Ginault Ocean Rover II

Your spreading the love. This watch looks great. He choose wisely. Congrats to your co worker. Tell him to jump on Watch crunch today and post it up!

Probably the closest thing we're getting to what would be a modern Tudor Submariner. And I think it gives the people exactly what they want, a thin 5 digit case, solid band, ceramic bezel, Sellita movement ...

The finishing on the caseback is a little dodgy in my experience and the case edges are too sharp on the bottom. I presume that it is the result of cost cutting but done in places where it arguably matters the least which overall makes it a surprisingly thoughtful watch given that it's just a blend of past Rolex designs.

I think this watch deserves to be made and what they accomplished deserves some credit, more than what people give them. Then again the clasp is probably patented (making and unbraded knock-off doesn't really help yoir case if you're trying to go legit 😅) and some people might take issue with that, along with the overall design. Can't please everyone I guess 🤷‍♂️

They do make a very good watch, that's for sure. Mine is going on 6 years now, still keeps excellent/COSC standard time. Agree the case edge can be "noticable" on wrist. Not to the point of making the watch unwearable though, as least to me. My biggest complaint with the Gen 1 is lack of AR coating for the cyclops. The light has to be just right, and your wrist has to be just right as well in order to easily read the date. Not a showstopper but if I had to do it over again, I'd probably with the no date version.

Out of curiosity I looked and found that Rolex did trademark the name "Rolex Glidelock" with the US Patent & Trademark Office (trademark registration number 78806634). But near as I can tell they did not patent the actual mechanism or design of the clasp. Searching the USPTO website it's easy to find the trademark registration - but there is no patent registered I could find. Not that that's definitive, but curious, nevertheless. I'm no lawyer, but the terms patent, trademark and copyright are often used interchangeably despite having different legal meanings. No way Ginault could withstand the weight of fire Rolex lawyers could bring to bear if Rolex took issue with it their products in a court of law. That they haven't suggests to me either (a) they can't, at least legally; or (b) Ginault is too small a threat to bother with. Rolex has legally gone after a small business owner for trademark infringement for using the term "Oyster and Pop" on a child's clock. But not Ginault, who makes a near 1:1 clone of their bracelet, clasp, and (old) case design.

I don't think it's one patent, that makes it hard to find. But it is almost certainly patented, here is the file for the hooking bit. The gliding thingy is probably another one.

Rolex almost certainly had enough to go after Ginault at one point, not sure what expired when as I am not a lawyer. But I have it on good authority that these sorts of lawsuits are VERY expensive, difficult to win (all all hell breaks loose if you don't because then it's open season...) and it makes no sense to go after an entity which wouldn't have enough capital to cover your legal fees, let alone pay any damages. What Ginault does is likely against the law, or was at some point should patents have expired (they probably didn't or many others would have been making these spring lock clasps), but it's even more likely that doing something about it isn't worth the hassle.

Thanks, wasn’t able to find that.

But the question still stands. Why does Rolex pursue cases like this, which don’t seem worth the hassle: Children's clock firm asked to rebrand by Rolex lawyers https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-64268369.

But not Ginault? Ginault is clearly treading closer to Rolex patents and brand identity than a child’s clock maker is. Yet Rolex has seemingly ignored Ginault. It just doesn’t make sense to me. But then I don’t own or run Rolex, so there’s that!

(Full disclosure, I own a Rolex, a Ginault, and got my granddaughter the Oyster and Pop clock for Christmas. So screw ‘em 🤓)

I think there's a difference in asking to rebrand and actually taking it to court, I don't think Rolex did the latter (though I might be wrong) but Oyster and Pop clocks are certainly still selling. Fire a warning shot and if they don't obey take it from there. I don't think this sees the inside of a courtroom, the risk of not winning seems too high for the potential reward. Word gets out that you're allowed to use Oyster on a time keeping device... 😏 other brands might get ideas. Rolex may have asked Ginault to stop doing what they do, I guess the nice people over there who may have received the message likely wouldn't report the incident to a local newspaper sonwe wouldn't know either way.

Not sure what the outcome was with Oyster and Pop. Overall though I think it's silly that Rolex would think a consumer would confuse a child's clock with say an Oyster Perpetual watch - let alone the brand logos. Sure, people are stupid, but not sure they are that stupid!

The ironic thing with Ginault is I don't think Rolex has bothered with them at all. If Ginault ignored a cease and desist letter like they sent Oyster and Pop, it wouldn't be difficult for Rolex to go to court, which would be a matter of public record...yet they haven't. Which is why I've long suspected Ginault isn't doing anything illegal - Rolex knows it, even if not all watch enthusiasts do! Now, if Ginault slapped a Rolex and a coronet on the dial, different story...