Reply With QuoteWhy do you think it’s not an independent forum?Originally Posted by watchfan_66
Why the vindictive attitude dude? Gloting in someone elses misfortune/mistake is barely on the human platform.
Why do you think it’s not an independent forum?
Are you the Watch Police?
Because CW have never tried to censor or exercise any editorial control over the forum, even when there were some extremely critical comments posted about, for example, their logo changes.
I didn't realise it was owned by Christopher Ward.
If it is as you say - I'd call if 'hands off', it doesn't fit my view of what independent means.
I believe the words in the forum banner are an accurate representation of the reality...
^^ I know it’s pointless to argue with you, but for the record...
The CW company owns the forum and pays for the hosting. They have a technical guy who liaises with the hosting company, and yes, he is a forum member (although he has not posted anything outside of the mods forum). The reason he is a member is to enable him to carry out technical maintenance activities.
^^ as I said, pointless.
So no moderators there are employees of CW or have any financial relationship with them?I believe the words in the forum banner are an accurate representation of the reality...
This forum is owned, controlled and financed by Eddie. Would you say it isn’t independent either?
When I used to post on the CW forum, I was at times very critical of the brand and its direction, it was never censored.
No.
As sure as night turns to day, watchfan_66 was going to come along and turn a simple discussion on Christopher Ward into a mudslinging exercise.
And Madjam jumps the shark. Again.
Agreed. I have never seen posts deleted by the Mods for being critical of the brand or company. Very very few posts are “moderated” - usually only if someone has been obnoxious.
Indeed as far as changes to the logo are concerned, if I recall correctly, one of the most vociferous critics of one of the versions of the logo is a Mod!
You're right, my mistake. Bit of brain deadness schnuck in there
Please read post #72.
watchfan_66, this is for you man.....
Bing Bong........Medication time....
The point is, ownership, financing and interaction from its owner doesn’t automatically mean a forum isn’t independent, any more than just a ‘fan website’ means it is.
Look, we get you don’t like CW for whatever reason, but perhaps you should drop your vendetta and get back to the topic, which is unrelated to whatever beef you’ve got going on with certain CW moderators?
I've only been a member of the CW forum since 2011, but in that time I've never seen any such evidence.
For those who are not members, perhaps a glance at the current thread discussing the Jaguar issue will help you make your own mind up as to whether CW censor the forum: https://www.christopherwardforum.com...hp?f=1&t=50433 (It should be visible without logging in, but be aware that there are some technical problem with the site right now which might make it slow to load).
Perhaps it is simply a case of CW assuming, quite reasonably, that 'D-type' and 'Le Mans' are in the public domain and didn't bother to check.
Do you work for Jaguar?
By your ongoing diatribe you are showing yourself to be very biased in your view of the CW Forum. Something you accuse them of.
Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
Last edited by Tiny; 18th September 2018 at 08:24.
Nope, he just hates the CW forum, so much so that he will try and mention it in almost every tedious post he makes. Out and out head banger.
Hate is very destructive, especially for the hater. One can make oneself ill with all that hate energy.
This perhaps
In other news...
The C8 Birkin's Blower Bentley Tribute
Lovely...
NOW, next time you feel the need to splurge your diatribe about the CW Forum and its moderators on this forum, just take a moment to take a deep breath and remember 99% of us have now read it in one form or another many times over the last few weeks and wonder what you're actually contributing to this forum.
You're entitled to your view, but it's becoming mighty boring now...
M
Suppose it isn't independent. So what. Who cares (apart from one member). Why complain here? Go to CW and complain. There are 13355 members here so you represent 0.0075%, which is almost nothing.
So, is the CW forum independent or not?
😂
Stirrer! :)
Last edited by Tiny; 18th September 2018 at 23:04.
Give it a rest will you.
Everything/nothing.
They are subject to a lawsuit over trade mark/name association currently.
It will pan out over time.
They copy genre/type and do ok at it.
