My wife forwarded me this article today about how a small company that makes children's clocks has incurred the wrath of the big green giant. Seriously, I don't see how someone could possibly confuse products produced by the two companies. But anyway, you be the judge...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-64268369

 

I can see where that design could possibly confuse a 4 year old. But then again I don’t think any 4year olds will be Rolex shopping. LOL

 

This is the problem with official trademarks — like the Oyster trademark by Rolex. Unless the company vigorously defends against ANY infringement on said trademark, it opens up the possibility anyone can use it with impunity. Unfortunately for the makers of that clock, the Rolex trademark is for, among other things, “horological and chronometric instruments.”

Rolex really should be going after all the sellers of cheaply made “Oyster bracelets” instead of this company, but they probably feel that would be a losing case at this late date.

 

I’m not a Rolex hater, but this is pathetic strong-arming against these two. The company must have an over-inflated sense of their brand recognition.

Should my local fish company, who sells oysters, have a “ not affiliated with the Rolex company” disclaimer?

Edit: I may be incorrect. Based on some of their offerings, I can see the potential confusion…

 

And any Seafood restaurant also. Although I really doubt they would be confused with any “horological and chronometric instruments.”. But you never know, they are using the word “oyster”

 

This is absurd. Rolex is said to have 100% brand recognition. I wonder what percentage thinks of them when they hear “oyster”. Personally, I think of oysters. And I’m a watch nut. Those clocks are cool. I wonder if anybody considered maybe if children learn how to read an analog clock they would be more inclined to purchase a watch as an adult.

 

I think the optics are terrible for Rolex - makes them look like over-aggressive, temperamental bullies. And, yes, they should have considered the potential future market: kids who will have nostalgia as adults.

This is a perfect example how to fuck up PR. Instead of going after them, they should offer to subsidize their efforts in some way. So instead of looking like a company people can feel good about, they reinforce every negative Rolex-buyer stereotype.

 

I mean, hard to argue, lol.

This might be good PR for them in the long run if Rolex relents tho.

 

Amen. Quite frequently the client has no idea what its law firms are doing. Sad part here is that this client doesn’t really seem to care about bad publicity. Yes Rolex brand metrics are among the best in the world. This feels like “kick the puppy” to me.

 

Definitely turns me off and makes me rethink my desire for a Rolex on top of all the other issues with them. Big bully going after small business women trying to teach kids. They say no press is bad press but it’s not necessarily always true. I guess Rolex has legions of lawyers and this is common patent stuff and maybe it’s being overblown. But come on, kids clocks?

 

Not very "charitable" of Rolex I think...

There have been threads on different forums about this one, with lawyers jumping in saying Rolex "must" do this. I get that they have the right to protect their trademarks, but I think the link they are trying to make here to their brand is very tenuous. The claims made that people will think these are made by Rolex is absurd - apparently Rolex thinks their customers are complete idiots.

Rolex have made a claim of infringement, but that claim is unproven. Unfortunately it will never be tested, because of the golden rule - he who has the money, makes the rules. This small company can't afford to defend itself, so they will relent, and Rolex fanboys all over the world will rejoice that the almighty crown has once again prevailed...

Reminds me of an old joke - what do you call 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start...

 

Evidently Rolex has adopted the United Airlines playbook for public relations.

 

How ridiculous is it in the first place that you can trademark a species of wild life? I think I may trademark “shrimp” and litigate all shrimp purveyors out of business and corner the market.

 

I had the very same situation a few years ago with my company name. Big French company (10,000+ employees) trademarked a name and came after me because I called my company something similar after they had it trade marked.

We were both in Aviation so I was really up against it. I named my company in honour of my personal hero and played the 29 pieces of silver game where I changed it enough so as not to claim to be as good as Jesus.

The French lads were having none of it until I asked them if they understood the significance of the name which they did not. Thats when the penny dropped and I concocted a dastardly plan.

I worked with my lawyer to draft a letter explaining that the original inventor established the named company in 1936 and it was nationalised in the 1940's with all rights including naming being passed to a very large British aerospace company. I informed the French that I intended to drag the British into whatever the French wanted to do to me. I called friends in the large British company and they thought it was hilarious the French never knew especially considering the origins of their own company rose from the ashes of the "paper clip scientist" grab as Berlin was falling.

I fired the letter off and never heard a peep again. I survived that onslaught only to be taken out by Covid.

For the Rolex situation perhaps attempting the cancel culture thing thats so popular. A very public dressing down by all 95000 of our members.

 

I read this article a few days ago and it made me smh. I have read of many similar cases over the years where mega corporations go after little fish under similar pretenses. While some of those cases had a valid cause, most are simply dog-eat-dog strategies to eliminate competition.

The premise is to protect brand dominance and although sometimes the "threat" is laughable (as in here), the ultimate purpose is to set an example for future prospects who might consider profiting off brand impersonation, at the cost of any collateral damage. Even if the legal premise is unable to hold water, they know they can outspend the little guy and prevail by running them into the ground financially.

A textbook example of this business strategy is the story between Thomas Edison (General Electric) and Nikola Tesla. Tesla invented the superior electric system we know today and generally use, known as AC current. Edison was backed by JP Morgan, a major financial powerhouse who probably did not understand its investment in an inferior electric system. Tesla had the backing of Westinghouse who went for all-or-bust, investing its last dollar in a very promising inventor - Nikola Tesla. Knowing that their technology was much inferior to Tesla's, GE launched a smear campaign against Westinghouse. Later in a high-stakes bidding war for a major contract to build a hydroelectric plant for Niagara Falls, GE seemed lost. The strategy? Sue Westinghouse. JP Morgan outspent Westinghouse and ran him into the ground. Legally, JP Morgan did not stand a chance, since Westinghouse legitimately held Tesla's patents. However, Westinghouse was financially suffocated by the litigation and in order to survive, it signed over all of Tesla's patents to JP Morgan. To this day, we all depend on Tesla's AC current for electricity which was implemented under the name of General Electric. A very interesting story to read.

In this case, it seems Rolex is following that textbook but my opinion is that Rolex went too far. It is not innocent. Its executives have been fully briefed by its lawyers and they are surely writing a very large check to drown out this little company.

I doubt I will ever own a Rolex simply because I can't stand the snobbish stigma behind its brand. I came close to giving in for a couple of Oyster models I found attractive but when I read about their new business approach - where they now vet potential buyers to consider if they are worthy of owning their products, that did it for me. I will not wear a product from a brand that is this pretentious. I wonder how many will follow in my footsteps because of their decision to stomp out these ladies who all they are trying do do is offer a learning tool for children.

But ultimately, will Rolex feel the sting? I doubt it. There are too many people out there who will cut off an arm to wear that little crown on their other one. And I wouldn't be surprised that if Rolex bankrupts these ladies, it will shortly offer a children's clock...

 

You can also sign their petition...

Petition · Help STOP ROLEX from closing down a small women-owned, family business · Change.org

Not that I expect it to do anything, but it may show Rolex that not everyone agrees with their nonsense.

 

Petition signed.

 

done

 

Those comments above were exactly what my wife said to me. She was already not a big fan of how Rolex did business and the brand's current image. I had put myself on the list for a blue dial OP36 late last year, but this episode and my wife's remarks have definitely made me think twice. "Why would someone want to be associated with a company that does crap like this?", she said. That's why she much prefers Omega. Better value for money and better brand image.

 

Since Omega did the MoonSwatch, they’re clearly not beneath pushing some boundaries. I say, partner with these two women by subsidizing their business, and in return, adding the little Omega symbol at the top of their clocks.

They look like heroes; Rolex looks like villains. And we have so many future possible Forum participants…