PDA

View Full Version : My final argument has now been filed



swanbourne
15th December 2006, 14:22
Just got to wait another 30 days for Omega to make their response and then it's off for the judges to decide.

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno= ... OPP&eno=39 (http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91158655&pty=OPP&eno=39)

Eddie

pinkwindmill
15th December 2006, 14:51
Good luck Eddie.

Cheers,

Guy

Mercutio
15th December 2006, 15:25
All the best, Eddie, hope you succeed!

Griswold
15th December 2006, 15:55
Looks sound Eddie. Best wishes for a successful outcome. :) :)

cbh
15th December 2006, 16:17
It reads well, just hope that the judges have some common sense !

Andrzej
15th December 2006, 16:24
It reads well.

The best of luck (not that it should be required given the statement!)

bambam
15th December 2006, 17:32
Best of British to you Eddie!

VinceR
15th December 2006, 17:32
It reads well, just hope that the judges have some common sense !

Totally agree & I hope all goes well for you (even though I do like & own a few Omega's)

/vince ..

Mrcrowley
15th December 2006, 18:13
Good luck Eddie.

abraxas
15th December 2006, 18:56
http://www.mscnj.com/images/who_needs_pix/crossed_fingers.jpg

john

bricktop
15th December 2006, 20:50
Sounds very good to me. Good luck Eddie - though I hope you won't need it since you're right anyway - at least IMHO.

:)
Oliver

docd
15th December 2006, 21:08
Go Eddie :thumbright:

Lemoneyewash
15th December 2006, 22:01
http://www.mscnj.com/images/who_needs_pix/crossed_fingers.jpg

john

Ditto.

Mercutio
16th December 2006, 00:35
Didn't have the time to actually read your reply when I first posted, now I have.

Well spoken, Eddie.

Dave E
16th December 2006, 00:50
Everything crossed, Eddie!

A.Pottinger
16th December 2006, 03:01
Best wishes Eddie :) May the rightful judgement be handed down.

Sincerely,
Pottinger :)

Dave Essel
16th December 2006, 04:45
Beautifully argued and set out.

If arguments are what win the day, then the big O should be shafted.

Where I live, there is a need for lawyers too, though the process, I am told, is slightly different: you need a lawyer because lawyers know judges and are thus able to pass on your fee for the obtention of the judgement you require. Since the opponent has his lawyer doing the same... [I have yet to learn if refunds are offered to the outbidded party but will make enquiries.]

This is just a long way of saying that I wish you the best of luck and am pleased for your sake that the case is not being decided here.

Crusader
16th December 2006, 06:44
Best of luck Eddie. Let the better argument win. Unfortunately, the two wishes are not contradictory - in court, as on the high seas, one is in God's hands.

Guntram
16th December 2006, 11:07
The link doesn't work for me, but my fingers are crossed nonetheless. Way to go, Eddie!

A.Pottinger
16th December 2006, 11:21
Link not working this morning for me either. I would like to read it in detail-interesting :)

A new or alternative link available?

Sincerely,
P :)

swanbourne
16th December 2006, 12:48
The link is working for me this morning.

Eddie

Chris_in_the_UK
16th December 2006, 13:07
Just had a look - link works fine for me?

A.Pottinger
16th December 2006, 23:37
CTried it again, after trying a few times this morning and it is working now. Bedtime reading, clearly, now:) LOL

Thanks.
Best Wishes,
Sincerely,
Pottinger :)

A.Pottinger
17th December 2006, 00:18
Read it. Nicely put together, imho. Well done
The routes to market argument, and prior application for unregistered trademark are especially strong, imho-striking at the heart of the 'confusion for consumer' argument. Nice points re. dial ID and full markings.

That your watches have brand names clearly written in such a manner i.e. on dial and caseback in a distinctive manner is excellent.
'exclusively used' re. broadarrow for brit mil marking, I would perhaps have replaced by 'to denote'; consistent with your supporting 'clearly branded' argument which applies to Omega and your watches (contrasting use)-thereby clarifying between your use and other use as well extending the argument. In any case, the way it is put in the case makes this same point, in so far as Omega prior use claim is clarified and contested in your argument, overall and point by point-Omega cannot claim prior use, nor right to it by associative argument or article(s), moreover, in light of routes to market case/position.

-Was in use for a long time before Omega.
-Was mitigated by brand markings.
-Was open to trademarking, and you made the first, bona fide claim that was accepted by the authorities, and subsequent to a legitimate and good check, prior to registration.

The Broadarrow definition & examples of use, prior registration for TM by you in precedence and routes to market/clear marking (no chance of reasonable confusion) argument makes a formidable triune position and case, imho.

That their applications do not follow clear and mutually consistent supporting lines of argument is a large oversight by them, imho, and more substantiation on their part, for their arguments, for example by the adducing of better suppositions, depositions and evidence would have been verywise.

