2005SUBMARINER Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 ROLEX CO VS WATCHMAKER .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bansenshukai Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 ROLEX CO VS WATCHMAKER .. So if I take my Corvette to be modified at a customizing shop by some pros, they can get sued by Chevrolet? It's pretty stupid, really. Now, if this guy is selling things forward as bonifide Rolex watches while having something different "under the hood", then he should pay for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 Now, if this guy is selling things forward as bonifide Rolex watches while having something different "under the hood", then he should pay for that. Agree. The district court said the watches were "...likely to cause confusion to subsequent or downstream purchasers as well as to the persons observing the product." Please. This is just another example of judicial activism. The only issue at hand in this case from a legal stand point is did he or did he not mispresent the product to *his* customers. How his customers represent the product to their customers he simply can NOT be held liable for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archibald Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Agree. The district court said the watches were "...likely to cause confusion to subsequent or downstream purchasers as well as to the persons observing the product." Please. This is just another example of judicial activism. The only issue at hand in this case from a legal stand point is did he or did he not mispresent the product to *his* customers. How his customers represent the product to their customers he simply can NOT be held liable for. Rolex's legal strategy is pretty easy to understand: Because they know that exact copies of the parts they mark up 6000% can be produced for a few bucks, they are going to assert that any sale of any watch with any aftermarket part infringes on their trademark. If they can get a judge to rule that their trademark is infringed upon if any possibility exists that a seller's customer';s customer's customer's customer might misrepresent an aftermarket part as genuine and thus "sow confusion", so much the better for them. In their perfect world, no used rolex could be legally sold unless they allow it to be sold, which is to say that if any watch has any parts that it didn't have when it left the factory, the seller must be able to prove that she paid rolex for them, not anyone else. Put on an aftermarket part, and even if you disclose it to your buyer, rolex is going to argue that they can block the sale because some guy might get mislead 23 years from now. I think that sooner or later Rolex is going to run into someone who has pockets deep enough or a temper bad enough to fight back competently. Maybe they'll even run into an appeals court that sees the big picture--that if they set the precedent that a manufacturer can use trademark law to control what gets added to their products years after the initial sale, whole industries are going to become endangered. But until then Rolex knows that until they make better watches, R-O-L-E-X is all they have and they're going to fight tooth and nail to keep it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Wow... Rolex sure does know how to alienate their clientele. On a slightly different note... Some of you may know that Rolex Service Centers/Rolex USA are refusing to service vintage watches from the 70's and earlier; the only solution for collectors of rare (and very expensive examples I might add, e.g. 1665 DRSDs, 1655 OH's, 6263's, 6265's, PNs, etc ad nausea) is to direct those individuals to independent watchmakers for service. Since RSC's do not sell genuine parts to 3rd party watchmakers any longer, the parts used for service are either going to be what's left NOS in the watchmaker's bins, or aftermarket parts. So, where does that leave the collector? Basically up [censored] creek with (technically) a frankenwatch that violates copyright infringement, as the parts are not 100% Rolex? Man... Those MBW's are looking better and better by the minute Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJGladeRaider Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Wow... Rolex sure does know how to alienate their clientele. On a slightly different note... Some of you may know that Rolex Service Centers/Rolex USA are refusing to service vintage watches from the 70's and earlier; the only solution for collectors of rare (and very expensive examples I might add, e.g. 1665 DRSDs, 1655 OH's, 6263's, 6265's, PNs, etc ad nausea) is to direct those individuals to independent watchmakers for service. Since RSC's do not sell genuine parts to 3rd party watchmakers any longer, the parts used for service are either going to be what's left NOS in the watchmaker's bins, or aftermarket parts. So, where does that leave the collector? Basically up [censored] creek with (technically) a frankenwatch that violates copyright infringement, as the parts are not 100% Rolex? Man... Those MBW's are looking better and better by the minute Lord how I despise those mutts, and it amazes me that they get by with this nonsense. Since when is it illegal to take a product and modify it with non-gen parts . . . you just try and make your insurance company fix your car WITH gen parts sometime! Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Rolex's legal strategy is pretty easy to understand Yes it is very easy to understand. And they have every right to protect their intellectual property and trademarks. But at least a portion of this judgement by the court was purely based in non-tort non-trademark related activism and that's where I am disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchfinder Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 Yes it is very easy to understand. And they have every right to protect their intellectual property and trademarks. But at least a portion of this judgement by the court was purely based in non-tort non-trademark related activism and that's where I am disappointed. Yup Rolex's are so dang over priced - If the quality matched the price tag they wouldn't have a problem with perfect replica's. You have a problem if the 350.00 replica keeps better time than the 18,000 gen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archibald Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Yes it is very easy to understand. And they have every right to protect their intellectual property and trademarks. But at least a portion of this judgement by the court was purely based in non-tort non-trademark related activism and that's where I am disappointed. I agree 100% What I want to know is where the madness stops. The trial judge's decision was definitely within established precedent. IMO, the appeals' court decision was not. I understand that any courts' first instict is to protect intellectual property, but are they really going to change american trademak law to protect a foreign luxury product company's obscene markups? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solicitor Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Ostensibly, the ninth circuit's opinion is limited to the facts of this particular case. And the earlier "Bulova" decision appears to be adequate precedent to justify their decision. But there are serious questions as to whether it is supported by the evidence and findings of fact made by the trial (district) court herein. Findings of fact are normally the primary function of a trial court and are generally given great deference by a reviewing court unless they are not supported by "sufficient" evidence. It's important to note that Michel was in the business of selling watches, not simply repairing them. The issue here was whether the nature of the modifications were so extensive that the watch could no longer be reasonably considered a "Rolex". Interestingly, the district court either explicitly or impliedly found that the changes were NOT so extensive inasmuch as they allowed the continued sale of the watches marked as "Rolex" as long as the replacement parts were labeled as non-Rolex. Notwithstanding the district court's finding, the ninth circuit reversed the lower court and found that the evidence supported the opposite conclusion that the watches could no longer be reasonably considered a "Rolex". I don't have a problem with the holding in theory as much I do with their reading of the facts in this case. To that extent, I agree that an allegation of "judicial activism" might be warranted. Nevertheless, if Michel has adequate funds they can petition the U.S. Supreme Court for further review. It is important to note that the high court is notorious for holding the ninth circuit, rightly or wrongly, in low esteem and rarely misses an opportunity to reverse their opinions. We shall see. i" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 I don't have a problem with the holding in theory as much I do with their reading of the facts in this case. To that extent, I agree that an allegation of "judicial activism" might be warranted. MIGHT be warranted? This is the 9th Circus we're talking about here!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solicitor Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 Please note the objectivity of my earlier post. In general, I try to refrain from name-calling or attaching labels to someone, or to some court for that matter, just because I might disagree with their opinion(s). For the record, I'm not necessarily a fan of our beloved Supreme Court. Quite frankly, I have no reason to believe the current high court is any less "agenda driven". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HauteHippie Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 (edited) Please note the objectivity of my earlier post. In general, I try to refrain from name-calling or attaching labels to someone, or to some court for that matter, just because I might disagree with their opinion(s). For the record, I'm not necessarily a fan of our beloved Supreme Court. Quite frankly, I have no reason to believe the current high court is any less "agenda driven". My comment was tongue-in-cheek as they so often are. Edited September 6, 2006 by chieftang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solicitor Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 (edited) Oops. Sorry! ;-) BTW, I noticed the case was decided back in '99. No chance for review of that case by the Supremes at this point..... Edited September 6, 2006 by indenial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.