Vortic sued by Swatch Group

It makes me sad that perfectly good pocket watches are “converted” to make them “usable”.

I think reusing a small pocket watch movement (10s or smaller) in a wrist watch is a great idea for those who like the old movements but not tiny pocket watches. The ones that I hate seeing are the 16s that have been converted to wrist watches, especially when it is a Bunn Special, 992, or some other desirable watch.

What, then, do you think Swatch group’s (presumably) good legal representatives seek to achieve by a failed bench trial? Or are you instead of the opinion that Swatch group’s legal representatives think they will win, but are bad at their jobs?

While not a perfect analogy (including because consumers are far more familiar with automobiles and auto makers), what do you make of the following hypo:

A company like Icon 4x4 (who make ground-up ‘restomod’ FJ40s and 1st series Broncos, using restored Toyota/Ford body panels, several modern OEM Toyota/Ford parts, and also custom components) also places OEM Toyota/Ford badges on the Icon-vehicles, engines, and other major mechanical components. A few customers email Toyota/Ford requesting to purchase these vehicles (indicative that a broader pool of consumers may have similar confusion, but have not emailed). Meanwhile, the Icon website says “Icon” on the webpage header but photos of the vehicles all show Toyota/Ford branding on the vehicles (with merely an ‘Icon’ badge added somewhere) - much as is the case if looking at “Tony’s Ford Dealership” who places a “Tony’s Ford” sticker on the tailgate. But Toyota/Ford determine that this Icon 4x4 company is not in fact a licensed dealership.

Would Toyota/Ford move along and quip, “well, boys will be boys!”

Or would Toyota/Ford instead run a litigation to ground, both to attempt to ‘win’ at trial itself, if not (and nearly as valuable) in any event alter and deter Icon 4x4’s future behavior, but also discourage and signal to the broader market that similar attempts by others will not be obstacle free?

Sometimes ‘winning’ at trial is not the only way to achieve legitimate goals via trial.

(PS: Icon 4x4 does not leave Toyota/Ford branding on Icon vehicles, regardless of the body/mechanical components used, and for good reason.)

I don’t follow; the plaintiff wanted their own case dismissed, but failed?

Ah.

Asking for summary judgment is essentially unrelated to the merits of a case. Filing a SJM is at worst a procedural tradition, and at best a means of gathering additional information from a defendant (because they must respond with factual information they believe relevant to the defense).

(There are spurious lawsuits where a SMJ is requested more earnestly, and even then is rarely granted: the showing necessary to avoid SJ is extremely lite.)

I like the fact that these movements are being refurbished and used - I dislike waste and abandonment of things that can be made use of. However, from what I understand reading this thread, what seems to be annoying Swatch Group is not so much that they feel they are losing new sales of Hamiltons when someone buys one of the "repurposed" Hamiltons - it's highly unlikely that they are substitute products for each other - but that someone is making money by exploiting their brand name. There may be some confusion in the market, but again, that shouldn't be a big deal if Vortic are making decent quality items and provide an honest service, clearly explaining the provenance of their pieces.

It's the last element of this that I suspect annoys Swatch. In essence Vortic are taking advantage of the goodwill wrapped up in the Hamilton brand and they are not entitled to it. That's what Swatch bought when they took over the brand. Much as I hate to say it, I think Swatch have the moral high ground here.