It seems in view of the above and the manner in which they have proceeded with their case; arguments made, style, calls, depth of their argument and supporting submissions, overall they have been expecting you to fold, not to fight as skillfully as you have and to bend before large lawyers.

Arrogant, misplaced and dangerous, imo. Pending judgement, and even if it goes Omega's way, hardly an impressive performance by their lawyers given the possibilites to muddy the waters perhaps,-not a sterling job, imho.

Maybe I've seen a few too many well put false cases LOL.

Some thoughts.

It is great, very impressive Eddie :) and most importantly courageous with clear, very good argument.

Sincerely,
P

Stokport
18th December 2006, 19:15
I don't understand Omega's point of view - they are toast.

Good luck Eddie. 30 days is a loooong wait. :)

Cheers

Henrik

Dean in Canuckistan
19th December 2006, 00:59
Best wishes Eddie. Here's hoping for the correct outcome - one that recognizes that the facts are on your side.

Gruntfuttock
24th December 2006, 14:43
Just caught up with this thread. Best of luck Eddie. :reindeer:

davide
24th December 2006, 15:05
Excellent arguments well put, Eddie.

I suspect Omega's lawyers, as is so often the case, find it hard to advise their clients to end this claim, as it would undermine the advice they have been giving them up to this point. They would deny this, but, in addition, the economic advantages of pursuing weak cases often blind lawyers to the reality of their client's cases.

I practised as a litigation lawyer for 25 years and know what I'm talking about.

docrwm
15th January 2007, 00:54
I see that Omega SA's lawyer has filed a request for an Oral Hearing. Slick move inasmuch as it will be scheduled in the US and Eddie is in the UK. They can delay, shift the date, etc. and make it cost a fortune to be "heard" all the time having minimal expenses themselves. :twisted:

A.Pottinger
15th January 2007, 15:10
I see that Omega SA's lawyer has filed a request for an Oral Hearing. Slick move inasmuch as it will be scheduled in the US and Eddie is in the UK. They can delay, shift the date, etc. and make it cost a fortune to be "heard" all the time having minimal expenses themselves. :twisted:

Maximum expenses for the Lawyers, in the circumstances. The Oral Hearing would be aimed, imho, at trying to trip someone up over their knowledge of the law in as far as they know it better and now are playing for mistakes [by a party, ostensibly less versed in this law than the flash lawyers involved in pursuing this case on behalf of OMEGA SA] to make their case rather than the merits of it, per se.

docrwm
16th January 2007, 04:23
I see that Omega SA's lawyer has filed a request for an Oral Hearing. Slick move inasmuch as it will be scheduled in the US and Eddie is in the UK. They can delay, shift the date, etc. and make it cost a fortune to be "heard" all the time having minimal expenses themselves. :twisted:

Maximum expenses for the Lawyers, in the circumstances. The Oral Hearing would be aimed, imho, at trying to trip someone up over their knowledge of the law in as far as they know it better and now are playing for mistakes [by a party, ostensibly less versed in this law than the flash lawyers involved in pursuing this case on behalf of OMEGA SA] to make their case rather than the merits of it, per se.

I have no doubts that the lawyers involved are arrogant enough to believe that they can win if only they can use their eloquence and their experience before the bench in question. Having read the briefs from both sides it seems clear to me that Eddie has the facts on his side. That, sadly, is not the determining factor in most cases. However, I also believe that the ploy of asking for oral arguments in a case in which the opponent is foreign and where they can get the date reset easily will bleed Eddie. This tactic wins for them, in their view, both ways.

calico jack
3rd March 2007, 05:28
as far as i am aware eddie they havn't got a case, the broad arrow is a 'crown mark', and in america only applies to trees.

1st; i personaly would not collaborate with american courts, they cant exactly sapoena you.Also uk and us are two different marketing entities.

2nd; The omega is a model yours is a brand.

3rd; Pheon is the other name for the sign and i bet no one is contesting that , switch to that name if you like and forget about the case( still use a broard arrow) as a motif/logo.

And final closing remark, no one can own the mark other than the crown in this country so them yanks can feck off, rightly so! DONT GO TO AMERICA YOU'LL END UP IN GUANTANAMO! serious bro, dont go , they have no jurisdiction.

Grath
3rd March 2007, 07:22
Uh, Eddie is trying to trademark the "Broadarrow" name in the US. Omega is trying to stop him.

Gert
3rd March 2007, 10:23
:shock: :lol:

Gert

Crusader
3rd March 2007, 21:52
:shock: :lol:

Gert

Back from making the Danish streets unsafe, eh? :P :wink:

Rinaldo1711
25th March 2007, 20:15
Go for it Eddie!!

