FYI:Swatch Group and Stührling Settle `Men in Black` Watch Lawsuit

Transcription

5 Years, 103 Days, 21 Hours, 18 Minutes, 16 Seconds Since Forums came online
WatchGeeks > ShopNBC Watch Brands > Stuhrling Original
FYI:Swatch Group and Stührling Settle ‘Men in
Black’ Watch Lawsuit...
Forum
User CP
Forum Rules
FAQ
Community
Calendar
New Posts
Welcome, .
You last visited:
Private Messages:
Search
Private Messages:
Quick Links
Log Out
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
View First Unread
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Rate Thread
Display Modes
Yesterday, 12:21 PM
#1
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Boston Mass
Posts: 6,623
Real Name: Jim
JIMZ
True WatchGeek
FYI:Swatch Group and Stührling Settle ‘Men in Black’ Watch Lawsuit...
Swatch Group and Stührling Settle ‘Men in Black’ Watch Lawsuit
June 17, 2013
by John Sealander
Stührling Agrees to Pay Swatch Group $1 in Damages in What
Many Feel is Another Frivolous Watch Industry Lawsuit
The iconic Hamilton Ventura has been worn by celebrities
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
including Rod Serling, Elvis Presley,
and more recently Will Smith,
in the popular movie “Men in Black III.”
When a ShopNBC host mentioned the movie
on the popular shopping channel
during a segment featuring
the Stührling Ricochet, a lawsuit ensued.
The Swatch Group, who currently sells
a re-issue of the historic 1957 Ventura,
alleged that Stührling Original LLC and ShopNBC
were trying to sell an intentional copy
of the triangular Hamilton Ventura. Not so, said Stührling.
Stührling Chief Operating Officer Barry Kaplan
strongly objected to the suit, saying,
“There are a lot of triangular watches out in the marketplace.”
He made a point that several of these brands
were still making triangular watches
without any legal action from the Swatch group.
Lawsuits in the Watch Industry
Lawsuits involving a brand’s “trade dress”
or general appearance are becoming increasingly commonplace
in the watch industry as manufacturers attempt to limit competition.
“This lawsuit was meritless from the get-go,” said Akiva Shapiro,
the attorney representing both Stührling
and ValueVision Media Inc., parent company of ShopNBC.
The judge seemed to agree,
awarding The Swatch Group just one dollar in damages,
which was subsequently donated to charity.
Although the settlement was miniscule,
both sides incurred thousands of dollars in legal expenses.
The suit was settled without any admission of wrongdoing on the part
of the defendants and with prejudice;
meaning re-filing of the case is forbidden.
As part of the settlement, ValueVision Media
and Stührling also agreed
to stop selling the Ricochet watch on ShopNBC.
Many think that these types of lawsuits are stifling the watch industry,
as large powerful brands attempt to attain exclusive rights to something
as vague and ambiguous as the shape of the case.
The case between The Swatch Group and Stührling has been settled,
but it probably won’t be the last of these types of lawsuits.
As watches continue to increase in popularity as fashion accessories,
there will always be manufacturers who try to control the playing field.
__________________
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
3 Lastest Threads by JIMZ
Thread
Forum
Last Poster
Replies Views
Last Post
Off Topic
JIMZ
2
15
06-18-2013
07:30 PM
Classic Chevy: Pure Artwork/Rod/Power
/Paint...
Off Topic
JIMZ
0
18
06-18-2013
07:01 PM
FYI:Swatch Group and Stührling Settle
‘Men in...
Stuhrling Original
motegi
61
651
06-17-2013
12:21 PM
Movie Legends: Jimmy Cagney...
Yesterday, 12:27 PM
#2
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 3,336
Real Name: Michael
ddavidsonmd
Master WatchGeek
This is obvioulsy a copy ("Homage"
)of the Hamilton watch but since patent protection has
expired, Swatch had no leg to stand on.
__________________
Time is the fire in which we burn. ~Delmore Schwartz
Michael.
Yesterday, 12:31 PM
#3
Rog1
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pompano Beach , Fl.
Posts: 13,648
Real Name: Roger
True WatchGeek
Thanks Jim.
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
__________________
Roger
Yesterday, 12:35 PM
#4
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Western New York
Posts: 10,473
Real Name: Dayman
daycoo2
True WatchGeek
Yesterday, 02:03 PM
#5
Mschill813
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Northeast Arizona just south of the Navajo reservation
Posts: 168
Real Name: Mike
Senior Member
Senior Geek
Thanks Jim. Does go to show you can sue or be sued for just about anything today. In a sense
Swatch wins because stuhrling will stop selling the Ricochet on shop. Makes you wonder what
others things Swatch may try to stop from being sold they could be testing the waters to see
maybe like say movements that everyone has been talking about. JMO. MIKE
Yesterday, 02:13 PM
NANDO
#6
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 10,364
Senior Member
True WatchGeek
Thanks for the information.
__________________
It's time for a new watch!
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
Yesterday, 02:26 PM
#7
hokk54
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bedford
Posts: 12,585
Real Name: ScottyB
True WatchGeek
DAVID pays GOLIATH 1 dolla holla
Yesterday, 02:35 PM
#8
multiwatchman
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 3,461
Real Name: Kevin
Master WatchGeek
