Rolex branded Tudor dial

[springer]

Here is a Rolex branded, Tudor dialed watch from Hess Fine Auctions. The auction states - The dial on this watch is in great to excellent condition, yet someone has changed the dial to say Tudor Rolex when in fact its an Oyster Tudor made by Rolex.

This does not change the fact that the dial is counterfeit and totally misrepresents the watch. This is not a Rolex, but a Tudor. The dial should have been removed and replaced with the correct dial before the auction. It is not unlike someone listing a counterfeit Submariner on ebay with a caveat that it is a replica.

It has been reported to Ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-17J-Rose...item5add044b46

[mcjp6]

Jeff is a member here, maybe one of his staff listed the watch???

I think maybe we should let him know.

[jeff hess]

Hi,

I am thousands of miles from home at a watch event... I received a nice note from a member.

My wife does all things ebay, as Springer knows.

However, I looked at the listing and find noting wrong with it.

It looks as if great care was taken to make sure that a buyer knows what thye are buying. The word "Rolex" is not in the title. The description carefully notes that this is a Tudor, not a Rolex but that it was made by Rolex and that someone long ago changed the dial.

There was no attempt to deceive anyone in any way.

Good luck!

Jeff

[jeff hess]

Hi,

I am thousands of miles from home at a watch event... I received a nice note from a member.

My wife does all things ebay, as Springer knows.

However, I looked at the listing and find noting wrong with it.

It looks as if great care was taken to make sure that a buyer knows what thye are buying. The word "Rolex" is not in the title. The description carefully notes that this is a Tudor, not a Rolex but that it was made by Rolex and that someone long ago changed the dial.

There was no attempt to deceive anyone in any way.

Good luck!

Jeff

[mcjp6]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

However, I looked at the listing and find noting wrong with it.

Originally Posted by springer

Here is a Rolex branded, Tudor dialed watch from Hess Fine Auctions. The auction states - The dial on this watch is in great to excellent condition, yet someone has changed the dial to say Tudor Rolex when in fact its an Oyster Tudor made by Rolex.

This does not change the fact that the dial is counterfeit and totally misrepresents the watch. This is not a Rolex, but a Tudor. The dial should have been removed and replaced with the correct dial before the auction. It is not unlike someone listing a counterfeit Submariner on ebay with a caveat that it is a replica.

It has been reported to Ebay.

Sorry Jeff, I am very much with John on this listing.

This dial never came from Rolex or Tudor looking like it does now. As the listing points out the dial has been modified and the Rolex trademark has been illegally replicated on a Tudor dial which makes it therefore counterfeit. The caveat does make it right either.

[TimeToGo]

It's too early for pop corn.

I guess Coffee for now!

[springer]

Originally Posted by TimeToGo

It's too early for pop corn.

I guess Coffee for now!

As usual, Hess Fine Auctions, when found with a conflicting, misleading or erroneous ebay auction, expects some special consideration or exemption from the norm. Nobody is accusing you of deception, Mr. Hess, the Rolex dialed Tudor is wearing a counterfeit dial. Nothing in the auction indicates the dial is counterfeit.

This auction was brought to my attention via an email from another member here. A caveat in the listing on a watch containing a counterfeit dial does not change the fact that the dial is fake and misleading. This topic, the Rolex dialed Tudors, has been beat to death here on the forum.

I would expect a more professional response from this seller.

Norm, start popping the corn!

[tudorman8276]

...the mere PRESENCE of the Rolex crown or any registered Rolex Trademarks on the dial present it as something it NEVER was or NEVER will be.

...this is TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT and violates the Lanham Act......period.

...TUDOR is a BRAND unto itself just as Rolex is a brand unto itself!!

[TimeToGo]

Stan, great to see you are up and about! Hope you are recuperating well!

[afnios1]

Originally Posted by tudorman8276

...the mere PRESENCE of the Rolex crown or any registered Rolex Trademarks on the dial present it as something it NEVER was or NEVER will be.

...this is TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT and violates the Lanham Act......period.

...TUDOR is a BRAND unto itself just as Rolex is a brand unto itself!!

+1

[nowzen]

Springer, you are right, this issue has been discussed to death here, but I’m sure that as the OP of this one and a prominent participant of the former discussions – there’s nothing wrong with that, right?