Pugwash
25th March 2007, 20:26
Just got to wait another 30 days for Omega to make their response and then it's off for the judges to decide.
Ok, so it'll be video conference for the oral deposition? :shock:

Please keep us informed of the progress. This is like a TV courtroom drama, only a really, really slow one with lots of advert breaks. :D

mel
6th April 2007, 17:22
I've been reading this saga as a newbie here, and find it shocking - - however, I am reminded of MacDonald's taking action against a UK tea-room that had a board outside saying they sold "Burgers". The fact that the lady who owned the place was actually genuinely a Mrs MacDonald made no difference, they wanted to close her down so's people would not be "confused" into thinking they were getting a "Happy Meal" :wink:

Sensibly, MacD's lost and Mrs. MacD carried on. Mind you AFAIK they have registered all sorts of Mac-something's as trade marks to "protect possible future use" This apparently includes MacRoyal (God knows what they would use that for, Charles and Camilla?), MacCrisp and MacToastie :roll:

It's now April, is there any more in the tale to come - - - :?:
e~gards

mel

swanbourne
6th April 2007, 17:25
Still waiting for the Trade Mark Trial & Appeal Board to schedule a hearing Mel. You know how lawyers like to drag things out, not that it's anything to do with fees, of course. :wink:

Eddie

Nalu
7th April 2007, 01:23
MacRoyal (God knows what they would use that for, Charles and Camilla?)

In case they need to market burgers made from horse meat?

Bernard
20th May 2007, 20:27
Still waiting for the Trade Mark Trial & Appeal Board to schedule a hearing Mel. You know how lawyers like to drag things out, not that it's anything to do with fees, of course. :wink:

Eddie

Any news from the Board?

Hopefully this BS will be over and done with rather quickly.

swanbourne
21st May 2007, 07:58
The hearing is scheduled for 12 June and then I suppose the Board will deliberate for a few weeks. I won't be attending the hearing, I've said all I can and don't want to be tricked into saying something I'd regret. :wink:

Eddie

Dave E
21st May 2007, 11:08
Fingers crossed, Eddie, looks like you may at least have some kind of answer this summer, though!

Stokport
3rd June 2007, 17:56
The court system is the true incarnation of suspense - a saga of tension.

I'm hoping for the best outcome for you, Eddie.

Cheers

Henrik

Saint-Just
12th June 2007, 19:08
My thoughts are with you today. Positive brainwaves :wink:

Ron Jr
12th June 2007, 20:07
Good luck today Eddie.

Andre.
12th June 2007, 21:26
I hope the decision is in your favour and everything goes well. Good luck.

Mercutio
12th June 2007, 21:51
Eddie, all the best wishes.

I hope for a successful outcome for you.

docd
12th June 2007, 21:58
Good luck from me too. Eddie :)

Lemoneyewash
12th June 2007, 22:41
Good luck today Eddie.

Ditto.

pinkwindmill
12th June 2007, 22:47
Eddie, got everything crossed for you sir.

Cheers,

Guy

996
12th June 2007, 23:00
Hi Eddie,

I have been lurking on the site for some time now and recently signed up.

I thought it fitting that my first post, should be to wish you Good Luck.

Griswold
12th June 2007, 23:03
Fingers crossed for the right result. :)

tribe125
13th June 2007, 01:26
A little late, but good luck.

oldsoak
13th June 2007, 17:54
Ditto

- up the BroadArrow !

Dean in Canuckistan
13th June 2007, 18:49
A little late, but good luck.

Ditto.

Andrzej
13th June 2007, 19:08
A little late, but good luck.

And again

J.Wayne
14th June 2007, 01:40
Hey Eddie,
Any chance for an update?
It's a day later and we haven't heard anything.

Best wishes,
J.

Grath
14th June 2007, 01:52
I looked at the link Eddie put up in his first post and that hasn't been updated yet. I wonder if a ruling was made?

Ron Jr
14th June 2007, 03:18
Hey Eddie,
Any chance for an update?
It's a day later and we haven't heard anything.

Best wishes,
J.

As usual Eddie will let us know when he knows. It will most likely take some time.

swanbourne
14th June 2007, 07:59
I don't expect a ruling for at least 6 weeks and probably longer. The decision wasn't due to be made on the 12th June, this was an oral hearing requested by Omega.

Eddie

Nalu
17th June 2007, 22:41
In the mean time, just say "NOMEGA"!

Crusader
19th June 2007, 22:19
In the mean time, just say "NOMEGA"!

:D :D :D

Bernard
3rd October 2007, 17:00
This is turning into a long wait!!!

Bezel
5th October 2007, 04:33
Does a long wait give a possible indication which way this will go? :argue:

Bezel

swanbourne
5th October 2007, 08:47
Does a long wait give a possible indication which way this will go? :argue:

Bezel

I don't think so, there's a lot of paper involved.