What it will do is drive up the price of the Stührling Ricochet watch because you will never see it
again IMHO.
__________________
Mako Cat Beware!!! Founding member Watchaholics Anonymous (Unsuccessful).
Yesterday, 03:59 PM
curiousgeorge
True WatchGeek
#9
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mpls
Posts: 5,842
Real Name: George
A certain other forum I'm guessing is crying in their beer today.
Yesterday, 04:06 PM
#10
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: from ny live in g.a
Posts: 9,964
BIGNOIZE
True WatchGeek
plain ole dam
__________________
L.T.R
Learn Teach. Repeat.
Yesterday, 06:01 PM
#11
kudo
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 644
Real Name: Bob
Veteran Geek
Thanks Jim - very interesting.
Yesterday, 06:49 PM
#12
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,116
Notdmeca
Master WatchGeek
Good for Swatch, and a good settlement for all. This was driven by principle and not monetary
gain.
Yesterday, 06:54 PM
#13
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,136
Real Name: Steve
Omegaman68
Super Geek
Quote:
Originally Posted by multiwatchman
What it will do is drive up the price of the Stührling Ricochet watch because you will never
see it again IMHO.
I think they will continue to sell the Ricochet, just not on Shop. I hope they do because I think it is
a great looking SO.
Yesterday, 06:56 PM
#14
TimLovesWatches
True WatchGeek
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Enola Pennsylvania
Posts: 7,578
Real Name: TimLovesChevroletImpalas
Just dumb. All that for $1.00
I hope the lawyers did better than that.
__________________
Never forget those who are serving to keep our way of life.
Yesterday, 07:15 PM
#15
Braatzman
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 5,993
Real Name: Nathan
True WatchGeek
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
How much money had to be paid for lawyers LOL!
Yesterday, 07:16 PM
#16
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Topeka Kansas
Posts: 556
Real Name: Ryan
watchman785
Veteran Geek
Thanks Jim
As always good info brotha..
Yesterday, 07:21 PM
#17
multiwatchman
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 3,461
Real Name: Kevin
Master WatchGeek
The lawyers won
__________________
Mako Cat Beware!!! Founding member Watchaholics Anonymous (Unsuccessful).
Yesterday, 07:26 PM
CBASS
Super Geek
#18
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Rocklin, CA
Posts: 2,110
If it was a Rolex or Omega would the settlement be $1
Yesterday, 07:36 PM
boscob
Super Geek
#19
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 1,369
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
Real Name: Darrell
Stührling copying watch designs, never. LOL.
Yesterday, 08:01 PM
#20
Surelyuknow
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Falls Church, VA
Posts: 5,240
Real Name: Joel
True WatchGeek
Frankly I'm surprised Stührling Original hasn't been sued more. It makes identical copies
of many watch companies products. Hamilton, (other than the Ventura) Breitling, Oris
and even Invicta and Android. All you need to do is go to Stuhrling's website and see
how many "Originals" you see and how many "not so Originals".
Case In point: Stuhrling "Original" vs an Android... you decide for yourself.
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
Personally, I don't think changing the bezel and crown qualifiy as an "Original".
__________________
The truth will set you free... but first, it will p_ss you off!
Yesterday, 09:04 PM
#21
WATCHJAC
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Portsmouth, New Hampshire
Posts: 21,593
Real Name: Joe
True WatchGeek
Quote:
Originally Posted by boscob
Stührling copying watch designs, never. LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surelyuknow
Frankly I'm surprised Stührling Original hasn't been sued more. It makes identical
copies of many watch companies products. Hamilton, (other than the Ventura)
Breitling, Oris and even Invicta and Android. All you need to do is go to
Stuhrling's website and see how many "Originals" you see and how many "not so
Originals".
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
I agree!
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
To those brands that make so called "homage watches" how about this, create your
own unique timepiece and stop building on the work of other brands! JMHO
Thanks for the post Jim.
__________________
Travel is fatal to prejudice bigotry and
narrow-mindedness! Mark Twain
Yesterday, 09:38 PM
#22
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,473
Real Name: Dayman
daycoo2
True WatchGeek
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddavidsonmd
This is obvioulsy a copy ("Homage"
)of the Hamilton watch but since patent protection
has expired, Swatch had no leg to stand on.
Yesterday, 09:41 PM
garyh
Master WatchGeek
#23
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 3,015
Real Name: Gary
thanks jim appreciate the info.
__________________
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
Yesterday, 11:23 PM
#24
Jim3
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakeville, MN
Posts: 1,947
Real Name: Jimmy
Super Geek
Thanks for the update Jim.
__________________
We all need a good camel.
Today, 01:10 AM
daycoo2
True WatchGeek
#25
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,473
Real Name: Dayman
Quote:
Originally Posted by hokk54
DAVID pays GOLIATH 1 dolla holla
Today, 01:46 AM
#26
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
