Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

watches under $!000
Post Reply
User avatar
Mortuus Fakeuus

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by Mortuus Fakeuus » July 11th 2012, 2:42pm

Hawk wrote:Apart from that we can set up, with Koi's permission, a betting pool. I, however, remain of the opinion that it will never resolve. Larry will distance himself from SNBC like a camper finding a rattlesnake in his sleeping bag, he will (already has) scrub the Ricochet from the intertubz and go into full grovel mode.

I agree with you wholeheartedly with the above...with the exception of the betting pool.

As usual, Hawk, your observations are well posed, well articulated and difficult to refute. However, I still believe a jury trial favors the defense in this case. Maybe this is because most of my legal knowledge/background centers on criminal law issues - not from personal dealings, mind you Image - and that naturally colors my view here. Juries are such odd things, and it's not a simple matter of using the voir dire to assess them, especially in this 'information age.' We now have full-time folks who do nothing but watch and assess jurors, almost always for the defense. Other attorneys - again, largely for the defense - will hire 'PI's' to get background information on each juror. They then will hire 'shrinks' to assess them, one by one, based largely on the info obtained the by the PI. Jury selection is now considered by many lawyers - especially criminal defense lawyers - to be a 'science' in and of itself. (Scary, eh?)

At any rate, we have one of those situations where it will indeed be very interesting to see how it all turns out; rather than some sort of monetary bet, though, I'd prefer to compete for the sheer joy of braggin' rights...(Remember, I am half-Jewish... Image )
User avatar
Mortuus Fakeuus

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by Mortuus Fakeuus » July 11th 2012, 2:49pm

Many thanks, CM; I figured you were 'funnin' me,' so I 'funned back' a little. You certainly deserve the Patience Award for slogging through that novella I wrote...that's above & beyond the call of 'WatchLordery.' Image Again, many thanks, CM.

ChronoMATT wrote:Whew! That was no cut and paste from GeekLand. I'll say that. I, for one, was just giving you some crap. Thanks for the explanation.


User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 10126
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by Hawk » July 11th 2012, 4:10pm

Mortuus wrote:
At any rate, we have one of those situations where it will indeed be very interesting to see how it all turns out; rather than some sort of monetary bet, though, I'd prefer to compete for the sheer joy of braggin' rights...(Remember, I am half-Jewish... Image )

Well, I'm all over that. Much easier to administer in any event.

Where we're going off the mutual rails is over the selection of the Clarence Darrow incarnate law firm - they're very comfortable with jury trial, have demanded exactly that and have a perhaps disturbing (to Larry) history with jury selection and they're on their home turf.

The people that kicked Cosco around like a rented mule are on their home turf.

They've petitioned for treble damages under the law - If that "Darrow-type" manages to load the jury with people like us - not WIS but simply people that remember Elvis, Rod Serling and can recall last week with MIB3 in theaters, I'm betting treble damages will be the least of it.

I readily concede that the defense generally does a good job in jury selection but I don't think they stand a chance against this particular group in these particular circumstances.

My own weakness lies in Trade Dress vs. Trade Mark. This being one of the former strikes me as profound - this may or may not be correct, but all the distinctions land squarely on Swatch's side. That, and whatever inadvertent, unplanned and unwelcome education of mine centered around contract law. It seems that in Trade Dress there is no need to demonstrate mens rea on SNBC's part, no need to invoke traditional trademark protection on Swatch's part - nothing needed apart from getting a jury that takes umbrage to pissing on Elvis' grave. That should not be monumentally difficult for this particular law firm. Larry is in the unenviable position of explaining to people in Texas why he felt compelled to urinate on the Alamo.

Judge = injunction.
Jury = treble damages, punitive damages and a Stella type lotto win.

Larry needs not to fuck with that guy on jury selection in that guy's home town. I'd rather be fed to a wood chipper than bank on a jury trial in this set of circumstances.
Image
User avatar
Mortuus Fakeuus

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by Mortuus Fakeuus » July 11th 2012, 7:09pm

I will have to [rather sheepishly] admit that I didn't avail myself of all the available info, so the plaintiff's attorneys being on home turf, their enviable success in jury selection, etc, clarifies the picture for me, Hawk. So it seems that the ducks are all lined up for Swatch, et al, while Larry's still waitin' for the duck eggs to hatch...

To go a little further off the rails, I do feel that, in some ways, the civil courts are becoming a place to get revenge without having to meet the higher standards set by criminal law. I reluctantly cite the O.J. Simpson cases; despite DNA evidence, the man was acquitted in the criminal courts. Then the families went after Mr. Simpson in civil court, where they won a huge award.