Eddie

Bernard
6th October 2007, 21:06
Does a long wait give a possible indication which way this will go? :argue:

Bezel

I reckon the judges will have to read a lot, no matter which way they decide to go...

Grath
14th December 2007, 00:21
Eddie, I'm sorry it didn't go your way this time. :(

rfrazier
14th December 2007, 01:06
I'm sorry to see this, Eddie. My commiserations.

Best wishes,
Bob

Ross
14th December 2007, 01:15
What happened guys? How do you know this?

Thanks,

ROss.

dforgrieve
14th December 2007, 01:19
Did I miss an announcement? Doesn't sound like it's good news.... :(

Dave

Jim:
14th December 2007, 02:34
Mr Emmons sounds like a right lying bastard.

Jim :evil:

Jim:
14th December 2007, 02:35
Commiserations, Eddie. I feel pretty piss poor about this.

Jim

Ron Jr
14th December 2007, 05:45
As my daughter would say WTF!!! What news?

abraxas
14th December 2007, 08:09
.
Have I missed something?

john

Dave E
14th December 2007, 08:20
.
Have I missed something?

john

Likewise!

Dr.Brian
14th December 2007, 08:38
Dave, John and Ron,
Just click on the link on the first page (http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno= ... OPP&eno=39 (http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91158655&pty=OPP&eno=39)) and you can read the bad news for yourself.
For what it is worth, I prefer the Precista name much more than Br*adarrow.
V/R,
Brian

swanbourne
14th December 2007, 09:42
I wasn't surprised although it wasn't there when I checked yesterday.

I have no Broadarrow watches remaining in stock and as everyone knows, all watches of similar style have appeared under the "Precista" name for the last 3 years.

It seems that the key argument which swung it in their favour was one of precedence, which cannot be denied.

I'll move ahead and introduce some of the sold-out Broadarrow models as Precista.

Eddie

Seamus
14th December 2007, 09:48
I can't believe it went their way on this.

Good to see though that some models will live on, under the Precista name.

Thomas

hogthrob
14th December 2007, 14:19
Mr Emmons' pants must be on fire...


Q Is it more common for a consumer to
ask for an Omega Speedmaster Broadarrow or
for a consumer to ask for a Broadarrow?

A They will ask for a Broadarrow.


One thing that does puzzle me about all this though; does this mean that by Broadarrow PRS-5 isn't a genuine Omega? :wink:

Glamdring
14th December 2007, 15:10
Shame.

I'm pleased I got hold of a PRS-3 this past week!

Seamaster73
14th December 2007, 15:19
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvu ... OPP-47.pdf (http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91158655-OPP-47.pdf)

:cry: :evil: :roll:

VinceR
14th December 2007, 16:05
Just looks like the judge found an easy way out. As regards customers asking for "Broad Arrow" and not Omega Speedmaster, I find that hard to believe & besides back in 2002 I don't believe that would have been the case at all, even if it is now.

pinkwindmill
14th December 2007, 16:16
Just looks like the judge found an easy way out. As regards customers asking for "Broad Arrow" and not Omega Speedmaster, I find that hard to believe & besides back in 2002 I don't believe that would have been the case at all, even if it is now.

Sorry for this bad news Eddie. :evil: :cry:

I would say that I may ask for a "Broad Arrow" rather than a "Speedmaster Broad Arrow", but only if I was at the Omega counter in a department store or in an Omega Boutique!

Seems like one of the arguments was that the application was not limited to internet sales, giving the potential for Timefactors watches to be sold alongside Omega watches in a store. As Omega make a point of saying they do not sell on the internet, is there any mileage in an amended application for internet sales only?

Finally, one of the appeals to me of the Broadarrow brand was the typeface used on the dial. I understand the history of the Precista brand but I sometimes find the elaborate typeface on the dial a little at odds to the toolish nature of the watch. I wonder if consideration might be given in the future to another "plain text" brand (or Precista watches produced with a "plain text" logo) to replace the Broadarrow?

Again, sorry for the news - I hope this does not diminish your enthusiasm for offering beautifully and stylishly made watches for real WIS.

Cheers,

Guy :)

JCJM
14th December 2007, 16:26
Wankers :evil:

jwg663
14th December 2007, 16:28
Sorry to read that, Eddie, but you're morally right & you
know that. It's also good to read that despite this setback, you're
going to move on...
.
Precista rocks...
.
Take it easy...
.
Jim...

