Swiss Supreme Court Ruling on Rolex vs. Customized Watches
Swiss Supreme Court Takes on Customized Rolex Watches Case
The Swiss Supreme Court decided on the legality of the unauthorized offering for sale and selling of customized watches.
This ruling is quite intriguing and merits consideration as a #SundayReading The noteworthy aspects of this narrative include:
Swiss Supreme Court Rules on the Legality of Customizing Luxury Watches • The Swiss Supreme Court addressed the legality of selling customized luxury watches without brand authorization, specifically focusing on Rolex. • Rolex argued that the defendant infringed its trademarks by modifying and reselling Rolex watches. • The court distinguished between personalizing watches for owners and the commercial marketing of modified watches. • Customizing watches for personal use was deemed lawful, while commercial marketing of modified watches without brand authorization violated trademark law. • The court found that the defendant's marketing practices, including using Rolex trademarks alongside its own, could mislead consumers.
I was born in the beautiful island of Dominican Republic, and now I live in the beautiful land of the brave “USA”, In the Garden State “NJ” to be more accurate. I love collecting limited editions, rar...
That stands to reason. If I as an owner wish to modify my watch, there should be nothing to stop me. I shouldn't be able to modify someone else's work and then sell it as my own though.
Certainly, I concur. This ruling is beneficial as it provides clarity for future Artisans who intend to offer their work. The article effectively distinguishes between "modifications made by" and "collaboration."
Imo: It just made this hobby even better.
So did this have to do with Artisans de Geneve?
So did this have to do with Artisans de Geneve?
The article quotes:
"Rolex filed suit against the defendant, an unnamed Geneva-based company in the business of “personaliz[ing] mass-produced luxury watches, mainly by Rolex, by changing certain parts, giving them a new appearance and/or modifying various technical characteristics in order to make them more exclusive in accordance with the wishes expressed by its customers.”
But at some point, the article implied that it well could be Artisans of Genève, because their disclaimer matched the one described in the court ruling.
I can't believe this hasn't been established before now?
I can't believe this hasn't been established before now?
I guess some companies didn't want to create the precedent; it was easier to send letters of cease and desist.
How many “modified” CasioOaks are out there? (I have one from IFL)
If I buy a Ferrari and decide to paint it plaid and put roof wings on it thats my property and investment loss isn’t it yes and if I advertised is as a stock Ferrari then yes that’s fraudulent, anyone buying a modified Rolex is pretty savvy and I doubt would get fooled that it’s a catalog product, same as potential Ferrari buyers !