gator2012
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Rio Grande Valley in South Tx
Posts: 2,017
Real Name: Fred
Senior Member
Super Geek
Very interesting..only the lawyers won..clogging the courts time, they should have been fined and
made to pay court costs...good info Jim
Today, 03:29 AM
#27
JIMZ
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,623
Real Name: Jim
True WatchGeek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rog1
Thanks Jim.
Roger,
Thank you for posting...
__________________
Today, 06:05 AM
curiousgeorge
True WatchGeek
...
#28
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mpls
Posts: 5,842
Real Name: George
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
Quote:
Originals".
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
Actually Stuhrlings version of this watch came out before Androids version so you in this case are
going to have to eat a little crow. Other brands have also used this double escapement watch to
similar looks considering there are only so many ways you can display this movement available to
any watch company willing to pay to use it. So since Androids version came out about two weeks
later then Sturhlings version should Stuhrling sue Android. Of course not. It's their take on how to
use the movement, Android did theirs. They and many other companies were using this double
escapement way before Android did so sorry but there are only so many looks for this movement.
You would be surprised how many off brands you have never heard of can produce basically the
same looking watch when you shop by parts catalogs for movements and cases. It's all very , very
legal. Wing didn't invent the double escapement. He may be a genius but he too has to buy
movements from the same companies as all the rest for the latest and greatest ways to sell a
product. How many boutique diver brands including Deep Blue use the exact same cases and
bracelets changing the bezels or lume or hands but basically the same in every other aspect at
least 50 brands of boutique divers do this. Why rag on only Stuhrling might as well take on them all
correct.
Today, 07:09 AM
#29
Rog1
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pompano Beach , Fl.
Posts: 13,648
Real Name: Roger
True WatchGeek
Quote:
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
Originally Posted by curiousgeorge
Actually Stuhrlings version of this watch came out before Androids version so you in this
case are going to have to eat a little crow. Other brands have also used this double
escapement watch to similar looks considering there are only so many ways you can
display this movement available to any watch company willing to pay to use it. So since
Androids version came out about two weeks later then Sturhlings version should Stuhrling
sue Android. Of course not. It's their take on how to use the movement, Android did theirs.
They and many other companies were using this double escapement way before Android
did so sorry but there are only so many looks for this movement. You would be surprised
how many off brands you have never heard of can produce basically the same looking
watch when you shop by parts catalogs for movements and cases. It's all very , very legal.
Wing didn't invent the double escapement. He may be a genius but he too has to buy
movements from the same companies as all the rest for the latest and greatest ways to sell
a product. How many boutique diver brands including Deep Blue use the exact same cases
and bracelets changing the bezels or lume or hands but basically the same in every other
aspect at least 50 brands of boutique divers do this. Why rag on only Stuhrling might as
well take on them all correct.
Perfect answer!!
One other thing , Stuhrling does NOT make identical copies of other companies watches as
mentioned by Surelyuknow. They make look-a-likes. An identical copy would be exactly the same.
This would include using the other companies name and logo and images and other things that are
proprietary and that would be illegal.
__________________
Roger
Today, 07:18 AM
#30
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 2,581
Real Name: Woody
TimeOnMySide
Master WatchGeek
Thanks for the info!
__________________
It's no sweat becauses I got "TimeOnMySide".
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
Besides... I don't sweat, I "Condensate"! And yes... I'm still cool !!!
Today, 08:15 AM
#31
Russell3
Master WatchGeek
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: East Fallowfield PA
Posts: 2,871
Real Name: Russell
Quote:
Originally Posted by Notdmeca
Good for Swatch, and a good settlement for all. This was driven by principle and not
monetary gain.
I agree! If you watched the presention that night by Stuhrling you know where they went wrong
and WHY Swatch sued them.
Today, 08:17 AM
#32
Russell3
Master WatchGeek
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,871
Real Name: Russell
Quote:
Originals".
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
Actually their all based on the Breguet
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
Today, 09:42 AM
curiousgeorge
True WatchGeek
#33
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mpls
Posts: 5,842
Real Name: George
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell3
Actually their all based on the Breguet
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
There is the actual inspiration for that style.
Today, 10:55 AM
