I will defer to your analysis then! I was not aware that the functionality analysis has been sidestepped. I was under the impression that design trademarks for veblen goods, especially clothing, have been difficult to acquire. I thought it was due to a functionality analysis. I could be completely pulling this out of my ass though!
I think it is tough though in this situation in general though. I don't think that an octagonal case with screws is necessarily "so affiliated" with the RO that it would cause any confusion. I am interested to see how it turns out though. I agree that it is much more likely that the parties will just settle. I seriously doubt there will be any litigation.
I definitely think that the designers should be afforded protection, I just wonder whether they will get any!
Yes, I have to agree with your analysis here. This just seems like a little bit of puffery on the part of AP. And it certainly worked, considering that the TH watch was pulled from its site. It will probably be much less of hassle for TH just to pull the watch. Putting up a fight will really do a whole lot of nothing.
AP does have the advantage of having a very distinctly designed watch. I do not think Rolex could really make that much of a claim, since its designs are fairly generic. But the RO is certainly one of a kind!
Please feel free to use the disclaimer as frequently as you would like!