However, I think casual labels of ‘counterfeit’ or ‘infringements of the Lanham Act’ are both ill-considered and possibly defamatory to the seller. I have read the Lanham Act and tudorman’s assessment that “this is TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT and violates the Lanham Act......period”. makes me wonder if we have read the same Act.

The last time I looked, ‘counterfeit’ includes the suggestion of an attempt to ‘deceive’. That might be a bit difficult to achieve here. The seller has clearly declared: “The dial on this watch is in great to excellent condition, yet someone has changed the dial to say Tudor Rolex when in fact its an Oyster Tudor made by Rolex.” And later “Dial Condition: Very good to excellent; someone has changed the dial of this watch to say Tudor Rolex when in fact its an Oyster Tudor made by Rolex”.

I think you might reference previous cases along these lines, especially this one: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1142365.html
While on the surface, Rolex was successful in that suit, it is interesting to note what they were not successful with. Specifically, the court said that the seller should have disclosed in advertising and on the invoice to the buyer that: “This watch contains non-Rolex parts which are not supplied by an official Rolex jeweler.”

The district court found that retention of the original Rolex marks on altered “Rolex” watches, in the absence of adequate disclosures that the altered watches contain non-Rolex parts, was deceptive and misleading as to the origin of the non-Rolex parts, and likely to cause confusion to subsequent or downstream purchasers, as well as to persons observing the product.

The district court found that the changes Mottale made to the used Rolex watches were not so extensive that Mottale should be completely enjoined from retaining Rolex's trademarks on the used Rolex watches he sells.

Also the court noted: “Rolex noted at oral argument that it did not seek, and had not sought in the district court, an injunction preventing individual owners of Rolex watches from altering their watches with non-Rolex parts. Neither the district court's injunction, nor the injunction we direct it to enter, enjoins Mottale (the seller) from altering Rolex watches at the specific request of an individual watch owner. I suggest someone selling an individual watch that has been altered (and declared to have been altered) is different from a mass-produced replica.

Ahhh! you say - the discussion here relates to the use of ‘Rolex’ on a ‘Tudor’ watch. True, but that is also contentious, given that Tudor is a Rolex owned and made brand and given that Rolex’s history of itself producing watches AND advertising in the past that were co-branded as well as Tudor watches bearing Rolex branded cases, crown AND bracelet.

You say “The dial should have been removed and replaced with the correct dial before the auction”. Come on, would Tudor stock dials from the 50’s. And “It is not unlike someone listing a counterfeit Submariner on ebay with a caveat that it is a replica”… which seems to ignore the fact it is not a replica, but exactly what it is listed as... a Tudor Oyster.

[jeff hess]

All,

I started selling vintage on line about 15 years ago. Katrina (my wife) runs the entire show now as I am involved in other watch related activity.

She is proud of her on line selling record and enjoys a good reputation and invites anyone on this forum to contact her at Katrina.hess@hessfineart.com to discuss pros and cons of on line selling. She only asks that you not hide behind an avatar name.

[afnios1]

I have place bids in the recent past in your auctions.With all my respect the TUDOR watch has a not original dial.You don't say that clear but undercover which is not honest for me.And just because you mentioned about,there are my details,not hidding under an avatar:
Anargyrou Michail
91a K.Palama str
20100 Korinthos
Greece

[jeff hess]

Please.


It is clear as day. VERY clear.


Thanks.

[TimeToGo]

Originally Posted by jeff hess

All,

I started selling vintage on line about 15 years ago. Katrina (my wife) runs the entire show now as I am involved in other watch related activity.

She is proud of her on line selling record and enjoys a good reputation and invites anyone on this forum to contact her at Katrina.hess@hessfineart.com to discuss pros and cons of on line selling. She only asks that you not hide behind an avatar name.

Thanks for the email address!

Great to know whom to address questions with!

[springer]

Yes, thank you Jeff Hess. As you stated earlier in your other post that I knew your wife did the listings, which I did not know, but I do now. I would hope that you would correct her then. Thank you.

[springer]

Originally Posted by nowzen

Springer, you are right, this issue has been discussed to death here, but I’m sure that as the OP of this one and a prominent participant of the former discussions – there’s nothing wrong with that, right?

However, I think casual labels of ‘counterfeit’ or ‘infringements of the Lanham Act’ are both ill-considered and possibly defamatory to the seller. I have read the Lanham Act and tudorman’s assessment that “this is TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT and violates the Lanham Act......period”. makes me wonder if we have read the same Act.