MikeB
14th December 2007, 20:23
Pillocks!!

tribe125
15th December 2007, 03:16
I really thought you would win... :(


(and I agree with pinkwindmill on the typeface)

Dave E
15th December 2007, 11:38
Crappy news :cry:

Ben265
15th December 2007, 14:48
Sorry for this bad news :cry:

quoll
15th December 2007, 15:33
Crap news. Another example of might over right. :evil:

Chris_in_the_UK
15th December 2007, 15:35
Sorry the hear the news Eddie :cry:

markc
15th December 2007, 17:23
Complete wazzocks! One of the reasons I got rid of half of my Omega collection - what a set of plonkers!

Ah well - at least you saw it coming and planned ahead Eddie.

Cheers,

Griswold
15th December 2007, 20:47
Sorry to hear that Eddie. But look on the bright side, their lawyers bill and all the adverse publicity they got on here has probably cost them more than they've gained with their hollow victory.

Crusader
15th December 2007, 23:40
Sorry to hear that, Eddie!

I wa shoping for the small guy to win ... at least this turn of events is endearing the Precista barnd to me even more (although I tend to concur re the unmilitary font of the brandname - but I am getting used to it).

Junior
16th December 2007, 13:58
B*llocks! Still, when the Speedbird 3 comes out, it'll knock the socks off anything they can come up with. :D

Neil.C
16th December 2007, 14:19
Sorry to hear about that Eddie. :(

You did your best and although it must have cost you a considerable amount of money you had the good sense to provide for the eventuality of losing.

All the best. :)

swanbourne
16th December 2007, 14:53
It didn't cost me much at all Neil, except a lot of time. They chose to focus on Omega's claim of first use in commerce and I couldn't argue against that.

I still feel they didn't understand the arguments and relevance of the military connection but I'm not going to throw any more time or money at it.

Eddie

Fschwep
16th December 2007, 17:44
Well, a little devil in me says that any Broadarrows in existence are now officially very rare watches. And I have three.
:D

A.Pottinger
17th December 2007, 21:07
Just seen this, and I think, like the vast majority, it's an erroneous decision.

Precista has much to offer, together with a very good heritage.

I happen to like the name and it has good form.

Long may it continue.

Best wishes and regards,

AP.

Jim:
17th December 2007, 21:44
Yes.

Broadarrow is dead, long live Precista!!

Jim :D

Crusader
17th December 2007, 22:33
Broadarrow is dead, long live Precista!!

Well said, Jim! 8) :D

abraxas
18th December 2007, 05:26
.
Sorry to hear about your loss Eddie. :(

I prefer Precista anyway. As for the font ... it is what it is, and I like it ... it?s different. It?s the watch that makes the name and not the other way round.

john

MikeB
18th December 2007, 12:23
Well, a little devil in me says that any Broadarrows in existence are now officially very rare watches. And I have three.
:D

Yeah, me too! :)

I was thinking of a factory visit to Bienne and wearing one :twisted:

Ron Jr
18th December 2007, 13:53
I went to Tournau last night wearing my PRS-10 and asked to see a Broadarrow. The salesman had no clue what I was talking about we were standing in front of the Omega showcase and a BA was in the case. So I showed him the PRS and he said no we don't carry Military watches here.

cbh
18th December 2007, 21:17
Sorry to see this result.

Did O***a have the case heard in a US court because they are more favourable to big business?

Jim:
19th December 2007, 01:55
I went to Tournau last night wearing my PRS-10 and asked to see a Broadarrow. The salesman had no clue what I was talking about we were standing in front of the Omega showcase and a BA was in the case. So I showed him the PRS and he said no we don't carry Military watches here.

Well done Ron. Just proves that Mr Emmon is indeed a right lying bastard.

Can he sue me for saying that?

Jim :evil:

sijoc
19th December 2007, 13:23
[quote="Ron Jr":4zgqi8a4]I went to Tournau last night wearing my PRS-10 and asked to see a Broadarrow. The salesman had no clue what I was talking about we were standing in front of the Omega showcase and a BA was in the case. So I showed him the PRS and he said no we don't carry Military watches here.

Well done Ron. Just proves that Mr Emmon is indeed a right lying bastard.

Can he sue me for saying that?

Jim :evil:[/quote:4zgqi8a4]
Well done and well said. The judge should have asked when the Broadarrow brochure was published - I'm sure after this was contended :roll:
"Is it more common for a consumer to
ask for an Omega Speedmaster Broadarrow or
for a consumer to ask for a Broadarrow?
A They will ask for a Broadarrow."
Bullshit - Joe Punter will ask for a Speedmaster or the co-axial movement watch if Joe is a bit of a WIS.
I'm involved in legal matters once in a while, and as such have certainly determined that at best, it's a toss up as to who wins. If the other party is able to gain favor with the judge in any way (of course lawyers don't try to do that) then you're toast. If the other person wants to lie through their teeth, it's very difficult to prove anything and if they are believable, you might as well pack up and go home.
A valiant struggle and I'm pleased to see that you're moving on:



I'll move ahead and introduce some of the sold-out Broadarrow models as Precista.