To much protesting methinks.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
What "lack of transparency, openness, smoke and mirrors tactics, BS seeping through the gaps"? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. When someone just harps on and on and on and on and on and on, with so much emotion, it negates their argument because their views are seen as unbalanced and biased and they very quickly become irrelevant.
The records stuck. The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck.The records stuck...................
This is a clear case of Watchism, the blatant prejudice against a certain brand of watches!
Would it be wrong to say that the Bremont Jaguar watches look like they were made over at CW?
https://www.bremont.com/collections/watches-mens-jaguar
Good god man. Quit it. We are all bored of your obsession! You are like a one man crusade give us all a break from it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You guys don't freaking get it. It's a a small part of a huge conspiracy in conjunction with Monsanto, the illuminati and the lizard men. Probably Prince Phillip too.
We're through the looking glass here, people.
I wouldn't mind so much if you'd only missed the apostrophe once.
Yes it would be wrong.
Sorry. Here they are: ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
lol. I know, right? What is with this guy? He is obsessed with CW.
Can someone explain the CW hate? Don't own one (yet?) But they are one of the few "affordable" brands doing anything interesting, and at times genuinely innovative, with movements on their own.
I'm guessing he's a D!ck....
So long as you're sure.
Hate is a strong word. I personally find most of their designs, like Bremont's, underwhelmingly anodyne. As a brand, they've attracted negative comments for that, changing their logo often and in an unsophisticated direction and for offering less value for money than they did previously. How fair all of that is, is in the eye of the beholder.
WINNER!
The last port of call when losing a "discussion" from a desperate person, the personal insult.
As to the actual subject.
That's for the courts to decide, here's a radical thought, let's wait until the verdict........................... Nah second thoughts that'll never work!!
From my experience when launching a new product or brand we would do a quick trademark check here: https://www.gov.uk/search-for-trademarkThe more I dig into this, the more I think this is going to be a claim of passing off -
Looking today JLR appear to have registered D TYPE in a number of classifications which would/should ring alarm bells if you were looking to use the name.
Again, in my experience it would also lead to a discussion with the trademark owner. In many cases, if their trademark was in a different classification, we would be able to come to an amicable arrangement based around a non-compete agreement.
Problems usually only arise if this step is disregarded - or overlooked.
I believe that Montblanc provided a classic example of this with the Boheme range which was first launched as Rouge et Noir but rebranded after a trademark violation of the 'et Noir' element.
However, whilst the Christopher Ward C70 D Type edition references a model which contains a small fragment of a specific vehicle from that marque, the bulk of the marketing materials discuss the car and its designer without making any specific claim for direct descent to that wider brand.
This creation of brand linkage by way of association is always an interesting subject. For example, it appears that many believe that the Rolex Explorer was the first watch worn on the summit of Everest. This belief has been reinforced with images of the Explorer imposed over views of Mount Everest - without their having ever made a specific claim to that achievement.
It will certainly be interesting to follow developments.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by adg31; 20th September 2018 at 16:13.
Ha! Just some light entertainment!
It's very interesting, I agree. I remember some years ago that IWC launched the 'Spitfire' model with photos and stands with prominent photographs of Supermarine Spitfires, including in WW2 livery.
As I remarked to an historian known who was doing work for IWC that IWC ostensibly supplied German forces during WW2 (e.g. U-boat instruments among other items) but neither had a contract with nor are known to have supplied British and Commonwealth Air Forces. Indeed, there were tensions around IWC's links in that regard in official circles during the war.
Thus, association, even if historically inaccurate, seems not to stop some corporations from endeavouring to establish it and a 'mystique' including in promotional material. Indeed, even the larger more established ones.
(Notably, IWC did receive a contract from the UK/Commonwealth forces after the tide of the war had changed (for the Mk X, not for air force use) and the UK were seeking manufacturers at that point amid restricted supply and other considerations. After the war for the famous Mk XI (for airforce use) saw a contract tendered to IWC and JLC).
Posting Permissions
