Rolex lawsuit against reseller test limits of trademark protection

[thegrandseirolexguy]

https://www.thefashionlaw.com/rolex-...-watch-market/

As with all luxury goods, without the brand label, their products would be just another cheap consumer commodity.

[subtona]

So much money to be made, the defense will keep poking until they find a crack.

In light of the cpo program and the refusal of Rolex to sell parts outside of their dealers, there sure seems like the business practices are impacting fair competition/monopoly.

After several less than stellar service experiences at rsc, the idea that I am bound to them regardless of their performance is troublesome. In a most recent service of my explorer II I was required to purchase an unwanted bracelet if I wanted them to service the watch.
They claim it is to maintain brand image/standards?

My explorer II was purchased many years ago as a watch head only with specific intent for travel, to be worn on a strap. Why is that their concern? It is imho simply overreach on their part and reminds me of far darker images in life when people are made to conform to another’s will.

I wouldn’t mind seeing Rolex get knocked down a peg.

[ArtNouveau]

The article is a little vague but it seems that the defendant is plainly stating that their watches may contain aftermarket parts therefore they are not violating any trademark laws.
Makes me think of the customized bejeweled Rolex you see in the windows on 47th St. They make no claims as to being anything but what they are, custom versions based on standard models, is it against the law to do that? I think not.

[Tools]

Using aftermarket parts is a legitimate business practice. Using counterfeit parts, those with unlicensed trademarks, is a crime and Rolex wins this over and over.

[KatGirl]

Modding famous branded watches is common, and should be allowed, as long as there is total disclosure to the consumer. Blatantly counterfeiting, like the Chinese Rolex clones is obviously illegal. I guess there are many different scenarios to investigate. I’m not sure what the difference is between aftermarket and counterfeit, unless it just means if the aftermarket part has the Rolex logo, it’s counterfeit. I can see there would be grey areas here. If a legit Rolex dial has aftermarket gemstones added, is it then counterfeit? I’d argue it was just modified. It will be interesting to see how this case turns out.

Kat


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[brandrea]

Originally Posted by Tools

Using aftermarket parts is a legitimate business practice. Using counterfeit parts, those with unlicensed trademarks, is a crime and Rolex wins this over and over.

[123Blueface]

Well, Rolex does not have a patent on every single part they use for watches.
I can’t imagine them being able to control these parts with no proprietary insignia from being manufactured aftermarket.
Certainly cannot be sold represented as 100% authentic and should require full disclosure.

[77T]

I can see both sides of this case -

For Rolex, Dialmakers that use the trademarked logo and then add diamonds, or other gems, are counterfeiting.

For Defendants, restraint of trade by Rolex restricts their freedom of resale, choice and customization (without using trademarked parts).

Could you imagine Chip Foose being sued by GM for customizing a C8 and naming it a FooseVette?

Or a shade tree mechanic dropping a cheap Ford V8 into a C8 and selling it as genuine?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by Tools

Using aftermarket parts is a legitimate business practice. Using counterfeit parts, those with unlicensed trademarks, is a crime and Rolex wins this over and over.

Sums it up nicely.