Eddie
Are you allowed to use the actual broadarrow 'arrow' mark? I don't think Omega are/were using it before the British government!

swanbourne
19th December 2007, 13:25
I'm sure they can't stop me using the pheon if I chose to do so.

Eddie

sijoc
19th December 2007, 13:44
Haha - there you go - no name on the dial and big fat pheon on the back. Or on dial. Either one.

bambam
21st December 2007, 14:22
This is a bummer of a decision. Sorry it didn't go your way Eddie.

Still, at least you put up a fight rather than just caving in at the first hurdle which is what they must have expected.

Onwards and upwards with Precista!

Cheers and a flying V to Omega and all their legal team!

ticktock
21st December 2007, 20:14
Damn... how many quid did this fiasco set you back?

jimmerjammer
23rd December 2007, 10:23
:thumbright:

swanbourne
23rd December 2007, 12:50
I went to Tournau last night wearing my PRS-10 and asked to see a Broadarrow. The salesman had no clue what I was talking about we were standing in front of the Omega showcase and a BA was in the case. So I showed him the PRS and he said no we don't carry Military watches here.

As the ruling appears to rely significantly on Emmons' testimony, I've been sorely tempted to appeal the decision and ask forum members to visit Omega ADs and put Emmons' testimony to the test but is it worth it?

I have to say that I often wondered if he was reading from a script.

Eddie

Bernard
23rd December 2007, 19:20
I am willing to do so in the Netherlands in case this is required.

jimmerjammer
24th December 2007, 11:12
[quote="jimmerjammer" :(

Ross
24th December 2007, 22:30
I am willing to do so in the Netherlands in case this is required.

If you want to go this route, I can do this in Dublin for you.

abraxas
24th December 2007, 23:19
.
And I can do London ... but if you ask me, I don't think it's worth taking this any further.

Why doesn't a ?QP Magazine? subscriber drop them a line and inform them about these Omega tactics with the British broadarrow symbol?

john

abraxas
24th December 2007, 23:30
.
And I can do London ... but if you ask me, I don't think it's worth taking this any further.

Why doesn't a ?QP Magazine? subscriber drop them a line and inform them about these Omega antics with the British broadarrow symbol?

john

swanbourne
25th December 2007, 11:45
I think it would only work if the ADs are in the USA. The trademark application was for the USA and all Emmons' testimony related to activity within the USA.

Thanks for the offers of help.

Eddie

swanbourne
25th December 2007, 11:46
.
And I can do London ... but if you ask me, I don't think it's worth taking this any further.

Why doesn't a ?QP Magazine? subscriber drop them a line and inform them about these Omega tactics with the British broadarrow symbol?

john

I can't imagine any magazine which accepts (or would like to) advertising from the Swatch Group publishing anything which could hurt them financially.

Eddie

Glamdring
25th December 2007, 12:35
Sadly true; mags never bite the hand that feeds them.

Flying Doctor
25th December 2007, 23:00
Bad News, Eddie. I also felt that you not only should win but would win. I guess it is easier to go after a name than a design. I'm assuming it is OK to make homage watches like the Ocean 7 Ploprof but not to use the name Broadarrow. Weird world indeed.

Pete

sundial
26th December 2007, 19:02
How about registering "FAT PHEON" or maybe "ANGLO PHEON" as a brand name and using it :wink:

Good Vibes For All in 2008

dunk

sijoc
27th December 2007, 23:02
I think it would only work if the ADs are in the USA. The trademark application was for the USA and all Emmons' testimony related to activity within the USA.

Thanks for the offers of help.

Eddie
I'll be happy to hit the AD's in the Louisville, Cincinnati, Dayton, Indianapolis, Lexington areas relatively easily as well as others as I travel - Viriginia and DC in January.

sijoc
27th December 2007, 23:21
Or perhaps a concerted telephonic campaign which would get the job done a lot quicker - "I'm calling to see if you carry the Broadarrow" and record the response.
Ten minutes on the omega site and the first three states bring up the following AD's:
Alabama
Bailey Banks & Biddle
27 Riverchase Galleria
Birmingham 35244
T. 205-985-0l89
F. 205-985-0268

Osborne & Mason Jewelers
3011 Memorial Parkway South
Huntsville 35801
T. 256-883-2150

Ware Jewelers
30500 State Highway 181
Spanish Fort 36527
T. 251-338-9273

Alaska

Ben Bridge
320 West 5th Avenue #332
Anchorage 99501
T. 907-272-4145

Princess World
401 South Franklin
Juneau 99801
T. 907-586-4306

Princess World
4th & Broadway
Skagway 99840
T. 907-983-3255

Arizona

Ben Bridge
3499 W. Chandler Blvd. #2300
Chandler Fashion Mall
Chandler 85226
T. 480-722-1100
F. 480-722-1120

