bunch of oysters over this... "bearded" ones!
But in all seriousness, the clock in question might just help children appreciate analog clocks, and, yes, watches. Since most these days think such timepieces are stupid, with their cellphones, it might be wise if the watch companies were supportive of anything that might keep them from dying completely in the not so distant future. In some strange way, the oyster name might also actually prove to be a sort of 'subliminal' advertising for Rolex in the future to the children who see the clock today.
When Rolex sent Oyster&Pop (I have one on the way now as a birthday gift for a youngster, seems like a cool bedroom wall accessory) a letter, it was actually sent to the owners by Rolex lawyers, saying "consumers will inevitably be misled into thinking that your products emanate from Rolex”.
I find it interesting. Rolex thinks all its customers are morons in a hurry. What's it like, being thought of as that stupid by the brand you lionise?
So now you're going to lecture me on the use of a word you incorrectly accused me of misusing earlier? Ok.You have made an accusation of bias in people’s reactions to this. It’s only bias if if the criticism is unfair, that’s the point. If you don’t believe there are patterns in the way businesses act, that’s surprising...
View attachment 17183301
Then your point is wrong. Read the definition again. Notice the word "especially" because I think that's what you're misreading. Unfairness is not a requirement for bias to be present. And people who exhibit confirmation bias don't know they're doing it, or they wouldn't be doing it. Because if they knew they were doing it, well, that falls under other terms, like strategy, or gaslighting.It’s only bias if if the criticism is unfair, that’s the point.
You asked:
That has nothing to do with the thread, and implies that your feelings about the company inform your position on this event. If that's what's happening, that's confirmation bias. On the other hand, I don't follow the actions of Rolex or any other watch company. I'm just not that into it. Although if you work in the industry, I could see how you would experience the contrasting differences in how watch companies operate and I think that's why we see this differently. As someone who's not looking at Rolex's history of behavior, I see this thread as reflecting an independent event. As such, I don't see their actions to be egregious. They're in the right, they know they're in the right, they're operating within the bounds of the law in protecting their trademark, and they'll win. OTOH if a person has a long disgust of the company, then this event represents one more piece of kindling on the already-lit fire. That's where the confirmation bias kicks in.So you believe that Rolex business practices are all fair and good?
He used words sleazy, threatens Rolex revenue and fake rolex clock showing picture of rolex found in the drawer and clock which looks nothing like that. As you know these threads even appeared on Casio subforum for whatever reason. And this one is 7 pages. Considering it about Rolex it not surprising.those other 2 threads about this weren't enough?
Waiting for threads with the twist.Quartz clock dilutes Roelx brand. Did value of my late uncle rolex i just found dropped due to these news and how much it could be worth?
Whole thing is ridiculous.
Should have purchased a GMT, then!He may be in a different time zone and the other 2 posts didn’t happen yet.
Again, people are buying these clocks to spite Rolex, does not prove Rolex’s point regarding dilution.Confusion is not the only thing a trademark infringer can do. The trademark owner must also defend against trademark "dilution" which is the element being raised here.
Trademark "dilution" is the likelihood that the use of the mark will diminish the strength or value of the trademark by reducing the mark's distinctiveness or destroying the mark's image by connecting it to something negative or devaluing. No likelihood of confusion needs to be shown.
This can happen in one instance, or over a long period of time. For example, if "oyster" is used by O&P, and then by Tonka, and then by Mattel, and then by a pizza shop, and then by [add infringer A, B and C], then the word "oyster" becomes diminished as a brand. It's not so much confusion as the fact that it's been used so many times in so many different applications, perhaps some in a negative way, that it doesn't have any value anymore.
Or it could be one bad use, like using the word "oyster" for a drug helps that helps with constipation (with a clock symbol to boot)...just a joke example by me, but I hope you see the point.
So the word "oyster" becoming somewhat of a joke because of this issue, people buying the clock just because of the word "oyster" in conjunction with the negativity brought out by this issue, is evidence that the word "oyster" is actually being devalued.
So again, the trademark owner is under a constant duty to protect their trademark or run the risk of losing their trademark or the value of their trademark.
I don’t disagree that Rolex has the right to protect their trademark, but people buying clocks from this company isn’t proving that their arguments are correct. Unfortunately we will never know if this is a valid defence, because it will never go to court.