#34
meijin
Managing Director/Admin
True WatchGeek
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Eden Prairie, MN
Posts: 15,498
Real Name: Michael
You know...before some of you go off less than half-cocked (with very inaccurate ideas) and accuse
a watch company of illegal activities, you should research "7 points of differentiation" and then
make more informed comments.
__________________
Michael
Argument is meant to reveal the truth, not to create it. ~ Edward de Bono
Invicta...in hoc nomen vinces!
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
Today, 11:11 AM
#35
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,581
Real Name: Woody
TimeOnMySide
Master WatchGeek
Quote:
Originally Posted by meijin
You know...before some of you go off less than half-cocked (with very inaccurate ideas)
and accuse a watch company of illegal activities, you should research "7 points of
differentiation" and then make more informed comments.
Well Mike since you brought it to the forefront, why don't you expound upon it.
__________________
Today, 11:25 AM
#36
Russell3
Master WatchGeek
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,871
Real Name: Russell
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeOnMySide
I concur.....Nicely
Today, 03:57 PM
#37
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
JIMZ
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,623
Real Name: Jim
True WatchGeek
Quote:
Originally Posted by gator2012
Very interesting..only the lawyers won..clogging the courts time, they should have been
fined and made to pay court costs...good info Jim
Fred,
Thank you for posting.
Your words ring true, well stated,
and I agree in total... ...
__________________
Today, 04:15 PM
#38
bwag829
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: West Springfield, MA
Posts: 3,533
Real Name: Bill
Master WatchGeek
1 dollar. I love it
Today, 04:21 PM
#39
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,498
Real Name: Michael
meijin
True WatchGeek
Quote:
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a
lifetime."
__________________
Michael
Today, 04:33 PM
#40
socrates
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Live in Hawaii on the island of Oahu
Posts: 8,204
Real Name: Paul
True WatchGeek
Thanks Jim!
__________________
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
6/18/2013 10:18 PM
5 Years, 103 Days, 21 Hours, 19 Minutes, 11 Seconds Since Forums came online
WatchGeeks > ShopNBC Watch Brands > Stuhrling Original
FYI:Swatch Group and Stührling Settle ‘Men in Black’
Watch Lawsuit...
Forum
User CP
Forum Rules
FAQ
Community
Calendar
New Posts
Welcome, .
You last visited:
Private Messages:
Search
Private Messages:
Quick Links
Log Out
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Today, 05:04 PM
Rate Thread
Display Modes
#41
Surelyuknow
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,240
Real Name: Joel
True WatchGeek
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rog1
Perfect answer!!
One other thing , Stuhrling does NOT make identical copies of other companies watches as
mentioned by Surelyuknow. They make look-a-likes. An identical copy would be exactly the
same. This would include using the other companies name and logo and images and other
things that are proprietary and that would be illegal.
You are correct and I chose the wrong wording in my post. What I should
have said was "look alike". Stuhrling makes many "look alike" watches
from those other companies. Thanks for the correction Roger. Of course
Stuhrling probably needs to change their name to a more accurate
"Stuhrling, Not Always Originals"...
__________________
Today, 05:23 PM
#42
GDub
Master WatchGeek
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,665
Real Name: Gary
6/18/2013 10:19 PM
Glad its over
__________________
Today, 05:39 PM
#43
zbuddha
Senior Geek
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 127
Real Name: Jeff
Since the watch can't be sold on shop does this mean we will see it on deptofdeals.com or shark
stores?
Today, 05:45 PM
#44
Surelyuknow
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,240
Real Name: Joel
True WatchGeek
Quote:
Actually Stuhrlings version of this watch came out before Androids version so you in this case
are going to have to eat a little crow. Other brands have also used this double escapement
watch to similar looks considering there are only so many ways you can display this
movement available to any watch company willing to pay to use it. So since Androids version
came out about two weeks later then Sturhlings version should Stuhrling sue Android. Of
course not. It's their take on how to use the movement, Android did theirs. They and many
other companies were using this double escapement way before Android did so sorry but
there are only so many looks for this movement. You would be surprised how many off
brands you have never heard of can produce basically the same looking watch when you shop
6/18/2013 10:19 PM
by parts catalogs for movements and cases. It's all very , very legal. Wing didn't invent the
double escapement. He may be a genius but he too has to buy movements from the same
companies as all the rest for the latest and greatest ways to sell a product. How many
boutique diver brands including Deep Blue use the exact same cases and bracelets changing
the bezels or lume or hands but basically the same in every other aspect at least 50 brands