Bailey Banks & Biddle
3111 W. Chandler #1048
Chandler Fashion Mall
Chandler 85226
T. 480-792-1215
F. 480-792-1218

Jared the Galleria of Jewelry
7520 W. Bell Rd.
Glendale 85308
T. 480-334-3033

Jared the Galleria of Jewelry
1750 S. Valvista Dr.
Dana Park
Mesa 85204
T. 480-813-2091

Jared the Galleria of Jewelry
12656 N. Tatum Blvd.
Paradise Valley Mall
Phoenix 85032
T. 480-569-6200

Ganem Jewelers
3602 E. Ray Rd.
Phoenix 85044
T. 480-706-1850
F. 480-706-0823

Ben Bridge
4550-180 E. Cactus Rd.
Paradise Valley Mall
Phoenix 85032
T. 602-482-4045
F. 602-482-6440

Tourneau
7014 E. Camelback Rd.
Fashion Square
Scottsdale 85251
T. 480-429-2304
F. 480-429-5109

Hamra Jewelers
15435 N. Scottsdale Rd. #130
Scottsdale 85254
T. 480-946-5110
F. 480-607-0793

E.D. Marshall
10253 N. Scottsdale Rd.
Scottsdale 85253
T. 480-922-1968
F. 480-922-7335

Ben Bridge
7014 E. Camelback Rd.
Fashion Square
Scottsdale 85251
T. 480-970-8209
F. 480-970-8450

Ganem Jewelers
4409 S. Rural Rd.
Tempe 85282
T. 480-820-1122

Jared the Galleria of Jewelry
4240 N. Oracle Rd.
Tucson 85705
T. 520-292-6265

Ben Bridge
4500 N. Oracle #300
Tucson Mall
Tucson 85705
T. 520-690-9115
F. 520-887-3002

Three states, 20 AD's so another 47 and DC so that makes an estimated 320 AD's in the country. So ten people, using wonderful toll free long distance and/or after 7 pm free cell phone minutes one a day, means in a month you'll have your answer!
Comments from US forummers?

swanbourne
28th December 2007, 10:40
It's very tempting but I have no idea if any evidence gathered this way would be admissible or whether it would have to be a formal deposition.

Whilst it's clear that the "evidence" they presented is at best misleading and at worst false, I think there's a mountain to climb to get it overturned.

Eddie

sijoc
28th December 2007, 11:44
I use and abuse your forum which I appreciate, so I'm happy to do this if you so wish. Let me and other US forummers, if interested, know.

JohnF
7th January 2008, 23:58
Hi -

Well, Eddie, I can imagine your disappointment, but I think you are doing the right thing and moving on: I read the decision, and one thing does pop out to me: Omega is effectively barred from suing you for damages, as they failed to prove their case that you damaged their sales. That's certainly a plus.

And it is amazing that they failed themselves to have copywritten the name (of course, that would raise the whole can of worms involved in trying to copyright a generic term...), which is a clear case of very poor due diligence on their part. If one really wanted to annoy Omega, all you need to do is to become a shareholder in their parent company (Swatch) and petition the board to explain why there was a failure to do due diligence in protecting the company's intellectual property, which must be then addressed at the next stockholder's meeting. That should spread some salt in their corporate stupidity wounds...

Again, sorry to see the decision go against you, and the Nomega pledge still holds...

And of course the best of luck with Precista!

JohnF

swanbourne
8th January 2008, 09:00
Thanks for your comments John. Yes, this is now history and whilst disappointed, I won't lose any sleep over it. I love the idea of embarrassing them at the shareholders' meeting but I don't have the time. :(

Eddie

rfrazier
8th January 2008, 09:12
I think that the main thing that hurt Eddie's case was that a lot of what he presented as evidence was tossed. And I think that that main reason for this is that Eddie didn't understand and follow the rules of evidence. I think that that's where a lawyer well versed in the relevant procedures would have been a boon. But expensive.

Best wishes,
Bob

rfrazier
8th January 2008, 09:15
But my comment is on a quick read of things. If you want a more detailed analysis, it is 100 p/hr and 10 hr min. (I'm offering such a low rate because I'm not a lawer. ;))

Best wishes,
Bob

Nalu
8th January 2008, 18:42
Eddie, somehow I missed all this the past couple of weeks. Must be my TBI :?

I read through the document and I have to say that the first casualty was Truth :(

In September I stopped by an Omega dealer in Seattle (on my way to drop off my Ploprof for a service at Nesbit's) and couldn't get the sales person to understand that I wanted to try on the large Planet Ocean, not the mid-size. She seemed completely unaware that this watch is made in two sizes.

