I don't think Rolex minds individual flippers all that much, to be honest. Here is Paragraph 29 of the complaint:

You don't need to be Noam Chomsky to get the subtext.

But they do mind not making a buck off modifications:

 

Exactly. I don't fault Rolex cs. for p̶a̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶s̶u̶l̶t̶a̶n̶t̶s̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶M̶c̶K̶i̶n̶s̶e̶y̶ ̶m̶i̶l̶l̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶d̶e̶v̶e̶l̶o̶p̶ ̶a̶ ̶s̶t̶r̶a̶t̶e̶g̶y̶ ̶developing a strategy to squeeze as much dough as possible out of the market. Come to think of it, it even surprises me they haven't thought about monetizing the second-hand market earlier. What I don't accept is folks buying into the marketing smoke screen that Rolex throws at them—and defend it vigorously without realizing they're being played. The implications of Rolex' reasoning becoming precedent are significant: a final sale would become more of a temporary and conditional license. Insanity.

 

That's for the tip.

I need to finish up work for the day, I am taking tomorrow off. I'll set up and account on post a link to the complaint tonight.

 

You don't even need an account there I think.
Would be interesting to read.

 

I second that—thanks for helping us not pay Pacer disproportionate amounts of money to basically access public information. After having read this post on the Fashion Law Blog, I think we might need to transfer this discussion to a different thread, though. Rolex v. Reference Watch is purely about trademark infringement, and it seems not at all about resale restrictions.

 

Some of the comparisons to Mercedes break down (no pun intended), in my opinion, because Mercedes will buy your car back from you and resell it to someone else as "certified pre-owned." Tourneau (and other retailers, I'm sure) will do this with watches, but that's not the same thing as Rolex doing it themselves.

 

But the claim that a modded watch is a counterfeit, if upheld, could have repercussions down the road, and not just for watches.

To be honest, I doubt it will get that far. Don't see these defendants as having the war chest to survive what looks like to be a very aggressive Rolex. My guess it that they will settle and cease, or settle and enter into a licensing agreement.

 

I’d have to read the complaint in full, but my impression so far is that Rolex states that to them every modded watch is a counterfeit—and that they therefore refuse to service it. Then, they argue that because of quality issues that come with modding, it tarnishes their trademark. I’m not sure if the argument whether or not a modded watch is a counterfeit is contested legally.

And yes, odds favor a settlement. If Rolex is smart they’ll acquire La Californienne, but they’re probably too conservative for that.

 

I don't quite understand their thinking here. Why not just agree to service under the auspices that whatever modifications were made would have to be returned to original spec...despite how expensive that would be.

 

Not watch related, but have someone mention that Apple had the same approach on aftermarket parts and service (apple was claiming that all aftermarket parts are counterfeit, but Norwegian court ruled out: if parts don't stamped by Apple logo, they are not counterfeit but aftermarket. And no Norwegian laws could prevent users from putting aftermarket parts on electronics)....I know they lost to the guy who owns a repair shop in Norway.
Members from Norway could correct me,if I missed something.

 

I think that it is just terrible how these big companies (Patek, Rolex) are treating their customers. If you are paying these insane amounts of money to get a watch, you are free to do what ever you want with the watch. People are actually writing articles to say that they are sorry for selling their watches!?!?! The way how Patek&Rolex are trying to control their customers is just out of this world in a bad way. I know that Rolex is actually monitoring from Switzerland what people are doing to their watches in Finland! Crazy. I love both brands but their way of treating their customers like criminals is actually affecting the brand experience. Thumbs down!

 

Well, the buck has to stop somewhere. As a buyer, you have a certain responsibility to treat a product well after purchase—you can’t apply for company warranty after having behaved reckless with the product. Now what constitutes reckless is a matter for debate, but tampering with a watch and changing out parts seems a pretty textbook case to me of a producer justifiably not accepting for repair under warranty. Outside of warranty: you break it you buy it.

 

think there may be some confusion. not sure the post you replied to was indicating a service under warranty just a paid service. once you have modified the watch the warranty is null and void anyway

 

You're right—my bad. At the very least Rolex is being a little picky on which of their watches they service or restore. I remember them having no problems restoring a completely burned down 5513 that supposedly was owned by Steve McQueen...

 

In the article a watch was refused paid service due to it being "counterfeit" in Rolex's view:

"Focusing specifically on the fact that at least one laCalifornienne client sent his/her watch to an authorized Rolex dealer for service in October (Rolex refused the watch because company policy prohibits it from “servicing [altered] watches because it cannot guarantee [their] quality or performance”)"

In comparison, if Omega gets an altered watch in, they will offer to restore it back to it's original state if the owner is willing to pay. If the owner refuses to pay, only then will Omega refuse the service.

 

EXACTLY. Isn't that the grown-up thing to do? If I choose to mod the living daylight out of my Rolex, and then pay Rolex to completely restore it to original—why would they take issue with that? It's just so profoundly snobbish (and childish...)

 

Yes...I heard about the tiny cameras they have installed in their watches to do this, but now I'm going to move since they will be after me...

 

three years later is not a flip. Flipping implies it was sold shortly after purchase

 

So if I’m famous, buy a Rolex and engrave my name on it and sell it for profit, am I in violation of the Rolex Empire

 

You can’t punish flippers bc it’s impossible to draw the line between reselling something in a day, a week, a month, a year, or years+ if the end result yields more money than originally paid.
Can one not resell their own property? Do many people not consider watches as investments?
It is 100% the brands fault for falling so far on demand.
I love the 5167. But if a dealer sourced one for me tomorrow and I could make a quick 10k it would be irresponsible of me NOT to flip it. I’m not a multi millionaire.