comment: >
  
  Computer, give me a printout of Oyster smiling
context: "Consumers will inevitably be misled into thinking that your products emanate from Rolex."
  
  Rolex well known for their cheap rainbow colored time keeping devices. >
  
  I don’t know if it works the same in the UK, but in the US you often see these stupid David vs Goliath lawsuits where you wonder how it’s even worth the big bad corporation’s time to shut down the mom and pop doing zero actual damage. One major reason isn’t that the company isn’t trying to stomp out competition or screw the little guy, it’s that there’s a legal requirement that they vigorously defend their copyright in order to maintain it. Otherwise, in future cases, their decision not to go after the insignificant mom and pop brand could be used as evidence against a legitimate copyright claim. (IANAL but I did listen to Opening Arguments podcast last week). >
  
  These kinds of lawsuits never really get publicity after they're announced, so I wonder if the copyright holder actually proceeds with the case and argues it with full force, or if they just settle out of court for $50 and use that as proof of defending copyright. >
  
  Eh sometimes it ends up like how McDonald's lost the name of the big Mac in some European country. >
  
  If Rolex thinks people are going to mistake this Children's clock for their stuff they must think their customers are a bunch of dingbats. >
  
  To be fair, rich people have a terrible sense of fashion & design, hence why they hire people to dress them and furnish their homes for them. >
  
  Trademark laws are bullshit. My wife's maiden name is the same as a corporation and they sent her a cease and desist letter for domains that she wasn't using, but are her last name. They threatened to sue until after some arguing that it's her last name they dropped it with "well you better never sell X" like ok lol don't think we will. They were aggressive though. Just corporate bullying. One corporation can't own a last name. >
  
  Except they can.  At least in claimed fields of use. >
  
  I mean, they can't tell you to not use your last name as your last name, like for domains and shit, because they have a product. Not talking about same field. My wife doesn't manufacture equipment, she just kept it for a portfolio site, which they didn't care about at first. It's corporate bullying plain and simple. >
  
  
  My wife doesn't manufacture equipment, she just kept it for a portfolio site, which they didn't care about at first.
  
  It still depends what is covered by their trademarks.  If you have a portraits site and the last name Deere, fine.  If you have the last name Deere and only paint pictures of rusting farm equipment, then John Deere the company has an obligation to write you or may lose their trademark. Because John Deere makes farm equipment, but the also sell clothing and calendars and other images of their product that extend their brand. They have had to get trademarks in those areas over time. 
  And the law requires them to send those letters or put their trademarks at risk. So blame the law at least as much as the corporations. >
  
  Thats still not at all it and close enough, and not what I'm talking about. Art portfolio for fashion and heavy equipment are not related. >
  
  
  Art portfolio for fashion and heavy equipment are not related.
  
  Except they sometimes are. 
  John Deere has technical work wear, hats, shirts, swim suits, and even Hawaiian shirts.  That is a heavy equipment company with a full fashion line. So they can be related. >
  
  Isn't oyster the name of a feature, not the watch itself. Not sure the distinct matters, but it's just thier name for water resistant and a pretty stupid one if I do say so. Oysters aren't waterproof! mild /s