The Standard Orenthal James Simpson Disclaimer: I'm thoroughly convinced that O.J. was guilty. Guilty as hell of something, but I can't make up my mind between 'murder 1' and 'murder 2' (I lean perilously toward the latter...a conversation for another time, perhaps). I bring this up because, to a layman like myself, this has the feel of 'double jeopardy.' Can't get him in the criminal courts? Let's go after him in the civil venue...I'm not comfortable with this at all.

The virtual absence of mens rea, as you mentioned, opens up so many avenues by which the plaintiff can seek confiscatory damages, so much so that bankruptcy is often (mis)used by the party being sued, obviously to avoid this new 'debt.' I sometimes wonder if we should 'tighten up' the whole civil courts' processes and standards of proof to more reflect a focus on mens rea, edge away from 'reasonable doubt' and get closer to 'beyond a shadow of a doubt.'

And I think it's time for Mort to stop bloviating...

Mortuus is winchester, state 1.5, in the break. OUT.
DIAMANTE
Watchlord WIS
Posts: 1065
Joined: September 2nd 2010, 10:00pm
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by DIAMANTE » July 11th 2012, 9:10pm

ChronoMATT wrote:I thought this was a cut and paste post from GeekLand. Are you suggesting there is any equivalency between the Seiko triangular model vs Ventura and the Stuhrling Richocet rip-off? You are joking, right?

Mortuus wrote:Actually, I'd love to be Larry's attorney...
Image
...assuming, of course, that nothing was ever filed against Seiko.


These Seiko models above while not outright clones are definitely design ripoffs of the Ventura. From what I've seen Seiko's strategy is to try and cover the entire market - low end to high end. They copy other folks' designs as well as come up with their own. They sell a clone of the Rolex datejust for $50.

D
User avatar
Hawk
ASSHAT
Posts: 10126
Joined: October 8th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by Hawk » July 12th 2012, 6:12am

Mortuus wrote:
To go a little further off the rails, I do feel that, in some ways, the civil courts are becoming a place to get revenge without having to meet the higher standards set by criminal law. I reluctantly cite the O.J. Simpson cases; despite DNA evidence, the man was acquitted in the criminal courts. Then the families went after Mr. Simpson in civil court, where they won a huge award.

The Standard Orenthal James Simpson Disclaimer: I'm thoroughly convinced that O.J. was guilty. Guilty as hell of something, but I can't make up my mind between 'murder 1' and 'murder 2' (I lean perilously toward the latter...a conversation for another time, perhaps). I bring this up because, to a layman like myself, this has the feel of 'double jeopardy.' Can't get him in the criminal courts? Let's go after him in the civil venue...I'm not comfortable with this at all.

I agree that civil follow-up litigation feels an awful lot like double jeopardy. When I questioned one "legal beagle" on the matter she noted that the criminal trial can result in loss of liberty and / or life. Loss in a civil proceeding can only reduce the quality of one's life. Hence the criteria shifts from "reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of evidence" and the need for unanimous concurrence evaporates in most venues. In the specific case of #32 his residence and his pension remain his and his retirement will be more comfortable than many will enjoy. Even if Goldman and California hound him to the end of days he's going to be "comfortable".

I can't say that's a totally satisfying claim against double jeopardy but I did enjoy receiving the explanation from the young lady - most times my concentration drifts and I forget the pertinent points.

It would also be my opinion that if Swatch goes all medieval on Larry and Tim that it will be widely construed as abusive and a mis-use of the courts and may well backfire good will-wise with the WIS consumer base. My total and utter speculation, based on no facts whatsoever, is that Swatch will play "catch and release" settling for destruction of existing Ricochet stock and a "we'll be more careful with that shit in the future" note from SNBC.

We'll probably never know - I believe settlements are not generally in the public record.

Image
eddiea
Founding Member & Master of Time
Posts: 10652
Joined: December 25th 2009, 11:00pm

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by eddiea » July 12th 2012, 9:27am

Falstaff wrote:Lawsuit's not about the shape of the watch - it's about the references to the "Men in Black" movie made by Timbo et Cie while selling the Stuhrling. Swatch paid serious CHF for that product placement and rightly resent Dimple's gratuitous use of it.

