HELP: "Rolex" trademark

[Theo]

Do we get a free Rolex for our advice?

 

[anonzymuz]

Do we get a free Rolex for our advice?

I wish I could! The prices that I sell these for are very cheap. 15-25% off retail prices. Can't go wrong! :lol: Thanks again!

 

[tonyfloyd]

I wish I could! The prices that I sell these for are very cheap. 15-25% off retail prices. Can't go wrong! :lol: Thanks again!

15-25% off????...that's it?

 

[anonzymuz]

15-25% off????...that's it?

sometimes more, depends on condition and watch

 

[izoot]

What is a good price for a Stainless Daytona in good condition? Assuming any are available? They seem to be few and far between.

btw .. .email me .. I have some watch domains you might be interested in.

Ira

 

[domaingenius]

I have posted this in the other thread but it is relevant also to this thread. Please see the very last para of the article;

une 12, 2008
O2's bubble bursts as it loses trademark case
Amanda Andrews and Michael Herman

O2, the British mobile operator, has lost its four-year battle with rival 3 over the use of its bubble trademark in a television advertisement.

O2 had claimed 3, which is part of Hutchison Whampoa, the Hong Kong conglomerate, had infringed its bubble trademark in an advert that first aired in 2004. The advert featured O2's signature bubbles alongside more attractive tariffs from 3.

The judgment, announced today by the European Court of Justice, found that 3 could use robust but fair advertising that incorporates the bubbles as long as it does not cause consumer confusion; 3 could be sued for infringement if it breaches these rules.

The European court ruled that four conditions must be satisfied for a proprietor to prevent the use of a trademark or a logo. These were that it must be used in the course of trade, without consent, in respect to similar or identical goods, and in a way likely to cause confusion.
Related Links

* O2 chief plots next steps in mobile battle

* Rivals entitled to use O2's bubbles

* O2 hit by tough German market

O2 initially took its case to the British High Court and Court of Appeal, before taking it to the European Court of Justice. The High Court dismissed the claim against 3 and, after an appeal by O2, Britain's appeal court put the matter to the European Court of Justice.

Giles Crown, 3's lawyer at Lewis Silkin, said: "The judgment confirms 3’s right to engage in robust but fair advertising.

"It is also great news for other advertisers engaged in comparative advertising. They are entitled to do so provided they don’t cause any consumer confusion. However if they do, they could still be sued for trademark infringement. In this way the judgment balances the interests of the comparative advertisers and the rival brand owners.”

Other experts warned that despite the ruling, brand owners may still be able to block comparative advertising by using copyright laws.

Robin Fry, an intellectual property partner at law firm Beachcroft, said: "The freedom apparently given by this court ruling is very limited: most advertisers will still want to include a visual reference to their competitor's product - which remains unlawful if it means that any 'artistic work' is shown."

Andy Millmore, a partner at law firm Harbottle and Lewis, warned that the ruling could become a “counterfeiters charter” without further clarifications.

“This judgment appears to be saying that if there is no question of someone being confused over whose product it is, then trademark laws do not engage. This is what will be worrying, and will be seen as part of a trend towards limiting trademark protection.

“For example, somebody could say ‘ buy my fake Rolex watch for five pounds’. If the rationale in this ruling is extended beyond comparative advertising, then because they’ve made clear that the watch is fake - and therefore there is no possible confusion in the minds of the consumer - the logical extension is that the sale is also permissible," Mr Millmore said.

 

[jberryhill]

“For example, somebody could say ‘ buy my fake Rolex watch for five pounds’. If the rationale in this ruling is extended beyond comparative advertising, then because they’ve made clear that the watch is fake - and therefore there is no possible confusion in the minds of the consumer - the logical extension is that the sale is also permissible," Mr Millmore said.

Millmore is wrong, and I'm surprised any competent attorney would say that. In point of fact, Rolex has sued and prevailed against vendors selling what were advertised as fake Rolex watches. One of the decisions in those cases is the leading case for the doctrine of "post-sale confusion". The essence is that even if the guy who bought the watch knows it is a fake, other potential consumers, seeing the watch on the arm of a bum, would not know it is fake.

Individuals examining the counterfeits, believing them to be genuine Rolex watches, might find themselves unimpressed with the quality of the item and consequently be inhibited from purchasing the real time piece. Others who see the watches bearing the Rolex trademarks on so many wrists might find themselves discouraged from acquiring a genuine because the items have become too common place and no longer possess the prestige once associated with them.

Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Canner, 645 F. Supp. 484, 495 (S.D. Fla. 1986).

 

[domaingenius]

Millmore is wrong, and I'm surprised any competent attorney would say that. In point of fact, Rolex has sued and prevailed against vendors selling what were advertised as fake Rolex watches. One of the decisions in those cases is the leading case for the doctrine of "post-sale confusion". The essence is that even if the guy who bought the watch knows it is a fake, other potential consumers, seeing the watch on the arm of a bum, would not know it is fake.

Individuals examining the counterfeits, believing them to be genuine Rolex watches, might find themselves unimpressed with the quality of the item and consequently be inhibited from purchasing the real time piece. Others who see the watches bearing the Rolex trademarks on so many wrists might find themselves discouraged from acquiring a genuine because the items have become too common place and no longer possess the prestige once associated with them.

Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Canner, 645 F. Supp. 484, 495 (S.D. Fla. 1986).

John is that a Florida case you refer to,Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Canner, 645 F. Supp. 484, 495 (S.D. Fla. 1986). ??

DG

 

[jberryhill]

John is that a Florida case you refer to

Yes, that would be the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. That particular decision is frequently cited and applied in other districts and circuits.

 

[domaingenius]

Yes, that would be the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. That particular decision is frequently cited and applied in other districts and circuits.

Which means that it wopuld not have any bearing on the European Court Judgement given today ,yet I guess WIPO et al in the USA will ignore it ?.
Herein lies the problem when it is legal for Europeans to use the words "Fake Rolex" whilst in the USA it would not be allowed ?.

DG

 

[jberryhill]

First, the OP is in the US, so an EU ruling is not particularly relevant to this thread.

Second, the EU in general remains much more restrictive on the subject of comparative advertising, which is why even this limited ruling is unusual there. In the US it has been normal for ages to show a competitive product in one's advertising materials for comparative purposes.

Third, I can't really see much relevance to domains at all. Trademarks and unfair competition generally is a broad field, and it's pretty hard to see any direct relevance to domains here.

Fourth, WIPO is a UN organization located in Geneva.

 

[Focus]

I love my mother of pearl yachmaster

...even if it is a folex! lol

 

[domaingenius]

First, the OP is in the US, so an EU ruling is not particularly relevant to this thread.

Second, the EU in general remains much more restrictive on the subject of comparative advertising, which is why even this limited ruling is unusual there. In the US it has been normal for ages to show a competitive product in one's advertising materials for comparative purposes.

Third, I can't really see much relevance to domains at all. Trademarks and unfair competition generally is a broad field, and it's pretty hard to see any direct relevance to domains here.

Fourth, WIPO is a UN organization located in Geneva.

The only piece that stood out for me was the part;

The European court ruled that four conditions must be satisfied for a proprietor to prevent the use of a trademark or a logo. These were that it must be used in the course of trade, without consent, in respect to similar or identical goods, and in a way likely to cause confusion.

The last 2 of these will at least perhaps be helpful to domainers in certain cases.

DG