- Posts
- 16,307
- Likes
- 44,981
Replica Policy
- Posts
- 302
- Likes
- 1,185
TimtimeIntl
·I bought two rep Constellations from a friend years ago. We both knew what they were so I stripped them for their nice movements, gave one case to another friend as a show and tell (he showed me pics of a fake Submariner that came into his shop next to a real one and I picked the wrong one as being fake! The reverser wheels were the only tell via a photograph) and kept the rest in a drawer. The glued on markers have fallen off the rather nice looking dials over time. Oh, the fake 18K cases felt really light with no movements or dials.
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,015
cvalue13
·What is a "copy" in this context? Is it something in the style, or a fake with a name of a company on it that didn't make it? To me there is grey area in all this, so without details it's a question that doesn't move the conversation forward.
Same deal as watches. Illegal to violate the tradedress (i.e., can’t use the name “B&B Italia” on it), but can otherwise make and sell a knock-off (and even capitalize heavily on using the designer’s name, etc.)
Here is the legitimate manufacture B&B, and original owner of the design by Mario Bellini:
Here’s a look at how knock-offs push the limits in their marketing, etc.
Alibaba’s offering at about 1/10th the price:
If laws allowed B&B to prosecute, they would.
Just, I suspect, as Rolex would with Steinhart.
- Posts
- 29,141
- Likes
- 75,303
Archer
··Omega Qualified WatchmakerThe furniture itself to me seems generic enough that it doesn’t seem to be a sort of specific design, if you get what I mean. Unlike a watch, there’s no prominent brand name on it that I see. I’m not a furniture guy, so maybe to someone who is it would be more recognizable just by the look?
I’m not sure if this is a newer design, but we had a similar looking sectional back in the late 80’s, with what I see on Google is known as “tuffed” with buttons (this a common design on furniture upholstery) although it was a print fabric that was terrible, and it was uncomfortable too. I would hope that the real thing is comfortable at least! 😀
The use of the primary brand name in the advertising is certainly questionable. I wonder if this is the retailer doing that, rather then whoever the manufacturer is. I’m surprised that B&B couldn’t do something about the use of their name. I suspect if Steinhart advertised their watches as “our Rolex” that Rolex would be all over them in a flash.
I guess the real question is, where does this fall on the spectrum for people. For me the product appears to be generic enough that I can’t say if there’s a real infringement of the design or not. But I’ll assume it is, so yes this would be “immoral” but not illegal.
I’m not sure if this is a newer design, but we had a similar looking sectional back in the late 80’s, with what I see on Google is known as “tuffed” with buttons (this a common design on furniture upholstery) although it was a print fabric that was terrible, and it was uncomfortable too. I would hope that the real thing is comfortable at least! 😀
The use of the primary brand name in the advertising is certainly questionable. I wonder if this is the retailer doing that, rather then whoever the manufacturer is. I’m surprised that B&B couldn’t do something about the use of their name. I suspect if Steinhart advertised their watches as “our Rolex” that Rolex would be all over them in a flash.
I guess the real question is, where does this fall on the spectrum for people. For me the product appears to be generic enough that I can’t say if there’s a real infringement of the design or not. But I’ll assume it is, so yes this would be “immoral” but not illegal.
- Posts
- 1,579
- Likes
- 15,222
ChiefMark
·I cannot believe (if I’m wrong I’m deeply offended) that it’s legal to use the name of the product you’re copying in your advertising. That seems as clearcut a case of trademark infringement as you could ask for. Bellini should be angry, and should pursue redress in the courts.
Like @Archer said, Steinhart doesn’t advertise “Rolex Submariner without the wait, less than 10% of the cost.” The two situations couldn’t be more different.
And if people are paying Bellini that much for a dated, generic tufted sectional, I tip my hat to their marketing people. Genius.
Like @Archer said, Steinhart doesn’t advertise “Rolex Submariner without the wait, less than 10% of the cost.” The two situations couldn’t be more different.
