Rolex takes action on modified watches....

[Robtayham]

Originally Posted by springer

I would disagree totally. These are preowned, worn, personal property watches - not new as sold through the Rolex dealer network.

Further, refinishing dials has been an industry standard for decades. Does anyone know of one case where Rolex sued a dial refinishing company for refinishing a Rolex dial - or "counterfeiting" a dial in the eyes of Rolex.

This suit is baseless harassment. Not a chance in hell than any jury would side with Rolex - even in California.

I agree with this.

I also agree that if a product is replicated and sold with the intent to deceive or cause the buyer to think it is an original product, that’s counterfeiting.

That’s not what these companies are doing. The Porsche modifiers, or Brabus, or this watch modifier, are not trying to deceive anyone.

Lastly, with 3D printing, there are a lot of replacement parts being made for products. That’s not counterfeiting. It only rises to the level of counterfeiting when you deceive the buyer. The intentional misrepresentation.

[DocJekl]

Originally Posted by Robtayham

I agree with this.

I also agree that if a product is replicated and sold with the intent to deceive or cause the buyer to think it is an original product, that’s counterfeiting.

That’s not what these companies are doing. The Porsche modifiers, or Brabus, or this watch modifier, are not trying to deceive anyone.

Lastly, with 3D printing, there are a lot of replacement parts being made for products. That’s not counterfeiting. It only rises to the level of counterfeiting when you deceive the buyer. The intentional misrepresentation.

x2

[BBL]

Originally Posted by 77T

Yes - private owners may do anything to their personal property to modify it (to the extent such modifications do not violate statutes). Any action by a brand would need to be based on some grounds other than trademark confusion.

For example, I can’t mount a functioning rocket launcher to my Volvo...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Hahahaa, Paul!

Merry Christmas!
DM

[77T]

Originally Posted by BBL

Hahahaa, Paul!



Merry Christmas!

DM

Same to you, D!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tridor]

As an attorney, it appears to me from that article that Rolex is attempting to make an example of this small company in order to deter others. In order for injunctive relief to be granted, a movant typically has to show: (a) irreparable injury, which cannot be compensated by money damages; (b) a likelihood of success on the merits; and (c) that, on balance, the equities weigh in favor of the party seeking the injunction. It will be interesting to see what the court does here.

[mrfreaz]

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

I agree.

Or they can stop this nonsense and collaborate with these designers and make the watches people want.

Nah, I'm afraid that "collaborate" ain't in the Crown's vocabulary. That would be Tag/Heuer... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peRCjX6HkkM

Rolex is on a different planet altogether. The make like close to a million stock watches a year, all of them stock, no special orders. Take 'em or leave 'em. The petty thing is that the world's biggest watch company would stand in the way of a few thousand used watches from being restored and personalized to suit individual tastes. To these owners they are special watches that speak to them. To Rolex they are nothing more than "Counterfeits." Why? They'd rather those old clunkers all die off, so they can sell you a new one!

So the real question appears to be whether you own a Rolex, or they own you?
Apparently, "You never actually own a Rolex. You merely look after it until they can confiscate it from you for upgrading it with an unauthorized diamond bezel!" Unlike Patek Phillipe....

[mrfreaz]

Originally Posted by TheDude

Again, I think the basis that will stand up in this case is where there are -clearly- non-Rolex parts, and the most damaging will be the non-Rolex parts that compromise the integrity of the watch (crystal comes to mind most prominently).

Using the Porsche argument, if an aftermarket tuner replaces the windshield with a pretty purple tinted one that shatters into little bits of glass that shower the occupants’ faces when a pebble impacts it, our government would have something to say about it, and Porsche’s lawyers would too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, God forbid that someone would upgrade those cheap, ancient, cracked plexiglass crystals to new, scratch resistant sapphires. It's clearly an endangerment of people's lives!