I saw these Moonwatch T-shirts in London...not my thing but they may be of interest to some of you guys.

Think the designer is Yukio Miyamoto.

They were on display at a company called We Admire.

No affiliation and no further details but they are at:

www.weadmire.net

 

Approved by NASA, but approved by Omega? Perhaps it is a licensed design from Omega, or a trademark infringement. Interesting design but not something I'd wear.

 

Very nice t shirt. Love it.

 

Love the idea of it, but not something I'd wear out.

 

Looks like a pre-moon style shirt it has a DON - Dot Over Nipple.

 

Perfect tuesday shirt

 

Looks like they removed it.

 

I'm not an IP attorney, but I think this represents fair-use for creative works. If he was making watches that look like or use Omega registered trademarks, or if Omega made shirts like this, AND there was a reasonable suspicion that customers wouldn't be able to tell the difference between authentic and these "creative" designs, then Omega could claim damage.

 

Your not an IP attorney and your wrong.

 

My wrong what?

 

It’s not artistic fair use. Logo is clearly visible. You cannot do a t shirt with a 67 mustang on it even if the logo is not visible.

 

Ok, so I checked with someone who actually works in intellectual property and trademark cases. The visibility of the logo has nothing to do with it. If it is an artistic and stylized image, it doesn't necessarily infringe and the artist could win the argument if the artwork is his own (as it appears to be - I don't believe Omega publishes exploded diagrams like this). As for your example of a '67 Mustang, there are many examples of them - About 5,360,000 results (0.75 seconds) , according to Google - and I doubt they're all getting C&Ds from Ford.

 

Went to WeAdmire site and looked through all of Yukio's shirts. Don't see any of the Omega's for sale. It's on a side tab under "Admired Today" but nowhere for sale

 

So do I actually. An image on google does not mean infringement.

Notice he said could and not necessarily...

Use of a copyrighted logo for profit... that’s infringement. I’d not call that exploded view stylized either. It’s a faithful representation. Everything like this is a grey area, but in this case an infringement claim would be justified in court.