Aside from the unrelated to the thread, "legalize" bullshit posts ...
The lawsuit is (as stated by Falstaff) about repeatedly resorting to on-air comparations between the Stuhrling and the Hamilton, including references to the new movie Man in Black by LM as well as Timbo.... and subtles but clear references to getting the same "look" for a lot less money by the same two idiots.
I don't quite think, Hamilton was the first to made that overall case shape ...
User avatar
TemerityB
ASSHAT
Posts: 16702
Joined: June 12th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by TemerityB » August 4th 2012, 6:12am

Darksider wrote:As an update, Swatch has granted Stuhrling unoriginal an extention until 8/28/12 to file a response to the motion for preliminary injunction


Thanks for the update; I was wondering what might be going on.
WatchGeeks will go down in watch forum history as the worst watch related site that existed. Trolls, threats, bannings, and owners and sponsors talking out of their collective asses to fleece people out of hard earned money. - Koimaster
User avatar
TemerityB
ASSHAT
Posts: 16702
Joined: June 12th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by TemerityB » October 11th 2012, 6:21pm

Here's a cute little sidebar from Facebook:

Image

One can only wonder if the Ventura FUBAR and subsequent statements forced SO's hand, particularly after Magen reportedly claimed, paraphrasing, that he never mentioned anything about a movie on air. SO's not gone from Shop, but its on-air rep now appears to be Justin Whatever, the ex-SWI talking head. I don't really give a rat's ass, but it's perversely entertaining as we wait on the result of the lawsuit.
WatchGeeks will go down in watch forum history as the worst watch related site that existed. Trolls, threats, bannings, and owners and sponsors talking out of their collective asses to fleece people out of hard earned money. - Koimaster
eddiea
Founding Member & Master of Time
Posts: 10652
Joined: December 25th 2009, 11:00pm

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by eddiea » October 12th 2012, 1:43pm

TemerityB wrote:Here's a cute little sidebar from Facebook:

Image

One can only wonder if the Ventura FUBAR and subsequent statements forced SO's hand, particularly after Magen reportedly claimed, paraphrasing, that he never mentioned anything about a movie on air. SO's not gone from Shop, but its on-air rep now appears to be Justin Whatever, the ex-SWI talking head. I don't really give a rat's ass, but it's perversely entertaining as we wait on the result of the lawsuit.

My take is.... fuck Larry
eddiea
Founding Member & Master of Time
Posts: 10652
Joined: December 25th 2009, 11:00pm

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by eddiea » October 12th 2012, 3:57pm

Watch Noob wrote:
robert516 wrote:It's gotta be killing him sitting on the sidelines while that doofus Justin stutters his way through blocks of selling time on the shop.

Larry obviously didn't listen to the right voices to make the right choices Image

Stuhrling Nation is mourning....Me on the other hand?
Image
User avatar
koimaster
Founder
Posts: 40976
Joined: December 16th 2009, 11:00pm
Location: Oregon, Thanks for visiting! Now go back home!
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by koimaster » October 12th 2012, 9:40pm

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, attornies just filed a notice to appear on behalf of SO and VV just for the purposes of receiving electronic notices. They have been given until 10/28 to file a response.
Image

1946-2006

“Your heart was warm and happy

With the lilt of Irish laughter

Every day and in every way

Now forever and ever after."
itfc1959
Posts: 209
Joined: February 21st 2012, 11:00pm
Facebook ID: 10154907245961454
Location: East Anglia UK
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by itfc1959 » October 14th 2012, 11:47pm

Mortuus wrote:@ChronoMatt - Cut & paste, yes; from 'geekland,' no. (Not sure why the gratuitous 'geekland' reference was made here, but c'est la mort...) There is no way in the world that I could even begin to seriously compare a Stuhrling to a Seiko, much less the Hammy Ventura; as my paternal grandad would have asserted, it would be like "comparing a turd to a tearose."

@ et. al. - I suppose I should have done more than just post the picture, but here was/is my point: If this case was filed in a Superior Court in one of the larger cities in the U.S., and I was one of Megan's/SNBC's/Dim's attornies, I would push very hard for a jury to hear and decide the outcome of this litigation. During the voir dire, I would eliminate as many potential jurors as possible who showed any signs of being a WIS, unless I could figure out some line of questioning that might tell me if a potential juror is a so-called "TV Watch" buyer; I'm not being entirely tongue-in-cheek when I assert this, because many, many lawyers (for the defense) will aim to get as many pliable - even downright dumb - jurors as possible before their summary dismissals run out.

Gents such as yourselves obviously know where the turds and tearoses are, and you make your buying or other decisions about watches based on this knowledge. As a defense attorney, I wouldn't want you near that jury pool for very obvious reasons. I want jurors who will look at that 'geekland' cut & paste and say, "Yeah, that looks the same to me." Put simply, they'll see the shape and little else because they're not WIS's. And I will do everything within reason to make sure they don't become anything close to a WIS...