of boutique divers do this. Why rag on only Stuhrling might as well take on them all correct.
George, I see you missed the point of my comment. Although my post had a
wording issue as brought up by Roger, in which he was correct I might add.
Stuhrling Originals use of the word "Originals" is false IMO, as many of
their watch designs are "look alikes" and thus they are not originals. We
here at WG know that almost all watch companies use many of the same
designs and then throw in their own take on of that design. But what they
don't do is say they are "Originals". The average non watch collecting
public may not realize that and think Stuhrling's timepieces are all original
designs which again, they are not. So my rag on Stuhrling, as you put it, is
that if you claim to be "Original" you need to be. By virtue of their choice of
that company name, they are misleading the public. That was my point and
that is still my opinion...
BTW, I have a couple of their watches that do or do not resemble other
timepieces... just sayin'.
__________________
Today, 05:57 PM
#45
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,581
Real Name: Woody
TimeOnMySide
Master WatchGeek
Quote:
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a
lifetime."
Lol...I could counter with a proverb but I won't. I just thought since you like to inform/teach us of
things that are happening within the watch industry, you might have shed some clarity. Thats you
choice and your intitled to it.
__________________
6/18/2013 10:19 PM
Today, 06:17 PM
#46
meijin
True WatchGeek
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,498
Real Name: Michael
Quote:
Lol...I could counter with a proverb but I won't. I just thought since you like to inform/teach
us of things that are happening within the watch industry, you might have shed some clarity.
Thats you choice and your intitled to it.
The information is there, all someone needs to do is a little work or research. I have found lately that
something "given" is not necessarily received in the same way that something "earned" is. If
someone wants to do a little research on the issue, I am more than happy to discuss and/or debate
it.
__________________
Michael
Today, 06:30 PM
curiousgeorge
True WatchGeek
#47
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mpls
Posts: 5,842
Real Name: George
Quote:
George, I see you missed the point of my comment. Although my post
had a wording issue as brought up by Roger, in which he was correct
I might add. Stuhrling Originals use of the word "Originals" is false
IMO, as many of their watch designs are "look alikes" and thus they
are not originals. We here at WG know that almost all watch
companies use many of the same designs and then throw in their own
take on of that design. But what they don't do is say they are
"Originals". The average non watch collecting public may not realize
that and think Stuhrling's timepieces are all original designs which
again, they are not. So my rag on Stuhrling, as you put it, is that if
you claim to be "Original" you need to be. By virtue of their choice of
that company name, they are misleading the public. That was my
6/18/2013 10:19 PM
point and that is still my opinion...
BTW, I have a couple of their watches that do or do not resemble
other timepieces... just sayin'.
I know what you are saying but your example and use of an Android watch that came out after
Stuhrlings take on the real original watch was a misleading and untrue example of them say copying
Android when in fact they had the watch out first and neither companies version was anything but
their own take on a higher end piece. You can call it splitting hairs but the example you used made
Stuhrling look bad and Android look like the originator of that design when it was in fact neither
which is the way the watch world works and is perfectly legal. Is Swiss Legend truly a Swiss legend,
how much is Swiss about Swiss Precimax, There are at least at minimum 30 so called German brands
who use nothing but Chinese by catalog cases, and movements but still put Germany on the dial
even though the only thing German about them is the owners are based in Germany. Is that
misleading enough for you. I can list at least 50 watch brands that have what you would call a
misleading name. It's all perfectly legal and up to the consumer how or where to spend their money.
Today, 06:31 PM
#48
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Currently, North Carolina. But, I travel worldwide as part of my job.
Posts: 1,453
Real Name: Jason
NCEngineer
Super Geek
Quote:
Originally Posted by gator2012
Very interesting..only the lawyers won..clogging the courts time, they should have been fined and
made to pay court costs...good info Jim
Well, looking at the results, to me, it looks like SWG actually won.
They got SO to stop selling two watches they paid money to produce: The watch in question, and another
watch (the Delphi Huntsman). And, SO agreed to avoid distributing or selling in the future any watches
that infringe on the 'open heart trade dress.'"
So, that's SO's loss.
SWG is big enough to keep lawyers on their payroll. They are literally the biggest watch company on the
planet. So, in my opinion, they gave up little to nothing. And, the $1 loss to SO, was more of a symbolic
gesture that amounts to "you are beaten" in this round. So, although I saw one story chalk this up as a
"win" for SO, I really don't see it that way. Especially, as SWG was not asked to give up anything, nor to
