Custom Rolex legal ruling

[amphr1]

I tried reading it for about 10 minutes and got more confused. Anyone care to explain?

https://www.thefashionlaw.com/swiss-...in-rolex-case/

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

[INC]

There was a topic some weeks ago about the same kind of infridgement. In this case the key is here:

"Rolex notified the defendant of its infringement, prompting the defendant to limit its customization services to private clients, thereby, doing away with its practice of maintaining a stock of customized watches, which it marketed and resold to consumers via its website."

So, it has never been a question that to customise a watch on a natural person's demand is not against to the law if it has no business part at all, except the actual work on the watch. But to modify watches on a business model, and to sold them with the trademark of the copyright holder is illegal in full, as it infridges the rights of the copyright holder.

It means in short, that a natural person who owns a watch has the right to do anything with this watch. If someone want to ruin it, it is allowed to do even with a help of a legal person.

But no legal person is allowed to do this on its own, mostly without a prior permission of the copyright holder, as it is illegal to run a business model which infridges the trademark holders rights.

[amphr1]

Is artisansdegeneve still legal? Have they always been legal given this definition?

So everything is a one-off? Let's say someone customize it a certain way and someone else wants to customize it exactly the same way because they saw it in an Instagram photo. Does that still mean it's legal?

Sent from my SM-S918U1 using Tapatalk

[INC]

As long as a natural person wishes to do this on a one-time basis, exclusively for personal and non-commercial purposes, yes, there may be no obstacle.

So it is not the same:

- to offer on demand modification services for natural persons, in which case the legal person modifies a watch, but that's all, because the watch will be returned to the original owner; or
- to modify watches in a business model on the legal person's deceision, and after this offer them for sale for any kind of persons, including legal or natural persons.

The latter is strictly forbidden by the law. The other one "can be legal", but there is a very narrow line in between the legal and the illegal business if these are offered as business services.

[brandrea]

When I think of a natural person I think of a nudist … maybe that’s just me

Carry on

[Topspin14m]

Basically, according to the article, the decision says that if, as a consumer, you buy a Rolex and then send it to be customized, that’s legal. However, these companies cannot themselves buy a bunch of Rolexes, modify them, and offer them for sale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VonSomething]

You are not allowed to make custom parts and print the ROLEX brand name on these custom pieces... as of course, they were not made by Rolex. Which should be obvious to anyone.

[Stan Cooper]

As one who likes to personalize items I've bought and paid for to suit my tastes, this decision by the Swiss Supreme Court is refreshing.

[77T]

The case in the OP’s link was in a Swiss court. Only enforceable in that country since they aren’t in the EU. The defendant is enjoined from commercial sales of their product.
The precedent affects like-minded Swiss companies, too.

There are other cases mentioned in the article and they generally conform to the Swiss Fed. Supreme Court’s ruling.

What might confuse some is the concept of selling watches as a product that infringes on trademark versus the concept of customizing a customer’s watch.

The pivot in my view would be this:
- Sell an unmodified Rolex on your website using stock images.
- Offer a SKU in the checkout process as “bespoke” customization.
- Allow buyer to define the work via options on the website.
- Ship from inventory.

The actual ruling is narrow enough to let customizers to continue to sell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Robison347]

This ruling is consistent with rulings in other countries, and it has a bearing on many things outside of watches.

In the case of fine cars, watches, or other manufactured products, some people will feel the exclusivity of an expensive product alone is not enough. They want one of a kind. Some manufacturers have custom divisions to accommodate that. Rolls-Royce is a good example of that. But manufacturer customization is generally limited in scope.

That creates an opportunity for individual artisans and shops to create their own interpretations based on standard products. The result may be a futuristic Mercedes G Wagen, or a uniquely bejeweled Rolex Daytona.

What the ruling says is that owners have the right to customize their products as they see fit, and it they get tired of them, they can sell them. The artisan who does the customizing can sign their work, and that’s ok too.

What the artisan cannot do is create a product - an Artisan Daytona - and offer it for sale, because doing so implies an association with the manufacturer/trademark holder that does not exist. Another way to look at this is to say you can’t build a product line on top of someone else’s product in this space. That is totally contrary to the huge market (as one example) for add-on accessories for the iPhone. But in the luxury space, there it is.