I can only imagine the Abbott and Costello routine which would have ensued if I'd asked to see a Broadarrow :roll:

swanbourne
8th January 2008, 19:00
Whilst I didn't employ an attorney, I was being "guided" by a US attorney almost from the beginning in exchange for watches. Looks like he got the better part of the bargain, especially as he disappeared on me at a critical stage.

Eddie

Ron Jr
8th January 2008, 19:04
Now that sucks.

mr1973
8th January 2008, 20:14
Whilst I didn't employ an attorney, I was being "guided" by a US attorney almost from the beginning in exchange for watches. Looks like he got the better part of the bargain, especially as he disappeared on me at a critical stage.

Eddie

:shock: Unbelievable!

BTW, just called one of the local Omega AD here in Salzburg (I happen to know him very well) and asked If he came across some BA models lately...

Well, he told me that Omega never produced such a model and asked where I got the info from :shock: :shock:

So much for that.

Saint-Just
10th January 2008, 10:55
I only just read and offer my sympathies.

It's not so much the loss of something you didn't use anymore, it's the frustration of seeing the bullies get away with it.

You already have moved on, and that's good.
Buying a few shares of the Swatch Group seems a very good idea to me.
I do not know how many you need to make a representation at the AGM but I do not think it would be costly, money or timewise.
And if necessary I am sure we could create an entity with members of this forum to buy the necessary shares, keeping you out of the equation but embarassing Omega the right way...

Dean in Canuckistan
10th January 2008, 17:26
Terrible news. Sorry to hear Eddie. :(

And that American chap seems to have come out a bit of a scoundrel. :evil:

Sharky
15th January 2008, 21:54
Again, sorry to hear this Eddie.

Mark

rickf
15th January 2008, 22:07
Just out of curiosity I googled "broadarrow" to see if Omega came up quickly. In fact, broadarrowonline.com (which I think is/was Eddie's site) comes up before Omega is listed.

But what I found amusing was the link to the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition:

Main Entry: broad arrow
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: an arrow with a flat barbed head
2 British : a mark shaped like a broad arrow that identifies government property including clothing formerly worn by convicts

So Omega, if the Broadarrow fits wear it.

Rick

swanbourne
16th January 2008, 10:04
From the Victorian Slang Glossary.


Broad Arrow: The arrow-like markings on a prison convict's uniform. "Wearing the broad arrow" = In prison.

Eddie

Stokport
17th January 2008, 12:46
Sorry to hear all of this, Eddie. At the end of the day you're a great designer and forum host.

Cheers

Henrik

Qatar-wol
17th January 2008, 16:50
Sorry to hear about this, Eddie - if I can out any pressure on the Omega boutique here in Qatar, please let me know!

And someone said this before, but wasn't there a Mark Twain quote about being mugged for watch, and being sued for a wacth by a lawyer?

bootneck
30th January 2008, 00:06
I had a friend who was visiting the states last week ask in every AD he went in to ask to see a broadarrow ( he was shopping with his GF for jewelry anyway) out of around 8 shops not one knew what he was on about. Wouldn't be hard to gather the evidence Eddie with the amount of forumers available or even to ring the shops and record the conversations i'd be happy to help out if your going to appeal

swanbourne
30th January 2008, 09:53
I had a friend who was visiting the states last week ask in every AD he went in to ask to see a broadarrow ( he was shopping with his GF for jewelry anyway) out of around 8 shops not one knew what he was on about. Wouldn't be hard to gather the evidence Eddie with the amount of forumers available or even to ring the shops and record the conversations i'd be happy to help out if your going to appeal

Sadly I don't have the time or the money to continue. I would need professional representation to continue and it's impossible to estimate what the cost might be.

I think it's obvious to everyone except the TTAB judges that Emmons' testimony contained statements which fail the test of truth.

Eddie

Griff
31st January 2008, 12:32
Whilst I didn't employ an attorney, I was being "guided" by a US attorney almost from the beginning in exchange for watches. Looks like he got the better part of the bargain, especially as he disappeared on me at a critical stage.

Eddie

That's bloody hard to swallow.
I suppose you will just have to put it behind you, but at least you can hold your head up high and have shown the bastards you have integrity.

mrteatime
12th February 2008, 14:41
Whilst I didn't employ an attorney, I was being "guided" by a US attorney almost from the beginning in exchange for watches. Looks like he got the better part of the bargain, especially as he disappeared on me at a critical stage.

Eddie

you have integrity.
which is something that omega will never have.

Green Arrow
4th March 2008, 03:41
but after having read Mr. Emmons testimony, and the concept of confusingly similar products, I have concluded that my prior Omegas, now sold, will never be replaced. I was strongly considering buying a new Omega 45.5 mm Chronograph to replace one I sold, and miss a bit.

Instead I will fine something from a quality watchmaker named Precista.