pay lawyers fees to SO.
Just my personal opinion.
6/18/2013 10:19 PM
Today, 06:45 PM
#49
Surelyuknow
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,240
Real Name: Joel
True WatchGeek
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCEngineer
They got SO to stop selling two watches they paid money to produce: The watch in question,
and another watch (the Delphi Huntsman). And, SO agreed to avoid distributing or selling in
the future any watches that infringe on the 'open heart trade dress.'"
SWG is big enough to keep lawyers on their payroll. They are literally the biggest watch
company on the planet. So, in my opinion, they gave up little to nothing. And, the $1 loss to
SO, was more of a symbolic gesture that amounts to "you are beaten" in this round. So,
although I saw one story chalk this up as a "win" for SO, I really don't see it that way.
Especially, as SWG was not asked to give up anything, nor to pay lawyers fees to SO.
I'm in complete agreement with you Jason. The case was not thrown out of
court. There was a winner and a loser, be it $1 or a million $$. SO did
wrong by SWG and the court agreed.
__________________
Today, 06:56 PM
#50
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 4,817
Real Name: Doug
Ronko Man
Master WatchGeek
Amazon is currently selling them, as SO is not allowed to sell them on the Shop.
__________________
6/18/2013 10:19 PM
Today, 07:14 PM
#51
Surelyuknow
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,240
Real Name: Joel
True WatchGeek
Quote:
I know what you are saying but your example and use of an Android watch that came out
after Stuhrlings take on the real original watch was a misleading and untrue example of them
say copying Android when in fact they had the watch out first and neither companies version
was anything but their own take on a higher end piece. You can call it splitting hairs but the
example you used made Stuhrling look bad and Android look like the originator of that design
when it was in fact neither which is the way the watch world works and is perfectly legal. Is
Swiss Legend truly a Swiss legend, how much is Swiss about Swiss Precimax, There are at
least at minimum 30 so called German brands who use nothing but Chinese by catalog cases,
and movements but still put Germany on the dial even though the only thing German about
them is the owners are based in Germany. Is that misleading enough for you. I can list at
least 50 watch brands that have what you would call a misleading name. It's all perfectly
legal and up to the consumer how or where to spend their money.
George, you say you know what I mean and yet you continue to "split
hairs". The court said in fact that SO had wronged SWG. I say SO makes
many watches that are not Originals and they should not claim their
watches are such... that's all. I'm not discussing what other companies do,
just SO. That would be a whole another story altogether and a different
discussion.
__________________
Today, 07:22 PM
#52
6/18/2013 10:19 PM
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mpls
Posts: 5,842
Real Name: George
curiousgeorge
True WatchGeek
Quote:
George, you say you know what I mean and yet you continue to "split
hairs". The court said in fact that SO had wronged SWG. I say SO
makes many watches that are not Originals and they should not claim
their watches are such... that's all. I'm not discussing what other
companies do, just SO. That would be a whole another story
altogether and a different discussion.
So the court said ShopNBC and Stuhrling can't sell a watch basically because the suit was brought on
the merits of a reference to the movie Men In Black III. The reason ShopNBC and Stuhrling cant sell
the watch on ShopNBC is because that movie reference was made. Nowhere in the judges ruling did
it say Stuhrling can't continue to sell the watch elsewhere. Big Victory for Swatch. They didn't win a
copyright infringement on the watch they won one dollar based on a reference to a movie which
Swatch had a paid product placement in. So you can read into the judges ruling your way, I'll read it
in a different way. No admission of guilt, and they can continue to sell the watch anywhere but
ShopNBC where the movie reference was made by a ShopNBC host and not Larry Magan.. A big
waste of time for the courts, some work for some lawyers though. Nothing was accomplished., and
the watch industry will keep doing the same thing.
Today, 07:26 PM
#53
meijin
True WatchGeek
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,498
Real Name: Michael
6/18/2013 10:19 PM
Quote:
They got SO to stop selling two watches they paid money to produce: The watch in question,
and another watch (the Delphi Huntsman). And, SO agreed to avoid distributing or selling in
the future any watches that infringe on the 'open heart trade dress.'"
SWG is big enough to keep lawyers on their payroll. They are literally the biggest watch
company on the planet. So, in my opinion, they gave up little to nothing. And, the $1 loss to
SO, was more of a symbolic gesture that amounts to "you are beaten" in this round. So,
although I saw one story chalk this up as a "win" for SO, I really don't see it that way.
Especially, as SWG was not asked to give up anything, nor to pay lawyers fees to SO.
Actually, I would disagree to a large degree...
The real "teeth" behind any civil legal action are the [punitive] damages. To quote a legal source on
this subject:
Quote:
