Reply With QuoteWho can blame them? Obviously a mortal blow from which the brand may never recover!
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/jaguar-leaps-into-court-over-christopher-ward-s-d-type-watches-dgtk76zhfJaguar is revving up for a legal battle with the luxury watch maker Christopher Ward.
Between 2014 and 2016, Christopher Ward sold D-Type watches, named after the Jaguar model of the same name. The car maker alleges that by selling the watches — which cost between £449 and £2,995 — Christopher Ward infringed its trademark and damaged the “distinctive character” of its marque. Christopher Ward sourced metal from some of the cars to make the “limited edition” £2,995 watches.
The D-Type is one of Jaguar’s best-known sports cars and won Le Mans for three consecutive years between 1955 and 1957. Only 75 were built, but in February, Jaguar said it would build a further 25. All sold for more than £1.5m each.
Christopher Ward said last night that it would “vigorously” defend itself.
Who can blame them? Obviously a mortal blow from which the brand may never recover!
Who Jaguar or CW...Originally Posted by WatchIng
A tie-in limited edition without the other parties knowledge / permission 😂.
I've never warmed to CW at all, and doubt I'd ever buy one... although I do like the look of some of there watches.
...luxury watch maker?
CW should have stuck to brands that are no longer in business e.g. Supermarine.
I don't care much for most of the CW range but I did like the look of the DBR1 which seem to have shot up in price. I think it was COSC rated.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
That article is full of inaccuracies, CW are not a luxury watch maker... :-)
However I can fully understand the damage being associated with CW could do... :-)
£2995 before or after the 50% discount sale price... :-)
Ok any more obvious jokes???
On a serious note it sounds as if this could be a major problem for CW, I am guessing there will be an out of court offer but will it be enough to placate Jaguar?
given the gap between the sale of the watches and now the action, I guess that has been tried behind the scenes?
That is a fair point.
Whilst I don’t particularly like CW designs it would be a shame to see a UK watchmaker get in to financial trouble on the back of a copyright infingnement; that said they should have been a bit smarter when considering which parts of history they would like to piggyback on.
Their business model seems to copy Bremont but in a half ar5ed manner at a budget price.
Thinking about it - Bremont might be a part of this puzzle - didn't they and Jaguar have a real collaboration around this time? Maybe Bremont raised the question of why they were paying for an actual license if you could do this instead?
I like and own a few CWs so I really hope this gets resolved. Saying that, I'm a little surprised they would do something like that without permission from Jaguar - I would have thought it obvious that could lead to legal problems.
It would be an interesting twist in the story that’s for sure.
JLR threatened to take legal action against Tesla as it had intended to use 'Model E ' as the name for one of its models so that the line up would (eventually) become Model S, Model E, Model X and Model Y.
I attended an open evening at the Bremont boutique several years ago where their guest speak was one of the Jaguar lead designers talking about their project together, so I would imagine whatever their collaboration with Jaguar was, it was probably above board and legit. But who knows, never say never.
That was Ford. Unless JLR also sued...but then that would suggest Ford/JLR would be suing one another first!
You're correct, my mistake.
Have Jaguar not got anything better to do? How much damage could CW possibly have done, apart from producing questionable designs and calling them D Type?
Or is that why Jaguar are after them
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Big news. Over to CW forum to see what admin may be posting on this.
Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
I am probably wrong here, but my understanding of trademark law is that Jaguar must pursue Christopher Ward in order to maintain the validity of their trademark?
I think it's more that this is a case of passing off - that there is an attempt to suggest to the public that there is an association between the two businesses.
From seeing this news today, I automatically thought it could be the 'goodwill' of the trademark that could be the main issue here.
Trademark goodwill is used to describe something that consumers perceive. In the case of Jaguar, it's their products, branding, communication, service, heritage etc.
Lets face it a Jaguar D-Type sports car does have a sense desirability with consumers and this would certainly come via the goodwill of the trademark which they have built over time.
Obviously if the Jaguar Logo / Lettering had been used this would be a direct trademark infringement but there is none on this watch.
There is hover, the term 'D-Type' on the back.
