The Crown speaks on counterfeits...

[csfischer20]

Looks to me like they use vintage watches and warranty them in house. I'd think Rolex would go after someone a little more nefarious. Just my take though.

[MasonDixon]

I read an article about this outfit in Revolution. I wasn't impressed and had a feeling this would be coming. Good for Rolex.

[JadeRaven]

Originally Posted by 037

Semantics of "authentic" seems to be the rub. That's where I agree there's a disconnect.

But, this isn't that. My example was of a painted car to match up with what appears to be a painted watch. Yes, the dials are painted but paint seems to be the major component involved. If Rolex is scrutinizing paint then there are far more companies to lump together with this one, all of which are piggybacking off of the Rolex brand.

From the article, and from a cursory glance at their website, it appears they are selling more than simply painted Rolexes. Most appear to be extensively aftermarket. Presumably movements, cases are mostly OEM rolex but even that is up for debate.

Perhaps a better example would be a Singer 911. Singer goes to great lengths to distance itself from being a manufacturer, and hold themselves out as merely a restorer/customizer. They similarly "reimagine" the 911 but, unlike lacalifornienne, they aren't buying up old junker 911s, reimagining, and reselling. You have to buy a car and bring it to them to be enhanced. Otherwise they would be risking the ire of Porsche AG.

[037]

Originally Posted by JadeRaven

From the article, and from a cursory glance at their website, it appears they are selling more than simply painted Rolexes. Most appear to be extensively aftermarket. Presumably movements, cases are mostly OEM rolex but even that is up for debate.

Perhaps a better example would be a Singer 911. Singer goes to great lengths to distance itself from being a manufacturer, and hold themselves out as merely a restorer/customizer. They similarly "reimagine" the 911 but, unlike lacalifornienne, they aren't buying up old junker 911s, reimagining, and reselling. You have to buy a car and bring it to them to be enhanced. Otherwise they would be risking the ire of Porsche AG.

If the movements are aftermarket then that's definitely a problem. My initial take was that genuine parts were simply repainted.

Singer might be a good example in this instance since they're "making" something Porsche never did. But, that then begs the question if Rolex now suddenly cares about vintage watches or if their beef is only with modern. It's not like they (Rolex) want to keep vintage watches fully period-correct as it is. If they're complaining about modifying vintage watches then that might be rather ironic.

[ecdc]

It almost sounds like Rolex is saying that these models are derivative works, and therefore not covered by the doctrine of first sale. That might be a winning argument in California where the lawsuit was filed, and even on appeal in the 9th Circuit. Not all federal courts elsewhere would agree, and if this somehow makes it to the Supreme Court, odds are Rolex would lose. But it should make for an interesting lawsuit in the meantime.

[mml4]

Given the way Rolex has allowed the situation we experience in the product distribution chain I find it difficult to support their position on anything.
The after market company makes no pretense about the origin of the watch and it is really none of Rolex concern.
Just applying the same logic Rolex does with regards to the grey market -None of their business.

[ndrs63]

What were they thinking when they started this business? Agree 100% with Rolex.

Ps:
Grabbing one of these watches at a discount might be an interesting proposition, as lacalifornienne will probably go out of business sooner or later. Not that I would


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Acidstain]

Looks like they mostly use 1601s, which uses the caliber 1530 which rolex has discontinued. And if reports on the forum are to be believe, has started declining service on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Finslayer83]

Originally Posted by exador

Interesting. Wonder why Rolex never went after Bamford then?

Cause they did a sick milsub.

I'd buy one if I had the cash.

[RJRJRJ]

Originally Posted by JadeRaven

From the article, and from a cursory glance at their website, it appears they are selling more than simply painted Rolexes. Most appear to be extensively aftermarket. Presumably movements, cases are mostly OEM rolex but even that is up for debate.

Perhaps a better example would be a Singer 911. Singer goes to great lengths to distance itself from being a manufacturer, and hold themselves out as merely a restorer/customizer. They similarly "reimagine" the 911 but, unlike lacalifornienne, they aren't buying up old junker 911s, reimagining, and reselling. You have to buy a car and bring it to them to be enhanced. Otherwise they would be risking the ire of Porsche AG.