To determine the amount, the jury or court must consider the nature of the wrongdoer's
behavior, the extent of the plaintiff's loss or injury, and the degree to which the defendant's
conduct is repugnant to a societal sense of justice and decency.
Given the awarding of $1 in damages, one can easily surmise that the court, in this case, may have
found a technical violation of the law but did not find any damages or loss to Swatch, no egregious
behavior on the part of SO and that their conduct in the violation was not repugnant in a societal
sense.
What is also very telling is that Swatch did not appeal the decision. They accepted it and then moved
on. If they thought for a moment that they stood a chance of getting a better decision from an
appellate court, they would have.
For anyone that is particularly interested, spend a few bucks and file a FOIA (Freedom of Information
Act) in the district where this was decided and get the final judgement. Very rarely does a judge just
walk out and say "guilty, damages of $1 awarded". His final judgement should contain, to one degree
or another, the thought process of the judge in reaching the decision. That might prove to be
interesting reading for some.
__________________
Michael
Today, 07:40 PM
#54
6/18/2013 10:19 PM
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,240
Real Name: Joel
Surelyuknow
True WatchGeek
Quote:
So the court said ShopNBC and Stuhrling can't sell a watch basically because the suit was
brought on the merits of a reference to the movie Men In Black III. The reason ShopNBC and
Stuhrling cant sell the watch on ShopNBC is because that movie reference was made.
Nowhere in the judges ruling did it say Stuhrling can't continue to sell the watch elsewhere.
Big Victory for Swatch. They didn't win a copyright infringement on the watch they won one
dollar based on a reference to a movie which Swatch had a paid product placement in. So
you can read into the judges ruling your way, I'll read it the proper way.
Actually I believe it was two watch designs and what was said on Shops,
but I don't want to split hairs. I don't know how you play, but a proper win
is still a win and a loss is still a loss. And you can read it any way you want
to your hearts content. Stuhrling aren't so Original... I'm done my friend,
have a good and proper evening.
__________________
Today, 07:44 PM
#55
Mschill813
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Northeast Arizona just south of the Navajo reservation
Posts: 168
Real Name: Mike
Senior Member
Senior Geek
Thanks Michael! I am doing some reading on the court case very interesting. Once again thanks Jim
for the post.Mike
Today, 07:48 PM
#56
meijin
True WatchGeek
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,498
Real Name: Michael
Quote:
6/18/2013 10:19 PM
Actually I believe it was two watch designs and what was said on
Shops, but I don't want to split hairs. I don't know how you play, but
a proper win is still a win and a loss is still a loss. And you can read it
any way you want to your hearts content. Stuhrling aren't so
Original... I'm done my friend, have a good and proper evening.
Ask the lawyers for Swatch if THEY considered it a win...all they got was billable hours and probably
30% of the $1 awarded to their client! LOL!
As referenced above, a civil legal action is not a zero sum game. However, when the actual results of
the legal action is essentially zero, then it really doesn't matter which side you ended up on.
Again, for those that think otherwise, I would urge you to get a copy of the final judgement and see
for yourself.
__________________
Michael
Today, 07:49 PM
curiousgeorge
True WatchGeek
#57
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mpls
Posts: 5,842
Real Name: George
Quote:
Actually I believe it was two watch designs and what was said on
Shops, but I don't want to split hairs. I don't know how you play, but
a proper win is still a win and a loss is still a loss. And you can read it
any way you want to your hearts content. Stuhrling aren't so
Original... I'm done my friend, have a good and proper evening.
The only relative $1 loser would be ShopNBC which was a co-defendent and that would be because
they can't sell the watch on the network anymore. Stuhrling on the other hand can sell whatever is
left anywhere else they want and not face any chance of a returning lawsuit. Nice discussion, but we
will have to agree to disagree.
Today, 07:59 PM
#58
6/18/2013 10:19 PM
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,871
Real Name: Russell
Russell3
Master WatchGeek
Quote:
Actually, I would disagree to a large degree...
The real "teeth" behind any civil legal action are the [punitive] damages. To quote a legal
source on this subject:
Given the awarding of $1 in damages, one can easily surmise that the court, in this case,
may have found a technical violation of the law but did not find any damages or loss to
Swatch, no egregious behavior on the part of SO and that their conduct in the violation was
not repugnant in a societal sense.
What is also very telling is that Swatch did not appeal the decision. They accepted it and then
moved on. If they thought for a moment that they stood a chance of getting a better decision
from an appellate court, they would have.
For anyone that is particularly interested, spend a few bucks and file a FOIA (Freedom of
Information Act) in the district where this was decided and get the final judgement. Very
