Is this what I think it is?

Fair enough, I’d forgotten this bizarre affair in California! Every other product on the market can be altered freely by its owner without losing its status as an authentic good, but here we are in Rolex world.

Setting aside the sordid matter of Rolex simply flexing its mass to achieve a settlement (something they could certainly repeat if desired), I believe the differentiating factors that led to a settlement zone in this suit included that - aside from painting the dials - they were also fitting non-Rolex parts (e.g., bezels), doing so incorrectly at times, and these mods were being made to brand new watches still otherwise under warranty but then voided, and - most importantly - not being at all clear in their advertising about any of these distinctions. Altogether, it did cause a rather bad look for the company, which bad look appears to have then met a rather bad/confused court, resulting in a settlement.

Your having reminded me of that suit made me curious to look at wannabuyawatch’s approach - especially since it, too, is in California. Noting they appear to treat only vintage watches well out of warranty period, they also included what to me is some rather artfully crafted copy about exactly how these are not original Rolex






In any event, I stand doubly corrected and reminded! Rolex might sue despite the legal status of these goods, and might even be strategically successful (especially if the sellers are sloppy).

It could simply be something put on her by a stylist for the photo.

You're forgetting Tesla Motors

O

I’m too dense to follow

https://electrek.co/2020/02/12/tesla-disables-supercharging-salvaged-vehicles/

Ah, thanks.

No wonder I didn’t follow

Tesla is not saying that a salvaged vehicle is now a counterfeit, actionable under infringement law.