I'm out near the Singer factory sometimes and once in a while will see them driving one So nice.

[Speedbird-1]

Maybe Geneva should out flank them with 'copies', and sell them as "Genuine - la Californienne"?


Wierd isn't it, I was censured on here a few years ago, for just mentioning some, rather nice tee-shirts, emblazoned with 'Submariner text' in correct font.
The Mod, quite rightly, protecting this great forum from the ire of the Mothership.
How times change.

[Tools]

Depends on how the company is advertising their products.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...00/538474/105/

[2nastie]

I don't understand why Rolex would get bent on someone/company changing the colours of their watch. It's customisation, it's up to the general public or consumer to accept it or not. People are buying these for their modification and vividly knows its a customisation.

Actual fake/counterfeit watches on the other hand. Rolex should crack down on these. Aren't there forums, websites, etc. that sells these things? Rolex hasn't done much to get rid of those. Frankly from the videos I've seen the fakes are improving. If Rolex was cracking down on these, it should be harder to source.

[77T]

Rolex is targeting a few cases of “confusion” as evidence that these mod’d (yes, mod’d) Rolex watches are meant to imitate an original Rolex.

I think the defendants aren’t capitalized to the extent they can mount a lengthy defense. Rolex can put them into corporate bankruptcy with a single restraining order.

If Rolex prevails, maybe it will strengthen their resolve against others like Bamford, Titan Black, Blaken, Artisans and others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sechsgang]

Originally Posted by RJRJRJ

I'm out near the Singer factory sometimes and once in a while will see them driving one So nice.

I most definitely love mine

The guys are nice there do some real magic...

[sillo]

Originally Posted by 037

So, if one buys a Corvette that has been repainted in a custom color it's still a genuine Corvette and Chevy doesn't care.

But, if one buys a Rolex that has been repainted in a custom color it's a counterfeit and Rolex cares.

Makes perfect sense.

Yup, kinda absurd.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by ecdc

It almost sounds like Rolex is saying that these models are derivative works, and therefore not covered by the doctrine of first sale. That might be a winning argument in California where the lawsuit was filed, and even on appeal in the 9th Circuit. Not all federal courts elsewhere would agree, and if this somehow makes it to the Supreme Court, odds are Rolex would lose. But it should make for an interesting lawsuit in the meantime.

It would be interesting, but I don't see the argument for laCalifornienne watches as derivative, since Rolex is claiming they are outright counterfeits. Derivative works aren't counterfeits, and the first sale doctrine doesn't entertain counterfeits. So the legal question is, by altering a Rolex watch with aftermarket parts, does that watch cease to be a true Rolex? If so, the argument goes, by selling that watch as a true Rolex, laCalifornienne is using the Rolex mark in order to represent the watch as something it's not; ergo, it's counterfeit. The entire argument hinges on whether a once-genuine watch modified with aftermarket parts ceases to be a genuine version of the branded watch.

But that may all be beside the point. As noted by others, the entire point of the suit may be to bankrupt the company between litigation costs and, in the event of an injunction, the inability to generate revenue. The merits might not even matter, and almost certainly won't matter beyond the district level.

[JDsnewwatch]

"parts, such as dials, crystals (i.e., the cover located between the dial and the hands), etc."

This would explain why the altered watches are no longer waterproof LOL.
Seriously, millennials need to start wearing watches.

[djgallo]

I think Rolex has a great chance of succeeding.

If a private individual wants to mod their Rolex watch no problem legally.

I think where the legal problem becomes apparent, is when a business is formed to basically purchase new or used Rolex watches, in order to customize/mod and then sell them for a profit, while leaving the Rolex trademarks intact on the watch. In effect, selling the watch as a Rolex, and capitalizing with all of the benefits associated with the Rolex trademarks, marketing, and good name.

I would NOT want to be the defendant in this scenario.