This trademark isn't registered for class 14 ( use on watches / jewellery ) so in theory someone could attempt to register this term and if passed use it.
However, if we see the original press release about the watch there are references to Jaguar and the D-Type car in the description / use of metal etc.
If indirectly the trademark goodwill is being used to give consumers a perception of the watch, then this could be deemed as infringement. But, something for the courts / IP Lawyers to decide!
Their copyright on the car model D Type will not extend to watches named D type will it?
passing off does not require trademarks or copyright:
In common law countries such as England, Australia and New Zealand, passing off is a common law tort which can be used to enforce unregistered trade mark rights. The tort of passing off protects the goodwill of a trader from misrepresentation.
The law of passing off prevents one trader from misrepresenting goods or services as being the goods and services of another, and also prevents a trader from holding out his or her goods or services as having some association or connection with another when this is not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off
I suspect the 'damage' they will claim is that this weakened their ability to license to companies such as Bremont.
The courts use the following test:
- misrepresentation
- by a trader in the course of trade
- to prospective customers of his or ultimate consumers of goods or services supplied by him,
- which is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader, and
- which causes actual damage to the business or goodwill of the trader bringing the action.
For the watches that were made out of bits of old Jags I think CW could claim it is merely the truth. If a little disingenuous. But for the remainder of the watches, it is quite clear they were using association with the classic car. That said, I have no idea what copyright law has to say about this.
I would think the issue is not actually the watch itself but the marketing and brochures that do work hard to suggest a relationship.
Although having said that - bits of the watch would add to a case of passing off:
This is the reason you’ll see big companies eg Apple etc pursuing what look like nonsense cases that seemingly defy common sense. If they don’t aggressively enforce their trademarks they’re offering precedent and weakening their position for other claims down the road.
And what is your view on this?
Last edited by Nigeyp; 16th September 2018 at 20:37.
To be fair all seems fairly tame legally at this stage. My question would be not does the watch use the names etc, but does it really use the physical parts? If so who condoned it? Did they come from a third party owner? Not Jaguar? And there in lies the rub...who condoned not the name but the use of parts and is there a verifiable link?...between said parts and use of the name...if not...I'd worry were i defending Cw...if not I might not...And just take an out of court...otherwise I can see a few potential claims from buyers of the watch also...all theory of course as nothing is implied or proved...yet.
You a barrister?To be fair all seems fairly tame legally at this stage. My question would be not does the watch use the names etc, but does it really use the physical parts? If so who condoned it? Did they come from a third party owner? Not Jaguar? And there in lies the rub...who condoned not the name but the use of parts and is there a verifiable link?...between said parts and use of the name...if not...I'd worry were i defending Cw...if not I might not...And just take an out of court...otherwise I can see a few potential claims from buyers of the watch also...all theory of course as nothing is implied or proved...yet.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Don't know about the legal aspects but finishing looks like it's been poorly done with a bastard file.
I think that's the authentic relic part taken from the said Jaguar model that this watch is not officially anything to do with.
Publicity for sure, the legal bill/capacity to pay to defend (or not) will be the issue. JLR will have more funds than CW I suspect.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
The more I dig into this, the more I think this is going to be a claim of passing off -
It all appears so naive and agree Alan, from what you have posted, it looks pretty bad for CW. How can a company be so clumsy over their branding management which in their business should be a core competency backed by professional advice as needed; it boggles the mind.
Well - having seen that, and the other promotional material - unless I'd known otherwise I would very much have assumed that they'd come to some sort of agreement with Jaguar, to use their brand like that. It's not just the advertising, it's the whole point of the product, even having the text "D-TYPE LE MANS WINNER" etched into the back.
I actually quite like the watch, especially the fuel gauge-style reserve indicator. I even like the rough-finished spinner in the display back.
Use of Jaguar is an obvious no-no. Use of the name of a 65 year old non-production car.... mmm.
If Seiko makes a 'Mondeo' watch in 65 years time, would the law require a payment to Ford?
I'm thinking CW took legal advice on this pre-production. I'm thinking Jaguar's lawyers disagree. Not convinced who will win.
Last edited by stefmcd; 17th September 2018 at 14:46.
Lot of assumptions there...
