i didn't get that from the article, how did you come to that conclusion?I hate when big companies piss on the little guy
It just happens a lot. Examples from my cycling days:i didn't get that from the article, how did you come to that conclusion?
so you're an IP lawyer and understand the intricacies of IPIt 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.
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 you're an IP lawyer and understand the intricacies of IP
so you're an IP lawyer and understand the intricacies of IP
so then it's really NOTClearly not. I do know enough to know that Rolex is well within their legal rights here, but, I also think they're over reaching.
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 reasonwhen big companies piss on the little guy
you think all legal things are ethical?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
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.I do like the popsicle stick hands on the Oyster & pop clock.
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.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.
This clock is NOT "close enough to Rolex's business." Rolex doesn't make a single clock. That's just, like, your opinion, man.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.
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.i didn't get that from the article, how did you come to that conclusion?
Rolex will put them out of business with court costs alone, and Rolex won't even feel it.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.
Not my opinion.This clock is NOT "close enough to Rolex's business." Rolex doesn't make a single clock. That's just, like, your opinion, man.
trademarks.ipo.gov.uk
You misunderstand both what a ‘trademark’ is and what ‘dilution’ means. Rolex do not own the commercial rights of the word ‘oyster’. Period.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.
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?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.
Once again, this assumes the "infringement" is real and proven. No formal judgement has been made on this...something to keep in mind...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?