[GB-man]

Seems odd to go after this small outfit when they could target Bamford, AG, TM etc

[csaltphoto]

Well, some industries, like cars, are fine with it. There is an entire aftermarket industry in autos that make hot cars even hotter and the manufacturers seem fine with it. It might be that they do rebadge the cars; Alpina, Rausch, Saleen, Dinan, etc. But everyone knows what it is. And the modded cars are definitely less reliable and more expensive to maintain,

Other industries not so much. Camera companies come to mind but that is sort of niche.

If they rebadged the watches there would probably not be an issue; or even added their name to the dial. I think the issue is that they are being represented as a Rolex and the modding might have affected some of the things that Rolex are known for like reliability and waterproofness. So that poor performance on the part of the modded watch might reflect poorly on the brand in general. I think some of the other watch modders change aesthetics while maintaining the mechanical and structural integrity of the watch.

[Chadridv]

I think something that separates, bamford, artisan de geneva, etc. is that they are making customized/modified watches that don't mimic the exact look of a previous model, rather they pay homage to a certain look or style, or create a new style completely.

This other brand or whatever it is, is putting together watches that look like they have those stella dials. I could be wrong, I'm certainly no vintage expert, but that seems to be the case no? Despite there being some genuine parts, it's still using replica parts as opposed to a completely new design. And in most cases have clear indications of alternative branding.

I'm not saying rolex would ever service any of these companies watches, I'm just saying I don't think there's any need to describe bamford and ADG as counterfeit.

[danwang0520]

buy what you can afford~

[RJRJRJ]

Originally Posted by sechsgang

I most definitely love mine

The guys are nice there do some real magic...

I'd love to see some pics if you have any

[GradyPhilpott]

Originally Posted by JDsnewwatch

"parts, such as dials, crystals (i.e., the cover located between the dial and the hands), etc."

This would explain why the altered watches are no longer waterproof LOL.
Seriously, millennials need to start wearing watches.

Yeah, that was the most interesting phrase in the whole article.

[InitialAndPitch]

Originally Posted by JadeRaven

From the article, and from a cursory glance at their website, it appears they are selling more than simply painted Rolexes. Most appear to be extensively aftermarket. Presumably movements, cases are mostly OEM rolex but even that is up for debate.

Perhaps a better example would be a Singer 911. Singer goes to great lengths to distance itself from being a manufacturer, and hold themselves out as merely a restorer/customizer. They similarly "reimagine" the 911 but, unlike lacalifornienne, they aren't buying up old junker 911s, reimagining, and reselling. You have to buy a car and bring it to them to be enhanced. Otherwise they would be risking the ire of Porsche AG.

The derivative work is interesting. They still maintain the brand identification. Be interested to see the final basis for the claim.

The lawyers at Rolex could be using this one to write/interpret new law.

Perhaps they see this one as meaty enough to bounce through 9th circuit and ultimately land in the Supreme Court. The SC select cases like this to explore new ground in issues like IP.

[007timer]

Rolex will not win this. By definition, they are not producing replica watches that are fake and indistinguishable from the original am to profit off of Rolex brand.

This company along with hundreds more are customizing the watch to appeal to specific customers (not most on their forum and the purists)

Modifying the watch will void warranty, all buyers are to expect that when purchasing. They are customizing and modifying real, authentic Rolex watches. Every single person buying from them knows it’s a “special” watch that is different from why you buy off the shelf.

I can understand if Rolex is having to service these watches, but they obviously are rejecting the service request and that’s within their right


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tha Baron]

Originally Posted by Tools

Depends on how the company is advertising their products.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...00/538474/105/

Interesting... the judge shut that guy down and ordered him to pay $8.5MM!

[RJRJRJ]

Originally Posted by 007timer

They are customizing and modifying real, authentic Rolex watches.

Rolex would argue that they are claiming that they are not original, contain aftermarket parts, and therefore not authentic.

Originally Posted by 007timer

Every single person buying from them knows it’s a “special” watch that is different from why you buy off the shelf.

Rolex will argue that not only is this not the case, but that these watches are inferior and are tarnishing and stealing from the Rolex brand they've built.

[Singslinger]

Originally Posted by Tha Baron

Interesting... the judge shut that guy down and ordered him to pay $8.5MM!

Yes, and wasn't he doing something similar to the present case in question?