And if people are paying Bellini that much for a dated, generic tufted sectional, I tip my hat to their marketing people. Genius.
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,015
cvalue13
·I cannot believe (if I’m wrong I’m deeply offended) that it’s legal to use the name of the product you’re copying in your advertising. That seems as clearcut a case of trademark infringement as you could ask for. Bellini should be angry, and should pursue redress in the courts.
Like @Archer said, Steinhart doesn’t advertise “Rolex Submariner without the wait, less than 10% of the cost.” The two situations couldn’t be more different.
And if people are paying Bellini that much for a dated, generic tufted sectional, I tip my hat to their marketing people. Genius.
Mario Bellini was the designer, camaleonda the model/line, and B&B (at that time, B&C) was the manufacturer, It’s the analogous distinction to Gerald Genta, the Royal Oak, for AP.
That this couch appears generic to y’all, is analogous to non-watch people caring and knowing nothing about the difference between a big crown Sub and a modern Steinhart knock off.
The original couch is in the MOMA permanent collection in virtue of it’s design, as well as being in most other permanent design museums across the globe.
Oh you’ve seen similar? That’s because Bellini did it first.
Which is sort of the point of the topic: you remove the incentive for creation in the first place, soon there is less and less worth copying at all, and the whole world sort of flattens into a suburb.
Edited:
- Posts
- 1,579
- Likes
- 15,222
- Posts
- 3,998
- Likes
- 9,015
cvalue13
·Worth pointing out why: people here say “I can’t spend $90K on a vintage sub that isn’t made anymore, so what’s the harm in paying $1,500 for knock-off?”
Ask the guy/gal with a boutique brand out there creating something new, that could be the future, except people are too busy with spending their money on knock-offs of the past.
This is a cartoonishly simple statement of the issue, so anyone can poke holes in it due only to its brevity, but points to a deeper point that with further explication points to the heart of why knock offs are - to me - a sad, suburb, in the world of watches.
- Posts
- 7,095
- Likes
- 23,028
M'Bob
·I was trying to put myself in the shoes of an owner of a popular design copyright.
On the one hand, with watches, like a Rolex Sub: if the fakes were obvious, and I could possibly determine how much they were cutting into my bottom line, what the price-point was, and who was the likely buyer, I might let it slide.
I knew a guy who worked in a bike shop for a meager wage, but just loved watches. One day, he showed me a blatantly obvious fake, two-tone Datejust, which he knew wasn’t genuine. He couldn’t have paid that much for it, both by the quality, and what he could afford, but he just LOVED that watch - it gave him so much joy.
It made me think: if I created a design like that, and this was the typical buyer, and it made people so happy, I would be flattered they loved my work, and look away.
Now, I obviously realize this is a very discreet example, but there is a much lower level of moral repugnancy here than a well-heeled buyer of a fake Gucci bag, who could easily afford the real thing, but is too cheap to do so, and passes the fake off to her friends at lunch as the real thing.
On the one hand, with watches, like a Rolex Sub: if the fakes were obvious, and I could possibly determine how much they were cutting into my bottom line, what the price-point was, and who was the likely buyer, I might let it slide.
I knew a guy who worked in a bike shop for a meager wage, but just loved watches. One day, he showed me a blatantly obvious fake, two-tone Datejust, which he knew wasn’t genuine. He couldn’t have paid that much for it, both by the quality, and what he could afford, but he just LOVED that watch - it gave him so much joy.
It made me think: if I created a design like that, and this was the typical buyer, and it made people so happy, I would be flattered they loved my work, and look away.
Now, I obviously realize this is a very discreet example, but there is a much lower level of moral repugnancy here than a well-heeled buyer of a fake Gucci bag, who could easily afford the real thing, but is too cheap to do so, and passes the fake off to her friends at lunch as the real thing.
Edited:
Similar threads
- Posts
- 5
- Views
- 520
- Posts
- 7
- Views
- 875
- Posts
- 13
- Views
- 1K
- Posts
- 7
- Views
- 3K
