Schedule "A" Case INTERNATIONAL WATCHMAN, INC. No.: 1:24-cv-22046 copyright infringement

[nbell999]

I'm in the UK. Got notified about this by Florida case by Sriplaw Attorney Joel B. Rothman last week. I'm a private seller, had a single nato strap listing removed by ebay under VeRO rules two weeks ago. Sounds like they are accusing me of counterfeiting, copyright theft etc. Am reading up on these SAD cases now. Posting to try and connect with others perhaps in the same or similar situation.

[e-d-w-c]

I too was embroiled in this lawsuit dating back to July 2024. (Not this username)

International Watchman Inc. has been doing this/attempting to do it for at least 10-12 years, clearly with varying levels of success as he is persisting with it year after year. With over 600 defendants in 2024's lawsuit, he really pushed the boat out.  

Another gripe I have with eBay is that I was auto-enrolled onto the global shipping programme as a seller, and therefore automatically leaving me open to this exact kind of issue by making my listings available worldwide.

I was sent various e-mails outlining that I had breached their client's copyright blah blah blah, the 'marketplace' had reported a certain number of items of interest to them - In other words, NATO straps 'COULD' have been purchased by customers in the USA by the time eBay had informed me/arbitrarily deleted those listings without any evidence.

Their initial demands were $5000 per 'infraction', which is completely absurd considering these straps are about $10 each in value. 

I read a couple of the documents that they sent me, it said that I could be liable to a $2,000,000 per infraction total if the lawsuit reached its full settlement. I ignored all of their e-mails and came to the realisation that any contact from me would act to recognise the authority of the lawsuit/court etc. and show them that I was concerned and taking this utter hogwash as serious.

I got a message from eBay a few weeks ago with the outcome of the default judgement against me, that I was not under any circumstances to use the term NATO in any listing titles or descriptions in future or risk having my account permanently disabled.

Maratac also filed a lawsuit through me for using the term ZULU in one of my listings through the equally delightful Sriplaw - but that horse*bleep* lawsuit fell through last week and the case against me was dismissed without prejudice. You win some, you lose some I suppose Sriplaw.

I have reached out to NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) and explained that an individual is using their good and prestigious name to persecute people who are using an innocent and universally recognised term. There is also an element regarding if prospective customers of his are being unconsciously misled by thinking that these straps that he is manufacturing/selling are in any way an official NATO (as in the organisation) product, then that should definitely be looked into as unfair. No reply as of yet, and they clearly are not concerned about my e-mail as it was months ago. 

Now, here's the question - Does that lawsuit judgement only cover the original heinous crime (sarcasm) that I committed against the delightful and enchanting individual in question, or am I now allowed to use that term going forward as I have made sure that I do not make any of my listings available through the GSP and only sell in the UK? He only has the trademark in the USA, Jon @ WatchGecko holds it in the UK and is clearly a decent person after speaking to him.

This is the problem with such a lawsuit, and of course a dilemma that said plaintiff wants you to be concerned about going forward in order to legitimise his bull*bleep* and trademark. Any help or advice is welcomed.

[pasim8821]

Dear E-D-W-C,

You should write (in letter form, citing the case number and your identity as defendant) to the Judge (Judge Baccara) presiding over the court handing out default judgment, asking her to strike out the Trademark, under 5 U.S.C. §1064(3) THE LANHAM ACT (CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION). She needs the following information:

1. In 2022, the US Trademark Office declined International Watchman’s recent attempt to trade mark other product classes under “NATO" for offending S.2 of the US Trademark Act because it "consists of, or includes matter, which may falsely suggest a connection with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (“NATO”)”. Going so far as to declare in International Watchman’s unsuccessful appeal "even if the PTO earlier mistakenly registered a similar or identical mark suffering the same defect”.  (see failed application 87302907 - 2022).

In short: the US Trademark Office has signalled that this TM would not be supported today.

2. (S. 60 TM Act) always requires the applicant to make “declaration of bona fide intention”, including that the term is not being used by others. Yet he trademarked ’NATO” and “NATO G10” for Watches and Watchstraps which are historically, established terms for this type of Watch Strap. So, either he dreamt up these expressions from somehere (extraordinary coincidence) or his application was founded on a fraud.

When this trademark was previously challenged, point 2 (above) was neglected, despite there being an abundance of evidence that these terms were already long established in the industry.

[e-d-w-c]

Hi there,

Thanks for your response and advice, I have a couple of questions.

Is there an upside to sending Judge Becerra this information now that the case has been terminated? 

Do I give them all of my details (my name, address etc) - or do I just give my eBay username that was named in the lawsuit? I am very weary of giving a judge all of my personal details as thus far, all they have had is a eBay handle and e-mail address.

Thanks in advance for your help and once again, thanks for the information above.