PDA

View Full Version : Another Omega motion denied



swanbourne
7th November 2005, 15:13
Their application for summary judgement was denied and now their appeal against that denial has been denied.

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno= ... OPP&eno=28 (http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91158655&pty=OPP&eno=28)

Eddie

Crusader
7th November 2005, 15:19
Too late, and merely a reaffirmation of what they said in their original motion, hence irrelevant?

One hopes that the Omega watchmakers are better than their lawyers ... :wink:

JasonG
7th November 2005, 15:21
Excellent!

I guess this means it will go to court sometime in the (probably not too) near future?

Incidentally Eddie, I am slightly confused...I don't remember ever seeing "Broadarrow" anywhere on any Omega kit...have I missed something here?

ttfn

JasonG

swanbourne
7th November 2005, 15:24
They don't use "Broadarrow" Jason but they have started using "Broad Arrow" on the caseback of some models.

Eddie

Crusader
7th November 2005, 15:26
Excellent!

I guess this means it will go to court sometime in the (probably not too) near future?

Incidentally Eddie, I am slightly confused...I don't remember ever seeing "Broadarrow" anywhere on any Omega kit...have I missed something here?

ttfn

JasonG

Ah, but they use "Broad Arrow" hands* ... like the British crown.

A lawsuit claiming pre-emptive copyright infingement for centuries by the British crown is being perpared as we speak. :twisted: :wink:

*Unlimited opportunities for DaimlerChrysler to sue Rolex, or vice versa, isn't it? :lol:

rfrazier
7th November 2005, 15:31
It is good that they didn't win. But, Eddie, you are the applicant, and your response to the motion was late and irrelevant. You've got to "raise" your game for showtime. ;)

Best wishes,
Bob

JasonG
7th November 2005, 15:33
They don't use "Broadarrow" Jason but they have started using "Broad Arrow" on the caseback of some models.

Eddie

Sneaky!

I'd guess they started using it after you'd been making stuff for a while?

ttfn...off to see the Navy Blue Vicar

JasonG

swanbourne
7th November 2005, 15:38
My submission was indeed both late and irrelevant Bob but it contained something I wanted to say. Even though it wasn't considered, it was read and the effect could possibly be compared to a judge telling the jury to ignore important information which shouldn't have been revealed. :wink:

Eddie

Crusader
7th November 2005, 15:40
It is good that they didn't win. But, Eddie, you are the applicant, and your response to the motion was late and irrelevant. You've got to "raise" your game for showtime. ;)

Best wishes,
Bob

I didn't realize that it was Eddie's response that was late ... legal English is even more difficult to understand than the British regional dialects ... :oops: :roll:

rfrazier
7th November 2005, 15:45
[

I didn't realize that it was Eddie's response that was late ... legal English is even more difficult to understand than the British regional dialects ... :oops: :roll:

They do it that way on purpose. A special guild language. Is the applicant the party applying for an overturning of the denial of the motion for summary judgement, or the party applying for the trademark? That's the question in reading that document. It appears that "applicant" is used to refer to the party applying for the trademark throughout the proceedings.

Best wishes,
Bob

swanbourne
7th November 2005, 16:26
But sometimes they use technical words like "plaintiff" and "defendant". :wink:

Eddie

Michael in Frisco, Texas
7th November 2005, 17:54
Congrats, Eddie. I see that Omega is keeping to its one-trick pony argument. There is a saying that I heard many times while working in the legal profession -- If the law is in your favor, pound the law. If the facts are in your favor, pound the facts; but, if neither the law or the facts are in your favor, pound the table.

After reading the Court's opinion, it seems to me that Omega is indeed "pounding the table".

rfrazier
7th November 2005, 18:58
Congrats, Eddie. I see that Omega is keeping to its one-trick pony argument. There is a saying that I heard many times while working in the legal profession -- If the law is in your favor, pound the law. If the facts are in your favor, pound the facts; but, if neither the law or the facts are in your favor, pound the table.

After reading the Court's opinion, it seems to me that Omega is indeed "pounding the table".

If I were them, I would have taken off my shoe and pounded the table, even if I suspected it wouldn't do any good, as long as I didn't think it would do much harm. (From what little I've been able to garner, they shouldn't have expected to win at summary.) As I said in another thread, since they didn't win summary, their choices get a lot tougher.