The last time I looked, ‘counterfeit’ includes the suggestion of an attempt to ‘deceive’. That might be a bit difficult to achieve here. The seller has clearly declared: “The dial on this watch is in great to excellent condition, yet someone has changed the dial to say Tudor Rolex when in fact its an Oyster Tudor made by Rolex.” And later “Dial Condition: Very good to excellent; someone has changed the dial of this watch to say Tudor Rolex when in fact its an Oyster Tudor made by Rolex”.

I think you might reference previous cases along these lines, especially this one: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1142365.html
While on the surface, Rolex was successful in that suit, it is interesting to note what they were not successful with. Specifically, the court said that the seller should have disclosed in advertising and on the invoice to the buyer that: “This watch contains non-Rolex parts which are not supplied by an official Rolex jeweler.”

The district court found that retention of the original Rolex marks on altered “Rolex” watches, in the absence of adequate disclosures that the altered watches contain non-Rolex parts, was deceptive and misleading as to the origin of the non-Rolex parts, and likely to cause confusion to subsequent or downstream purchasers, as well as to persons observing the product.

The district court found that the changes Mottale made to the used Rolex watches were not so extensive that Mottale should be completely enjoined from retaining Rolex's trademarks on the used Rolex watches he sells.

Also the court noted: “Rolex noted at oral argument that it did not seek, and had not sought in the district court, an injunction preventing individual owners of Rolex watches from altering their watches with non-Rolex parts. Neither the district court's injunction, nor the injunction we direct it to enter, enjoins Mottale (the seller) from altering Rolex watches at the specific request of an individual watch owner. I suggest someone selling an individual watch that has been altered (and declared to have been altered) is different from a mass-produced replica.

Ahhh! you say - the discussion here relates to the use of ‘Rolex’ on a ‘Tudor’ watch. True, but that is also contentious, given that Tudor is a Rolex owned and made brand and given that Rolex’s history of itself producing watches AND advertising in the past that were co-branded as well as Tudor watches bearing Rolex branded cases, crown AND bracelet.

You say “The dial should have been removed and replaced with the correct dial before the auction”. Come on, would Tudor stock dials from the 50’s. And “It is not unlike someone listing a counterfeit Submariner on ebay with a caveat that it is a replica”… which seems to ignore the fact it is not a replica, but exactly what it is listed as... a Tudor Oyster.

Nice post, but one judge's ruling isn't the law of the land my friend.

Actually, the Tudor dial is fake; counterfeit is an unauthorized or fraudulent reproduction of a genuine item.

You are incorrect, and I'm not going to debate it. It has been beat to death. The Rolex branded dial is done to enhance the value of the Tudor watch to the unknowing, unwitting buyer.

[blaine mattison]

a borrowed quote

The Rolex branded dial is done to enhance the value of the Tudor watch to the unknowing, unwitting buyer.


member of the nawcc since 1996


i have added something

after reading what afnios1 said, hmmmm???
i do see his point, it is not clear. you do state it has been "changed."
also in the same line with no break in thought, you say "when in
fact it's an oyster tudor by rolex???? <that is true. as you have
authored or co-authored a few books. not everyone has the same
knowledge level or experience.

i just don't understand why you didn't list it as a redial, repop,
or just say this dial is incorrect for this watch and never left the
factory in the present configuration

mr hess, you know as a member of nawcc and a mod?? over there
in there forum. was your description "transparent" or "clearly
identifying all know or suspected alterations" (used from the nawcc
bylaws B1, B1a)

YES you said "changed" but you also used in the sentence
"when in fact it's an oyster tudor by rolex" not> repop, incorrect
or customized.

this is the part that i tell you, i am a newbie. and it say's rolex
and tudor. and i think?? (hmmm) rolex owns tudor?? the dial is
changed. o.k., the seller has disclosed it. o.k. man, he writes
books,> it has to be good!!!! i'm going after this hot and heavy.
i want it!! i win!!!

i go to a regional event to show it off. and the first person i
show, calls it a POS?? and i take it to another member and
they say the same thing! dam it, and i walk out of a show and
never attend another and let my membership lapse (just what
we need)

those members who called it a POS, remember a few years ago
those california rolex tudors that where hitting the shows???
remember??

sure, that's is made up! ^^ but who here can say it couldn't happen??

sir, they way i see it. it's a FINE LINE, but the dial is totally
incorrect

[springer]

Another Hess auction with a dial issue.

https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=284433