I don’t disagree that Rolex has the right to protect their trademarks. I disagree with how they are going about it. If some of the previous information posted is true, it appears that there may have been some agreement between the two parties to have the O&P trademark registered under children’s education and toys. If that’s true, then this is pretty typical of how Rolex does things.On the other hand, I don't follow the actions of Rolex or any other watch company. I'm just not that into it. Although if you work in the industry, I could see how you would experience the contrasting differences in how watch companies operate and I think that's why we see this differently. As someone who's not looking at Rolex's history of behavior, I see this thread as reflecting an independent event. As such, I don't see their actions to be egregious. They're in the right, they know they're in the right, they're operating within the bounds of the law in protecting their trademark, and they'll win. OTOH if a person has a long disgust of the company, then this event represents one more piece of kindling on the already-lit fire. That's where the confirmation bias kicks in.
I understand you are ignorant of how they work in the industry, so you don’t see how they abuse their business partners, and have done so over decades (even requiring government intervention, a consent decree, and fines for violations of same in the US). What you call bias is my experience and recognizing the reality of how “charitable“ this company really is. Ignorance isn’t usually a valid defence, but I suppose it works in the Rolex subforum.
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...
Cheers, Al
The topic title of this thread was clearly sarcasm/humor and not meant literally.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...
So this company was fine until they moved away from the "toys" designation. Can't they just go back to that, or is this some publicity stunt on their part? Or have they burnt the "friendly path" with Rolex?
Fair enough...The topic title of this thread was clearly sarcasm/humor and not meant literally.
I suppose Rolex could be considered (big) children's toys, so maybe they have a point after all...Just a point - the term "oyster" can be used in any other industry or undertaking in categories that Rolex hasn't registered the trademark for. So a pizza shop using the term or a sportswear company using the term wouldn't attract Rolex's ire or give them a case against that business, because they are not competing in the range of products. What brought Oyster & Pop to Rolex's attention is the fact that it's a clock, which is close enough to Rolex's business that they need to care. Usually, you don't license out trademarks. First, it dilutes your brand, because you didn't care for it enough that you traded it like a commodity and second, a trademark is meant to be your distinct mark(s) in your industry to distinguish you from all others.
I didn't even notice what forum this was posted in. I don't visit the Rolex forum. This thread just showed up in my "Recommended" list (and how it determines that I have no idea). If you say Rolex has done bad things, I believe you! I have no reason to believe you're lying about that. But still, that history doesn't make actions in this specific case more or less egregious than they are. That would be confirmation bias. I didn't take issue with anyone treating the British company negatively because of what I read here. If I understand this correctly (please note the conditional), the British company knew they might have trouble with the name and proceeded anyway. To then turn to the press and cry foul is a bit (insert any number of adjectives here). So no, I'm not going to defend them.I don’t disagree that Rolex has the right to protect their trademarks. I disagree with how they are going about it. If some of the previous information posted is true, it appears that there may have been some agreement between the two parties to have the O&P trademark registered under children’s education and toys. If that’s true, then this is pretty typical of how Rolex does things.
I understand you are ignorant of how they work in the industry, so you don’t see how they abuse their business partners, and have done so over decades (even requiring government intervention, a consent decree, and fines for violations of same in the US). What you call bias is my experience and recognizing the reality of how “charitable“ this company really is. Ignorance isn’t usually a valid defence, but I suppose it works in the Rolex subforum.
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...
Cheers, Al
So a pattern of behaviour is no different than a one off thing in your eyes? Interesting.But still, that history doesn't make actions in this specific case more or less egregious than they are.
Lol this thread 🤦♂️ 🤦♂️ 🤦♂️
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
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
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.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.
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.
To me
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.
I do like the popsicle stick hands on the Oyster & pop clock.
121 - 140 of 215 Posts
WatchUSeek Watch Forums
A forum community dedicated to watch owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about watch collections, displays, watch winders, accessories, classifieds, and more! We welcome all manufacturers including Casio G-Shock, OMEGA, Rolex, Breitling, Rolex and Tudor, Seiko, Grand Seiko and others.
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Russ1965
2911 Replies
bigclive2011
1716 Replies
Nokie
1686 Replies
Recommended Communities