Best wishes,
Bob


Best wishes,
Bob

swanbourne
7th November 2005, 19:45
Now this may be a stupid question but seeing as the law firm continues to milk Omega, whatever happened to "best advice"? If their chances of success are slight, why continue to tell the client that they will win?

Eddie

rfrazier
7th November 2005, 19:52
Now this may be a stupid question but seeing as the law firm continues to milk Omega, whatever happened to "best advice"? If their chances of success are slight, why continue to tell the client that they will win?

Eddie

Lawyers don't always give the best advice; some are greedy and some aren't very good. Sometimes clients are not completely straightforward with their lawyers, and don't give them all of the relevant information. But, even when they do give good advice on good information, it may not be followed. The client may want to go ahead in any case. And, if the stakes are large enough, it may be rational to spend quite a bit with a small chance of winning. But, so far, Omega hasn't had much to lose, frankly. Only their legal costs.

Best wishes,
Bob

rfrazier
7th November 2005, 19:54
Now this may be a stupid question but seeing as the law firm continues to milk Omega, whatever happened to "best advice"? If their chances of success are slight, why continue to tell the client that they will win?

Eddie

Lawyers don't always give the best advice; some are greedy and some aren't very good. Sometimes clients are not completely straightforward with their lawyers, and don't give them all of the relevant information. But, even when they do give good advice on good information, it may not be followed. The client may want to go ahead in any case. And, if the stakes are large enough, it may be rational to spend quite a bit with a small chance of winning. But, so far, Omega hasn't had much to lose, frankly. Only their legal costs. In other words, you can't assume that Omega's laywers told them that Omega would win.

Best wishes,
Bob

rfrazier
7th November 2005, 20:11
Whoops. I forgot that I can't edit my posts here. (The chances of Omega or their lawyers coming on here and saying anything nasty is nil, by the way.)

Although Omega hasn't had much to lose up to now, it is a different ball game from here on in. (If you had lots of money, etc., it might have been worth having a go at summary yourself, although my guess is that there is enough of a controversy for it to go to trial -- but, as one is supposed to say, I'm not a lawyer.)

Best wishes,
Bob

JasonG
7th November 2005, 22:08
One person's modus ponens is another person's modus tollens.


Blimey! Haven't heard that for a while. Mind you, last time I did it had a "pollendo" and "tollendo" in there too. :wink:

ttfn

JasonG

rfrazier
7th November 2005, 22:23
PS It is a good thing in the long term that client / attorney communications are privledged and not accessible during discovery, or, even, afterwards, but one sure wishes that one could see some of them. ;)
RLF

Gert
8th November 2005, 02:17
PS It is a good thing in the long term that client / attorney communications are privledged and not accessible during discovery, or, even, afterwards, but one sure wishes that one could see some of them. ;)
RLF

In this case, it would be fantastic stuff. Omicron's lawyers advising to take this case all the way (on billable hours, of course) on the strength of their own advertising pamphlets. Probably still costs a fraction of an ad campaign, mind you :?

Good luck Eddie!

Gert

Michael in Frisco, Texas
8th November 2005, 15:32
I agree with Gert. Omega can afford to litigate on principle, spending as much money as necessary so that any other entity cannot have something they perceive they want. Some corporations also litigate, or rather attempt to litigate opponents into submission -- they try to break them financially. Since they are genuinely afraid of any real competition, they use the courts systems to shut down anyone not willing to bow to their puffing and bullying.

Dr.Brian
11th November 2005, 01:49
I think that it is interesting that they seem to be trying to imply that you could, intentionally or not, cause potential buyers to think that your watches are actually manufactured by Omega just because you sold some crappy vintage Omega some time in the past on your site. :roll: I'm suprised that they don't comment on this forum and how often Omega watches are discussed, obviously your ploy to further confuse potential buyers into buying your "inferior" products. :wink:
-Brian

ianboydsnr
17th December 2005, 20:21
What is the next move or deadline Eddie :lol:










Everyone will look at this because nothing has been posted in a while :D

swanbourne
18th December 2005, 14:01
Omega should submit their case for the full hearing sometime in January and I have until April or May to respond. They then have another month or so to respond to my response. The US trademarks office then deliberates and prounounces judgement.

Omega can ask for a hearing in person I believe.

Eddie