WatchUSeek Watch Forums banner

A sleazy British company is making a fake Rolex clock that threatens Rolexes revenues ($13,000,000,000 in 2021).

19K views 214 replies 67 participants last post by  Watchman Dan 
#1 ·
#81 ·
They’re on sale at Amazon.

I would not associate this clock with Rolex. I just don’t get it. Maybe I should grab one. Value could skyrocket to $100, then you would have to get on a waiting list.
g
Product Font Circle Number Illustration



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#82 ·
Oh, the Rolex Fan Boys. I for one have no desire for a Rolex as others are better - a Submariner or a Glasshute Original Sea Q or Blancpain Fifty Fathoms.....

I did a street interview recently on 5th in NYC asking about watches and the only people that mentioned they would like a Rolex were non watch owners! Most others familiar with watches mentioned wanting a Patek, Blancpain .....certainly tells you something!

 
#83 ·
There's another example of why I love it when people make unmoral (with copyrighted name/logo) replicas of ROLEX watches, especially of "classic" models no longer made by the company. Rolex is petty and like so many more parasitic capitalists schemes subverts our rights to fair use, independent repair, they are evil. That's glock just a silly thing for children, can there be a better example of chilling overreach?
 
#86 ·
so ripping off a company is okay in your book (I'm making a leap here that you have at least one book) so long as it's the big guy getting ripped off by the little guy? ripping off is okay if it means it's givin' it to the man. Have you read the comments here or are you one of those people who read the title/first post, nod your head and think. 'yup...got it' and then dive in with a skewed, misinformed and highly subjective opinion?

it's apparent you either don't understand or simply DGAF about IP law and how it may be that the mom&pop clock shop may not have intended to be malicious initially it didn't come up on their radar but now that it has, it appears they've chosen to take it to the court of public opinion, you know, the way some people do when the manager is not available and they're very displeased with the product or service they received; the Karens and Kens of the world.

For S&G maybe look up squatters rights (as it may ring closer to home) and see how the little guy can stick it to the big guy, even if, ironically you happen to be the big guy (thing AirBnB or tenant/landlord for starters)
 
#87 ·
My direct experience with trademark issues was with a certain motorcycle company based in Wisconsin. They aggressively protect their trademarks to the point of trying to patent the sound their motorcycles make at idle. (USPTO said no on that one.) Problem was everyone and their dog was making branded products, tee shirts, hats, signs, banners, even - are you ready? - condoms - and all were riding along on the coattails of the trademark owner.

Anyway, I published a line of technical books and repair manuals covering that brand. I wound up getting a nastygram from their attorneys saying I couldn't use the logo or even the brand name in any of my publications. My attorney's question to them was how can anyone write about your products without using the name? Further, this particular application is protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech) and Uncle Sam has a LOT more firepower than you do (paraphrased slightly).

We reached a compromise - the line "Not a (brand) publication." appears on the front cover. End of problem.

Another experience I had was with two mortgage companies. Company A was a one-man operation in the south of England and he had named the company after himself. Company B was a big high-roller deal out of NYC. The New York company send the UK guy a really nasty letter demanding that he change the name of his company and stop using grey and red on his website AT ONCE or else . . . (even though the UK guy had been in business long before the NY crowd).

Further, the UK guy did no business in the US, and the NY crew did no business in the UK (they were strictly a domestic company). There really wasn't much room for confusion, but they had to justify paying their lawyers.

During the course of the "negotiations" the NY guys made a big fuss about being a billion dollar corporation (maybe) and that the owner was a personal friend of Bill Clinton (yeah, so?).

Our attorney pointed out that they were welcome to go ahead and sue our UK guy (friend of of ours) but they would need to retain UK counsel because their lawyers weren't licensed to practice in the UK. Further, we related the story about MacDonalds suing a Scotsman named MacDonald because he had the nerve to name his small restaurant after himself. According to the (unverified) story, the UK judge threw it out of court because the Scotsman had been in business long before the Golden Arches came to the UK, and he advised them to go home and bully someone else.

We were about to reach a resolution with the NY crew, but they suddenly declared bankruptcy and their attorneys had zero interest in continuing the case because they knew they wouldn't get paid.

The attorney was my wife (so these are not "I heard about a guy stories"). She is good to me, I get 10% off the first $500 of my legal bills every year. We are presently negotiating whether that discount is use-it-or-lose-it or it will roll over to the next year.

