Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009
I think fake Patek or real Patek watches, along with a great many other makes and apes of high end watches, are much the same largely because so few folks would recognize them to begin with, much less actually see clearly the name on the dial. I think watchies might notice a PP or other fancy watch, but people who are "into" watches comprise a very small segment of the population. But I suspect that most folks upon seeing a PP or VC or something of that ilk will determine whether they think it looks nice and not and that's about it. I don't think they'll see it as a "show off" sort of thing.
|
In general, yes a watch is not the largest flag one could raise to the general public, but I actually think a nice watch stands out a bit more more than most of us tend to think. Yes it might be because I am in to watches that I notice them, but i've seen plenty of other people take notice and lock in on one before. Also you have to consider in the hypothetical we used, what type of people do you think that person is spending time with? Probably rooms of people with money, with likely nice watches on their arms, among other expensive accessories and clothing. Let's face it, in work or social situations where you rest your arms on a table, that timepiece is a pretty noticeable item. Unless it's a very famous design like the standard Rolex dial, you might not know the particular make from afar, but it's not hard to see a nice alligator strap and a thick polished case as some signs that this is probably not from Target. So I maintain my point, I think there is certainly a justifiable reason why a wealthy person would use a watch to project status.
Regarding some of the litigation here, with respect to the Nike example. The actual majority basis for that was the other company trying to claim that Nike trademark should be revoked. The actual trademark was concerning things like the overall design shape, and were exactly things are placed in respect to other features. And that company actually had two (not sure if it was current or former) Nike designers creating that shoe. Nike decided not to pursue the case after it determined that it was not cost efficient to do so, previously determining that the threat from this infringement was minimal. Is the behind closed doors truth different from that? Possibly. Maybe there was some form of "punishment" in the form of this case on their minds. But the bottom line is that they had every right to do so, as the supposed copied product met enough criteria to bring the case. I guess my point from here is that a company like Nike or Rolex has every right to defend its patents and trademarks. Even if they decide to only hit the other company in the pocket with a suit they don't intend on seeing through to the end. They should be aware of these possibilities before making knock off goods. If it was my company having it's designs ripped off, I certainly would not be "above" taking measures like this. Business is war. Knocking off a trademarked item is just opening yourself up for a huge blow.
The deli example is pretty funny, but honestly as crazy as it sounds, I understand it. Rolex is a name that they have built up to mean something. I would not want it being thrown around for use on every street corner by people trying to profit from the name you built. In that case, the guy admitted he named it after the watch company. If you paid to protect the name, then enforce it if you wish!