rarely does a judge just walk out and say "guilty, damages of $1 awarded". His final
judgement should contain, to one degree or another, the thought process of the judge in
reaching the decision. That might prove to be interesting reading for some.
I'm going to disagree just a little. I really think Swatch is the real winner here.
They've sent a message to the industry that they will vigerisly defend their trade marks. If only for a
$1.00
Today, 08:45 PM
#59
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,453
Real Name: Jason
NCEngineer
Super Geek
Quote:
What is also very telling is that Swatch did not appeal the decision. They accepted it and then
6/18/2013 10:19 PM
moved on. If they thought for a moment that they stood a chance of getting a better decision
from an appellate court, they would have.
There is no way to know the motivations behind that decision on the part of SWG. In the end, they got
what they wanted. Why didn't they appeal? Neither of us know. The fact remains that SO agreed to not
sell their watches on ShopNBC. So, I disagree, which is OK, as neither of us know for sure.
After this costly incident for SO, if one is a smaller watch company, is one now willing to attempt to cross
swords with SWG, understanding that they will absorb the cost of litigation easily? I think SWG made their
point.
Today, 09:03 PM
#60
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Mpls
Posts: 5,842
Real Name: George
curiousgeorge
True WatchGeek
Quote:
There is no way to know the motivations behind that decision on the part of SWG. In the end,
they got what they wanted. Why didn't they appeal? Neither of us know. The fact remains
that SO agreed to not sell their watches on ShopNBC. So, I disagree, which is OK, as neither
of us know for sure.
After this costly incident for SO, if one is a smaller watch company, is one now willing to
attempt to cross swords with SWG, understanding that they will absorb the cost of litigation
easily? I think SWG made their point.
You can also look at it the other way correct. The little company was being sued as was ValueVision.
The judged ruled no trademark infringement and Stuhrling can go on selling that model watch
without any possibility of further lawsuit except on ShopNBC. So the big bad wolf didn't really prove
anything in reality, and another similar case would probably meet the same fate. Stuhrling and
ShopNBC can no longer sell one watch on the network, but Stuhrling can sell any remaining quantity
of that watch anywhere else they please. How costly was it really. Both companies have lawyers on
retainer for such things. Not exactly a costly lawsuit in that is was ruled on very quickly. Two ways of
looking at the same result.
Today, 09:09 PM
#61
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,453
Real Name: Jason
NCEngineer
Super Geek
6/18/2013 10:19 PM
Quote:
You can also look at it the other way correct. The little company was being sued as was
ValueVision. The judged ruled no trademark infringement and Stuhrling can go on selling that
model watch without any possibility of further lawsuit except on ShopNBC. So the big bad wolf
didn't really prove anything in reality, and another similar case would probably meet the same
fate. Stuhrling and ShopNBC can no longer sell one watch on the network, but Stuhrling can sell
any remaining quantity of that watch anywhere else they please. How costly was it really. Both
companies have lawyers on retainer for such things. Not exactly a costly lawsuit in that is was
ruled on very quickly. Two ways of looking at the same result.
There are lots of ways to look at this. All I know as fact is that SWG did not loose the case and the case
was not thrown out. The rest in pure interpretation.
Today, 09:19 PM
#62
motegi
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sunshine State
Posts: 2,513
Master WatchGeek
Quote:
You know...before some of you go off less than half-cocked (with very inaccurate ideas) and
accuse a watch company of illegal activities, you should research "7 points of differentiation"
and then make more informed comments.
Per WikiPedia:
"Points of Parity vs Points of Difference"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Points-...-of-difference
And a video:
http://theextraordinarycoachingcompa.../06/12/post-4/
Interesting lesson in marketing. I wish I had seen this when I worked in retail.
__________________
6/27 Tampa Bay/Central Florida GGT!!! Invicta Store Grand Opening!!! See GGT section!!!
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Tags
Edit Tags
6/18/2013 10:19 PM
None
Quick Reply
Message:
Options
Quote message in reply?
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Posting Rules
You
You
You
You
may
may
may
may
post new threads
post replies
not post attachments
edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Rules
Forum Jump
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:33 PM.
Contact Us - WatchGeeks - Archive - Top
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
6/18/2013 10:19 PM

FYI:Swatch Group and Stührling Settle `Men in Black` Watch Lawsuit

Transcription

Similar documents

1 Highlights of Memorial Day Congressional Recess Radio Tour

Cassie Delaney for BICs 22/o1/2016

Sue B Zimmerman Presentation

Toyota Case Study New

Scorecard - Clays Golf

Page 1 of 6 Showa Sumi - Page 17

a daily crossword star signs sudoku puzzle daily

puzzle - Dallas Voice

SIGFRUT: a WEBGIS application for designing agricultural

Window Sticker