Incidentally, there is a lawnmower model named "Quattro" which kind of makes sense because in my automotive experience, older Audis are also involved in this, mostly as lawn ornaments and you get to mow around them. (I've had five of the darn things, so ask me how I know. I do learn, albeit slowly sometimes.)

Best Regards,

Mike/Florida
 
#90 ·
Anyway, I published a line of technical books and repair manuals covering that brand. I wound up getting a nastygram from their attorneys saying I couldn't use the logo or even the brand name in any of my publications. My attorney's question to them was how can anyone write about your products without using the name? Further, this particular application is protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech) and Uncle Sam has a LOT more firepower than you do (paraphrased slightly).

We reached a compromise - the line "Not a (brand) publication." appears on the front cover. End of problem.
That question from your attorney was a perfect illustration of the absurd. There's plenty of generically made service manuals out there - I have several Haynes manuals in my collection for example.

Just because a lawyer sends a letter, doesn't mean they actually have a valid case/argument.

The most frustrating thing for me about this Rolex overreach, is that it won't be tested in court, and Rolex knows it. They know that some small company making clocks that will be educating at least a few future Rolex owners how to tell time, doesn't have the resources to fight this, so they will win without it ever being tested.

The golden rule in action - he who has the gold, makes the rules.
 
#100 ·
Good grief I think Rolex would have bigger things to be concerned about than kids clocks.
Well their delicate buyers sure don't, so they have to represent and send in the heavies.
Rolex is the most ripped off company in the world. These are pretty much toys and doubt any one in the classroom would assume this is a genuine Rolex.
Apart from the famous "moron in a hurry", who Rolex seems to be siding with here.

 
#94 ·
Against my better judgment, this is what I think about this lawsuit from a practical and legal aspect.

Some here have been arguing that "Oyster" itself shouldn't be something that is trademarked. Maybe, but from a legal aspect, it's a perfectly valid trademark. If Rolex was an oyster processing company literally selling oysters, the trademark office probably wouldn't have granted Rolex a trademark on the word "Oyster." It would be deemed "merely descriptive" or "generic" and from a trademark standpoint, this wouldn't make "oyster" trademarkable (new word).

However, in the context of a specific type of watch case, developed, manufactured, and used to market and sell a particular type of watch, the word "Oyster" is very much trademarkable as a word that is more than descriptive. It's "distinctive" or unique. So long as Rolex was the first to try to get "oyster" trademarked, it's absolutely completely valid.

The same argument would go for "Apple." Yes, an apple is an apple, and if "Apple" was a fruit company, more than likely, it would not have been granted the trademark on the word. But Apple is not a fruit company. It's a computer company. Similarly, Apple Records was granted a trademark to the Beatles (FYI, there was a lawsuit between Apple Records and Apple, Inc. once Apple started getting into selling music....not making music....merely selling music. It went on for years and years and finally settled, on terms I forget).

Once a valid trademark is issued to a owner, one of the absolutely necessary obligations of the trademark owner is to "enforce" their trademark. In other words, if the owner does not take steps to enforce and protect their trademark, the owner can actually lose their ability to enforce that trademark. In effect, the owner has let their trademark lapse. The owner would then be unable to enforce their trademark rights against any potential infringer. The concept is called laches, and many trademarks have been lost by their owners because of this.

For Rolex, it would be devastating to lose Oyster. It's been so much a part of their brand, that the idea they would lose it, however small, would be a marketing nightmare.

So here's the dilemma. You have a demonstrably valuable trademark in "Oyster." You have a duty and obligation to enforce that trademark or else lose it. What do you do?

If you selectively enforce your trademark, the next company to violate your trademark...especially one with deep pockets...would gladly go to court and say "Hey, look at all these examples where you did not enforce your trademark.....why are you extorting me....because I have deep pockets? That's not fair. This is the very reason we have laches in law. The law does not bother with parties that themselves don't seem to care about their commercial rights."

So selectively enforcing your trademark rights can put you in deep trouble down the road with respect to anyone else looking to use your trademarked word.

So the safe thing to do for any company that has a valid trademark is to enforce it wherever and whenever you see a possible violation. It's a policy born of the desire to keep your trademark rights alive.

Now you come against some mom & pop shop making a wall clock that uses the word "oyster." What do you do?

You tell them to stop unless you pay Rolex for the right to use that word. If I was Rolex, I would settle with the company with some really small, nominal licensing fee to use that word. In the licensing agreement, I would limit the use of the word "oyster" for wall clocks only used primarily as a learning tool for children, and not in anything else, whether it be T-shirts or the like, unless they were willing to pay an additional fee for the use of the word in marketing materials.

