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.

[bullahshah]

Many thanks for your response. So you suggest I attend hearing rather then allowing a default judgement?

If I do decide to attend do I need to give anything in writing as well? I have no experience in this. 

and what if it does not go in my favour?

Can they enforce the judgment either default or not in the UK? Have they done it with anyone? do you know?

Also I read somewhere to enforce in the UK plaintiff have to prove justidiction and it is difficult to do if you were not present in the US at the time of the judgment. Not sure trading on ebay.com means jurisdiction. It is a UK registered account with listings on US site which we have ended. I myself have never been to the US. 

Pleae advise. many thanks.

[lord_and_lady_m]

Please just do what I suggested. Head over to reddit. The answers you will get from people here will most likely be opinion and not necessarily experience. There is a lot of experience in the reddit threads. Any suggestions you get, ask people if it is based on their experience or not.

[papso22]

Take care of yourself, you have been a huge help to many on here and have done your bit.

[stucaw_91]

Any further up date?   I've had one of these this morning.   I'm just a one man band sold a few watch straps that I inherited.  Thanks

[bullahshah]

What brand is it?

[stucaw_91]

Unbranded.  It's what everyone knows what style of strap it is.  I've removed now.  Wish nobody any harm.  

[bullahshah]

Sorry meant who is suiing?

[alan-nice]

Hi - I am in the same 'situation', after selling some straps on ebay, and getting an email from ebay CS on the 16/08.  I have not been contacted by Sriplaw directly.

The plaintiff is well known to, and well despised by, the watch enthusiast community.  He seems to make a living by selling straps himself but also by suing others who do so, after copywriting a generic term ( NATO ) and suing sellers, both business and private, on ebay and on other sites. He has been doing this  successfully for about a decade, so a legal precedent has been established.

Anyway, I contacted Ebay CS and said:

"...I have not heard from the plaintiff 's solicitors.
I will wait for them to contact me - or am I expected to contact them?

If this situation means losing my ebay account, then so be it, unfortunately. The plaintiff... has been doing this copyright case for years, after copywriting a generic term, and I will not be paying him a cent."

Ebay's response was a template one, and the only guidance in it said: 

"I would request you to please contact them yourself as this will only help you in getting the issue resolved sooner rather than waiting for them to contact you."

However I don't think I will be contacting Sriplaw at this point.  It is their responsibility to contact me as far as I see it.  I will then consider how to respond, but I will not be compliant beyond agreeing not to list any strap I sell as a NATO strap again.

From what I understand from reading around, if a  fine were to be imposed in the US it can be pursued in the UK, but of course there is the logistics of doing so, which would mean employing debt collectors.

Whatever happens, and as I have said, I do not intend to pay this guy a penny.

[bullahshah]

Check your spam/junk folder. The summons will be sent via email. 

[alan-nice]

I checked - nothing in my junk folder - as yet anyway.

[rubbenshop]

Iam in same boat. From Portugal and exact the same. Private seller and trying easy money. Ridiculous

[rubbenshop]

In my case i just used the term Nato . Simple has that. This is complete absurd in the way they force you. Extortion. 

[4_bathrooms]

---

@alan-nice wrote:

The plaintiff is well known to, and well despised by, the watch enthusiast community.  He seems to make a living by selling straps himself but also by suing others who do so, after copywriting a generic term ( NATO ) and suing sellers, both business and private, on ebay and on other sites.

---

NATO is not a generic term; it is well known as an acronym for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

I checked the Intellectual Property Office to see if anyone had registered "NATO" as a mark for Class 14 goods and indeed they have. That means you can't even sell those watch straps in the UK and call them NATO watch straps.

---

[alan-nice]

Thanks for your reply.

NATO, as applied to watch straps, is a generic term in the sense that it has been used by the watch community for over 50 years to describe a certain kind of strap.  It is not just an acronym for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

You are rignt in that that one american individual has taken upon himself to copyright the term, and against all common sense in view, copyright was granted to him.  On the basis of this he has been raising and winning the cases.   

[4_bathrooms]

---

@alan-nice wrote:

NATO, as applied to watch straps, is a generic term in the sense that it has been used by the watch community for over 50 years to describe a certain kind of strap.  It is not just an acronym for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

---

From NATO's website:

"Soon after the initial roll-out to the British Special Forces, the strap was modified to uniquely represent different British military regiments. Where the term “NATO” derives from is due to the alphanumeric code used in the British MoD to identify all standardised material items of supply. The code was called the NATO Stock Number (NSN).

