[half-past none]

I'm getting one because now I've seen one, I think they're cool. Was a bit dissappointed there weren't any S/S versions available though......
Hoping to flip on the grey market if they have to rebrand at twice retail price.

 

[dgaddis]

I hate when big companies piss on the little guy when it really doesn't make sense, and this is one of those cases for sure. Also, I've got a little lady at home who turns 5 soon, so this will be useful, so I ordered one!

 

[Seabee1]

I hate when big companies piss on the little guy

i didn't get that from the article, how did you come to that conclusion?

 

[dgaddis]

i didn't get that from the article, how did you come to that conclusion?

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.

 

[Seabee1]

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

 

[dgaddis]

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.

 

[Seabee1]

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

 

[TimeNewbie]

so then it's really NOT
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

you think all legal things are ethical?

 

[One-Seventy]

I do like the popsicle stick hands on the Oyster & pop clock.

Stolen valor, it rips off <goes off to find unverified, uncited internet-only source that claims to know which brand first did lollipop hands> Rochefoucauld. Rochefoucauld should sue. Damn rip-off merchants stealing other people's ideas without paying up.

© WatchUSeek 2022

 

[Jonathan T]

wow, rolex must really feel threatened by this...

 

[Earthjade]

The first thing you are taught at law school is that the law and justice are not the same thing. However, laws are created and judicial decisions on existing laws are made with justice as an ideal.

 

[MarkinKC]

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.

Except no one on earth would ever ever ever look at that brightly colored, plastic children's educational clock and think "It could be a Rolex!" Rolex doesn't even make clocks.

 

[MarkinKC]

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.

This clock is NOT "close enough to Rolex's business." Rolex doesn't make a single clock. That's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

[MarkinKC]

i didn't get that from the article, how did you come to that conclusion?

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.

 

[MarkinKC]

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.

Rolex will put them out of business with court costs alone, and Rolex won't even feel it.

 

[Earthjade]

This clock is NOT "close enough to Rolex's business." Rolex doesn't make a single clock. That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Not my opinion.
Rolex registered the "Oyster" trademark in the UK in 1926 under Trademark Class 14.

Search for a trade mark - Intellectual Property Office

trademarks.ipo.gov.uk

Class 14: Precious metals and their alloys; jewellery, costume jewellery, precious stones; horological and chronometric instruments, clocks and watches.

London IP | Trademark Classes Information

London IP offers a trademark filing service to classify your goods and services. Here is a detailed list of all 45 Trademark Classes.

www.londonip.co.uk

Just for reference, Rolex has also registered (USA years as indicative) "Oyster Perpetual" in 1978, "Oysterlock" in 1996, "Oysterclasp" in 2010, "Oystersteel" in 2018 and "Oysterflex" in 2015.

You're welcome.

 

[Bluco]

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.

You misunderstand both what a ‘trademark’ is and what ‘dilution’ means. Rolex do not own the commercial rights of the word ‘oyster’. Period.

 

[Seabee1]

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?

 

[Archer]

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?

Once again, this assumes the "infringement" is real and proven. No formal judgement has been made on this...something to keep in mind...

 

[BrianBinFL]

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?