Win-win.

The issue here, for me at least, is not that Rolex is enforcing their use of the word "Oyster." To me it's that the reporter here is trying to make this into a David vs. Goliath thing, and it isn't. Rolex just can't let these things go, and as things go, this is probably 1 in 10,000 violations of trademarks that Rolex experiences per year. For some reason, this one got press because it's a small company making a children's device.

Make no mistake 99.99% of these cases settle because both parties don't want to spend $1.5M each to get to the first stage of a litigation. It's better, easier, simpler to pay the nominal fee or change the name.

BTW, from what I read, Oyster & Pop was told that using "Oyster" in the category of timekeeping devices would present problems. Oyster & Pop decided to get cute and instead use Oyster in the "children's toys" or "educational devices" category. So O&P had some inkling this could be a problem and went forward anyway.

Anyway, I think Rolex is being heavy handed for sure, but I can't blame them for trying to enforce their trademark. But I really do hate this David and Goliath presentation of the issue. It's not accurate nor fair. One can argue both parties deserve bad publicity for their actions. I don't even think "Oyster" is trademarkable if it's merely the name of the town, but whatever.

Now for all you people now buying this clock as a strike against Rolex, I think Rolex would say you are just proving the point. There is now a whole category of people now buying the wall clock with "Oyster" on it, specifically for the purpose of giving to the man....using it as your wall clock, and not necessarily to use it as an educational toy. It's become a novelty item beyond it's use as an educational product.

BTW, I despise Rolex the watch company for all their AD and limited supply shenanigans. I hate the thought of Rolex as a company that has, in my mind, single handedly destroyed the enthusiast watch collecting environment. I separate those thoughts from their efforts to protect what they own.

You want someone to be angry at, flame Disney.
 
#96 ·
Thanks for the well-reasoned post.

If I was Rolex, I would settle with the company with some really small, nominal licensing fee to use that word. In the licensing agreement, I would limit the use of the word "oyster" for wall clocks only used primarily as a learning tool for children, and not in anything else, whether it be T-shirts or the like, unless they were willing to pay an additional fee for the use of the word in marketing materials.
Given that there is exactly zero risk of confusion between O&P's clocks and Rolex, I think this would be a sound course of action for Rolex to take. If it actually diluted their trademark at all, then no, but in this case, you're right - this would be a win-win.

BTW, from what I read, Oyster & Pop was told that using "Oyster" in the category of timekeeping devices would present problems. Oyster & Pop decided to get cute and instead use Oyster in the "children's toys" or "educational devices" category. So O&P had some inkling this could be a problem and went forward anyway.
From the handful of articles that I've read O&P came on Rolex's radar in the first place due to their filing for a trademark on Oyster&Pop. Prior to that it seems Rolex was unaware of them (no doubt as was most of the world). One article I read said that it was Rolex themselves that said if they'd change the category to "Children's toys and games" Rolex would withdraw their objection. But the article wasn't 100% clear on that point.

The Oyster&Pop trademark application in the US shows as "abandoned" in TESS. The article I read suggests that the Oyster&Pop trademark application in the UK is still alive, with Rolex objecting of course.

So one way forward for this would be if the UK trademark office rules for O&P, despite Rolex's objection, and allows the mark. Then Rolex has done their due diligence to protect their mark, and the usage is blessed by the government and they can't be accused of not defending it - the matter is out of their hands.

I have no idea how either the US or the UK system works on matters like this. I would think if it was Rolex&Pop (Rolex being a contrived word and clearly a famous mark) then they would certainly rule against the newcomers. But since "oyster" is a generic word, and I'm not sure that "oyster" qualifies as a famous mark, it seems there might be room for the UK agency to grant the O&P mark. But that's wild speculation on my part with absolutely no knowledge or information to support it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bluco
#114 ·
On the wait list (or whatever) for a Rolex.

In this case, they're being total a-holes. The poor company here based part of their company name on the city the founders are from. I'm pretty sure the city was around before Rolex came up with "oyster" which as we know is also a type of living organism. Or will Rolex sue the Oxford English dictionary or whoever first wrote down this word as well?

Ridiculous in the extreme.
 
#116 · (Edited)
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.
 
#123 · (Edited)
Rolex isn't in the watchmaking business, as its own chairman explained years ago.

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?
 
#136 ·
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
 
#137 ·
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.
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.

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.
 
#151 ·
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.
 
#160 ·
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?
Plant Hand Watch Gesture Clock
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top