So, while the NATO strap is not actually a NATO-branded strap, it is an important article of clothing that was used by forces of a NATO member country."

So, despite NATO being the origin of the name the straps are indeed not NATO (i.e. the organisation) branded.

---

@alan-nice wrote:

You are rignt in that that one american individual has taken upon himself to copyright the term, and against all common sense in view, copyright was granted to him.  

---

He hasn't copyrighted the phrase, he has trademarked it for watch straps (and just about anything else to do with a chronograph/watch). That means only he can sell watch straps called or described as "nato" (or "n.a.t.o.") in the territories he has registered the mark in; anybody else wishing to do so needs his permission. In the UK trademark infringement can be treated as a criminal and/or a civil offence - in Florida it seems it is a civil offence.

[alan-nice]

---

@4_bathrooms wrote:

---

@alan-nice wrote:

NATO, as applied to watch straps, is a generic term in the sense that it has been used by the watch community for over 50 years to describe a certain kind of strap.  It is not just an acronym for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

---

So, despite NATO being the origin of the name the straps are indeed not NATO (i.e. the organisation) branded.

---

@alan-nice wrote:

You are rignt in that that one american individual has taken upon himself to copyright the term, and against all common sense in view, copyright was granted to him.  

---

He hasn't copyrighted the phrase, he has trademarked it for watch straps (and just about anything else to do with a chronograph/watch). 

On your first point, I never said straps are NATO branded.  I stand by what I said in regard to the usage of the term in the watch community.

In regard to your second point -  thank for your correction in regard to copyright / trademark.  However my understanding is that he has also actually trademarked the term NATO for hundreds of kinds of goods (eg knives, tents, sports equipment etc.) that have nothing to do with the watches.

---

[4_bathrooms]

---

@alan-nice wrote:

---

In regard to your second point -  thank for your correction in regard to copyright / trademark.  However my understanding is that he has also actually trademarked the term NATO for hundreds of kinds of goods (eg knives, tents, sports equipment etc.) that have nothing to do with the watches.

---

---

It doesn't matter; a trademark can be registered for just about any product provided it meets the criteria for registration. Although there are no watch straps that are NATO (the organisation) branded this person does have NATO and N.A.T.O. trademarks that prevents anyone else selling or marketing a NATO watch strap.

You can apply to have the UK trademark registration revoked under the reason the trademark has become the "common name in the trade" for the product due to the registered trademark owner's "acts or inactivity" - i.e. they have been failing to enforce their IP rights in the UK. You would need to use this form and pay the £200 fee to do so. Note there would be further legal costs if the trademark owner challenged the application to revoke their mark. Also note this cannot be done retrospectively; i.e. a similar application for revocation of Candy Hoover Group S.r.l.'s trademark for HOOVER covering "suction cleaning machines" would almost certainly fail as although "hoover" has become a generic British term for a vacuum cleaner CHGS still manufactures vacuum cleaners and often enforce their intellectual property rights where commercial advertisers are concerned.  

[diddytechuk]

Hi. Just for clarification that Class 14 DOES NOT include watch straps.

The IPO's website states the following:
Class 14
Parts and fittings for horological and chronometric instruments, but not including watch staps or watches as finished goods.

Therefore there is currently no registered trademark for "NATO" in regards to watch straps in the United Kingdom.

Regards

[4_bathrooms]

---

@diddytechuk wrote:

The IPO's website states the following:
Class 14
Parts and fittings for horological and chronometric instruments, but not including watch staps or watches as finished goods.

---

I had noticed that, but it appears to be either poorly worded (as well as misspelt) or incorrect. If you search for goods covered under class 14 on IPO.GOV.UK this is (part of) the list of results:

 

The screenshot wouldn't fit into a single image without creating a much larger image.

The classification system - adopted by all UN member countries - uses the World Intellectual Property Organisation's "Nice" classification system (Nice as in the French city). According to WIPO's list of Class 14 goods:

That seems pretty conclusive to me. However, I'm not the person you would need to convince otherwise.

[diddytechuk]

It seems the WIPO shows a list of sub-class IDs within class 14. It's likely that the IPO just consolidates these under one class and instead provides a description. We could probably see the full class ID if we requested the original application.

In 2012, there was another "NATO" trademark rejected (UK00002614583) under class 14, and this time their description specifically states "Watches, Watch Straps & Bracelets". I've done a few searches with varying keywords & I'm fairly confident that the IPO has not yet granted a trademark for "NATO" under Watch Straps. And I hope they keep it that way, as it's incredibly over-reaching!

All the best.