I'd imagine this is Jaguar becoming more litigious in the light of their increasing 'heritage' promotion (electric E-Types, 'continuation' D-Types, etc).
I wouldn't have thought that CW would have casually released a watch with reference to both Jaguar and Ferrari in their marketing material without feeling it was fairly safe.
Far from looking bad for CW, this reflects (for me) badly on Jaguar, especially as the watches have been in production for years now.
Maybe they're hoping it'll help with putting their workers on short hours, by getting a bit of publicity that references the golden era of Jaguar?
M
There are other cases with similar disputes where the production item does not carry the disputed trademarked name or logo but the publicity material does and the promotion of the item (in this case the CW watch) strongly implies an official link. The only issue here would seem to be the amount of time taken to take any legal action. This may be a result of a breakdown of behind the scenes negotiation or an upcoming full-scale collaboration between Jaguar and a watch-maker where taking action and "clearing the decks" of any outstanding limited associations is a contractual requirement. This is the case in a number of contracts of a similar type in which I've been professionally involved.
15 years ago or thereabouts, TMB ArtMetal, started making limited series items from authentic metal - Spitfires, Concorde, Ferraris etc. Many of them have been very nice indeed. They got into a similar issue from memory with Bentley over the use of material from Old Number One, a Le Mans winning 1920s Bentley where they made cufflinks and other items from melted down pistons, sold/donated by the car's private owner. Initial publicity promoted the Bentley name but was quickly changed to this car's specific name - it's very well known in Bentley circles - and the use of any Bentley association (even down to the logo on the replica radiator I think) was removed.
They later worked with Bentley and Bugatti in an official capacity (customer gifts and a clock if I remember correctly). The initial dispute did not go to court but Bentley's lawyers certainly had no fear of that they would not be successful and TMB's own lawyers suggested (at some cost) that TMB change everything to delete the name (despite it obviously being a well-known Bentley)
Granted yes there is, I am only speculating on what I see. I will be meeting with our IP colleague next week so I will be interested to get his initial take on it.
Companies are tightening up on their control of IP and especially on the use of copyrighted images which seems to be proliferating via the web. Jaguar will have deeper pockets than CW so how long this challenge may drag on for and at what cost..... CW, even without a proven case may be severely financially damaged.
Last edited by mondie; 17th September 2018 at 16:50.
We'll see in court - although I'm baffled why they didn't simply put "X is the trademark of Jaguar and this product is not endorsed or linked by said company" which you often see on this type of product and would make it fairly bullet proof.
I am *guessing* that both companies have been discussing this for quite a while behind the scenes and we are now just seeing the public facing aspect of it (eg court action). CW's own statement seems to imply this type of conversation has been going on:Far from looking bad for CW, this reflects (for me) badly on Jaguar, especially as the watches have been in production for years now.
“We strongly reject the claims made against us and will be vigorously defending our position. There has been no infringement and we do not believe this matter should ever have reached Court”.
Given how many other products that CW have made like this, you have to wonder if someone else will take a punt on the basis that CW will not want to fight multiple concurrent cases and might make a quick settlement.
Last edited by Alansmithee; 17th September 2018 at 17:02.
I've heard that Numatic are also looking to sue CW.
My understanding is that there is a plan for a CW/CW watch where the strap will be made out of old carpet warehouse off-cuts.
Not another company hoovering up all CWs assets, that sucks!I've heard that Numatic are also looking to sue CW.
I think what's really at play here is that Jaguar are hoping to sue the pants of CW in order to prop up development of the software they install in their cars bought in from another supply line. This can then be converted to paying the wages of their in house installers to fix the glitches that are all too apparent because they sure don't know how to get a handle on it as it is...
How do we define “luxury watch maker”.
I personally think that any watch that sits in the £2k plus bracket is a luxury.
I know that to some on here that’s just beer money.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Jag are clutching at straws. Hear they are going on to a 3 day week.
Anything over £200 is a luxury for me!
Here.....
No. "Hear" as with ears. Unless you are reading it as "here" in the UK. I should have written "I hear..."
Last edited by Tiny; 17th September 2018 at 21:52.
Posting Permissions