Obviously, the plaintiff will make every effort to 'educate' the jurors vis-a-vis watches, using experts when and where they can to highlight the differences. But they'll have to tread very carefully and [seriously] use small words in their descriptions. Most jurors don't like experts because they feel as if they're being "talked down to."

And Dim's blathery spoken error? I would go back over the last 10 (?) or more years and show as many clips as I could get away with (In other words, before the jury nods off for the day - right around 1400, or so), establishing a pattern of rambling, mistake-laden gibberish which is the Dim Demple way of hawking watches. You close that little demo out by saying to the jury, "Would any of you want to be held liable for something you said in a moment of confusion?" Heck, I might even consider having the Dimster testify so they can see in person what a ramblous buffoon he can be. (Or maybe not; the guy's a loose cannon and he could easily shoot himself in the foot - or elsewhere.)

Sorry about the overlong response, guys. What I'm basically trying to say - acknowledging in full my cynicism about the gene pool, let alone the pool of Jurors one tends to see on a regular basis - that litigation requires that the plaintiff establish facts beyond reasonable doubt (lower standards than the 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' in, say, cases of murder, arson, kidnapping, etc.) The defense will do everything he can to blur the line between factual complaint and simple allegation. "Look at these very similar watches from Seiko and Technomarine...why didn't Hamilton file complaints about these?" Yes, I know what the law says, but that is sometimes easy to obfuscate without the judge catching it. However, a good attorney for the plaintiff will catch it and object like crazy. Again, though, the defense will have to continuously and repeatedly ram home the point that it's the triangular shape that's the issue, not all those nasty wheel-and-gear assemblies.

Yes, most WIS certainly know of the huge differences here between these watches, but 'a jury of our peers?' A good litigator (or, if you prefer, a good 'showman') would have no trouble getting an already-malleable jury to see things his/her way by - I hate to say this - 'dumbing down' the technical differences and emphasizing the shape; once more, that's the biggest - and probably only - detail they'll see.

Of course, if we have a trial by judge, all bets are off...unless the judge happens to be as downright stupid as those ass clowns on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But you can't count on that...well, not that often, anyway. Image

Hope that all made some sort of sense.

MORT Out.


Mort, I think you're absolutely spot on. I may not know very much about top-end watches but I do get this.
User avatar
koimaster
Founder
Posts: 40976
Joined: December 16th 2009, 11:00pm
Location: Oregon, Thanks for visiting! Now go back home!
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by koimaster » January 7th 2013, 3:27pm

1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM The Swatch Group (US) Inc. v. Sturhling Original LLC et al


Last motion was 11/26 for an extention of time to respond. Both parties trying to work things out?
Image

1946-2006

“Your heart was warm and happy

With the lilt of Irish laughter

Every day and in every way

Now forever and ever after."
mpswatches
Posts: 105
Joined: June 14th 2010, 10:00pm
Facebook ID: 0
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by mpswatches » January 9th 2013, 10:11am

Mort is obviously not a lawyer because there is NO SUCH legal standard as "beyond a shadow of a doubt." It is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and that is used in criminal trials, NOT in civil trials like this cause of action. Beyond a "shadow" of doubt is not a burden of proof as much as it is a burden of guilt. It has some limited application in death penalty cases during the penalty phase only. This is a "beyond a preponderance of evidence" burden of proof (51%) cause of action. All either party in the suit must prove is that the evidence is in their favor by 51% after all the evidence and testimony is presented. There is another standard in civil trials and that is the "clear and convincing evidence" standard. Basically, the party must prove their case in a higher standard than the customory "preponderance of evidence" standard...more like 75%. This standard must be enacted by the state legislature. It is often used in civil cases where one is at risk of losing a right or liberty as is the case in parental custody cases, etc.
User avatar
koimaster
Founder
Posts: 40976
Joined: December 16th 2009, 11:00pm
Location: Oregon, Thanks for visiting! Now go back home!
Contact:

Re: Swatch Sues Sturhling unoriginal

Post by koimaster » January 2nd 2019, 1:25pm

koimaster wrote:1:12-cv-02927-DLI-RLM The Swatch Group (US) Inc. v. Sturhling Original LLC et al


Last motion was 11/26 for an extention of time to respond. Both parties trying to work things out?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY8dc4ag95A&t=76s

Suit was eventually settled as many remember for $1 which was what the entire Stuhrling company was worth and the pulling and destruction of all Ricochet models.
Image

1946-2006

“Your heart was warm and happy

With the lilt of Irish laughter

Every day and in every way

Now forever and ever after."
Post Reply

Return to “Affordable Watch Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest