Are replica watches legal ?
Leigh & Pranav
It amazes me to see the variety and quality of replica watches available
today. I pride myself in being able to tell a genuine watch from a fake,
and sometimes I find myself struggling. I guess it allows everyone to wear
a Rolex, but it can be disastrous for the gullible person who is willing to
pay for a genuine one.
Pranav
Bill Mattocks
news:01bfebf1$9c732220$03c9ff3f@pranav...
Replica watches that have the actual brand names on them are illegal in the
USA, make no mistake. Yes, sometimes it can be difficult for a layperson to
tell the difference between a real and a fake Rolex, but any competent
watchmaker should be able to tell the difference instantly by taking off the
back and observing the movement.
No, it does not allow the average person to "wear a Rolex." It allows them
to wear a complete fake and fraud. If that makes them proud, so be it.
I often see fake watches being passed off as the real thing to gullible
persons. I don't know which is worse - the crooks or the people who are
unwilling to do their due diligence before shelling out thousands for a
phony watch. Amazingly, I have read ads that pretty much all but state that
the watch is fake, and still the morons bid thousands for them on e-Bay.
I have no sympathy for crooks or those who knowingly do business with them.
End of rant.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Daddy Uduh
from the original or current owner of the copyright/trademark are indeed
legal.....FAKES of anything are NOT LEGAL...this includes unlicensed
items.....business and politics being what they are, however, not all players
follow or honor the same rules....thus it ever remains....CAVIAT EMPTOR!
omegaman
KE6NWJ
73s
Alex W.
Daddy Uduh <dadd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000713001551...@nso-cb.aol.com...
AFAIK replicas of anything do not even have to be licensed as long as
they are clearly marked as such. In the art world, there is a growing
market for replica paintings, frex by living artists, that is).
Alex -- cave canem.
BELJAN E
<pra...@roanoke.infi.net> writes:
>
>Hello All,
>
>It amazes me to see the variety and quality of replica watches
>available
>today. I pride myself in being able to tell a genuine watch from a
>fake,
>and sometimes I find myself struggling. I guess it allows everyone to
>wear
>a Rolex, but it can be disastrous for the gullible person who is
>willing to
>pay for a genuine one.
>
the real thing, though I have some across some darn impressive copies.
Spotting a fake Rolex generally is not too hard. Most are quartz, the
band is often of low quality (the edges are unpolished, the clasp lacks
the Rolex insignia), and they usually do not have serial #s or other
markings. That does not account for all however, when I was in NYC I
saw a darn impressive copy of a Submariner complete with serial #s, a
band polished on the edges complete with the Rolex insignia on the
inside of its clasp, automatic winding movement and as far as I
remember all the markings of a real one. Only major difference was its
$35 price. While most of them wouldnt easily fool most people, if I
would have purchased this watch it would have had people guessing. The
quality of some of the ones I saw was surprising. Most of the Movados
and Seikos were easy enough to tell apart from a real one, the fake
Breitlings and Omegas though were also suspiciously close to the real
thing, which makes me wonder, mostly everyone knows they are fakes, but
some are obvious attempts to decieve, and are so close it would have me
worrying if I was buying the watch from anything but the most reputable
dealer. The attempts to pass this stuff off as quality merchandise is
what is worrisome, it says Omega Seamaster, they have clear backs which
show a "25 Jewel Swiss Made" movement (the jewels, if they are that,
perhaps they are glass?) look real enough, someone without the knowlege
could easily be fooled. Because of this type of stuff I would recommend
dealing only with reputable dealers people shouldnt be risking their
hard earned money with this type of junk out there. As for legality how
could they be legal? They use trademarked names sometimes in what seems
to be an attempt to fool the buyer.
The Bill Mattocks
news:8l8m00$8jp$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
[snip]
>As for legality how
> could they be legal? They use trademarked names sometimes in what seems
> to be an attempt to fool the buyer.
Before I begin my rant, one caveat - yes, I know the difference between
"replicas" that merely look like or resemble famous brands but have
different, non-infringing brand names on them, and "fake" or "counterfeit"
watches that have illegal stolen trademarks on them. I am referring to the
"fakes" here...
I agree with your statement, however I have seen several people on
alt.horology attempt to defend the practice with such conscience sops as:
* I can't afford the real thing, and it is unfair that I should not be able
to.
* I know it is a fake, I just wanted it to see what it was like. I'm not
trying to fool anyone.
* They charge too much for the real thing, so it is fair to hurt them by
buying fakes.
* It is a victimless crime, the trademark holders are not really injured by
fake watches.
* Everyone with a brain in their head can tell they are not real, therefore
they do not infringe on trademark law.
* No one prosecutes the buyers anyway, so what if it is technically against
the law.
* I bought mine while visiting a country where trademark law is a little
fuzzy, so it was legal there.
* Everyone copies anyway, look at all the companies that make Rolex-like
submariner-type watches legally by putting their own brand names on them.
* Shut up, it is none of your business, who appointed you God anyway, oh and
I suppose you never broke the law.
It seems to me that everyone who buys these trademark-infringing fakes (not
the replicas that do not actually have the trademark on them) is trying to
soothe their conscience somehow. They really don't want to face up to the
fact that they broke the law and assisted others in doing so as well, and
they get very angry at me for calling a spade a spade. Some of them have
sent me some really funny e-mails after I post diatribes like this, accusing
me of being a Boy Scout do-gooder, telling me it's none of my business, or
accusing me of being an anti-free-speech, anti-democracy, anti-free-trade
communist. Right. I always get a chuckle out of those. Seems one thing is
universal among them - none of them can spell, and they are all fond of
ending cursing statements with thirty exclamation points or using all caps.
I'd be willing to bet that they all live in the same trailer court and
didn't finish the 5th grade.
Some studies have shown that the groups who manufacture the
trademark-infringing fake watches have links into other types of
international organized crime as well, such as child prostitution, drug
running, counterfeiting of other items such as currency, etc.
Finally, as you mentioned, I have seen attempt after attempt by some sellers
on places like e-Bay to pass these fakes off as the real thing to
collectors. Sometimes the sellers disguise their attempts with weasel-words
like "faux" instead of "fake," or they claim not to know themselves if a
certain watch is legit or not, but it is all bullshit in my opinion. They
know quite well what they are doing, fleecing the unknowing or the overly
trusting. My watch dealer tells me that people bring in fake Rolexes all
the time for repair, having paid hundreds or even thousands of dollars for
them and they were certain that they were "real" when they bought them.
Obviously, if they had known they were fake, they'd have thrown them away
when they broke, and would not have embarrassed themselves by bringing them
to an authorized Rolex dealer.
To me it is quite clear that the fakes are intended to fool people. If not
the original buyer, then the people that buyer comes in contact with, or the
person that original buyer ends up selling them to.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Garnet Brace
I'm pretty sure that it is illegal to sell watches
that have trademarked logos on them like "Timex"and
"Omega"
No question, the people who sell them, whether as manufacturers,
distributors or retailers are simple thieves and have earned prosecution.
What I'm not sure of, is it similarly illegal to purchase
such fakes?
If I purchase something that has been stolen, I will then be in
posession of stolen goods and that, I'm pretty sure is
illegal.
If I purchase a fake watch with a trademarked logo it would seem
to me that I would be equally culpable and should be subject to
arrest and prosecution. I would be in posession of something with a stolen
trademark.
So the question is, is it illegal to posess a fake watch
with a purloined, trademarked logo?
(Seems to me it should be)
--
.... Garnet
return address is fake to try to reduce junk mail
if you wish to send e-mail to me please send to cgbi*ionsys.com
only replace the * with @
Mark Ford
own a fake watch, it is not illegal to sell a fake watch unless you do not
make it very clear that it is fake, in which case it is deception/fraud.
The only people who can prosecute are the owners of the watch's trademark or
copyright or patent, (this would be a civil procesuction.).
And they have to prove that you made the watch or was profiting from the
sale of the watch.
You cannot 'steal' a trademark, only reproduce it without permission, (which
is a civil law requireing a private procescution).
It is not in the watch company's interest to procescute every single seller
of fake watches it would cost more than the company makes, but they could
increase relations with china, and other manufacturers of these items and
get thier government to stop them.
Mark
Garnet Brace <ha...@cent.com> wrote in message
news:Pn0n5.4093$If.1...@news2.tor.primus.ca...
Dave Hammond
{Rolex,Breitling,Omega,Patek,Cartier,Movado} is simply the
purchaser's attempt to reduce whatever self-conciousness or
embarrasement they surely feel when they are around people who
are wearing the real thing, or worse still, when they're
confronted about the quality of their watch.
Frankly, when I was 17 and first fell in love with Rolex,
I bought one of those $35 fakes from a Manhattan street
hustler. I wore it for about a week and got more self-
concious with each passing day. I finally threw it out and
bought a Seiko, which might not have been an expensive watch,
but at least it was "real".
This year (25 years later!) I finally purchased an Oyster Datejust
and have to say the wait was worth it. The feeling of having
a Rolex on my wrist is undescribeable.
IMO, a willingness to wear a fake watch and expect to pass it
off as the real thing says an awful lot about the person's
integrity - and that extends to matters far more significant
than the watch they wear.
As for whether people wearing fake Rolexes diminishes my
experience - I don't feel that way at all. I take pity on
them because they think there is some social distinction which
can be achieved by wearing a Rolex - or pretending to do so.
Further, from the other side of the coin, I think people who
would ask "Is that a real Rolex?" have little regard for the
person they're asking. Whether you know me, or not, why would
you ask a question which at least questions my taste, and at
most questions my integrity?
Oops ...
I just bumped my head on the ceiling ...
Better get off my soapbox!
In article <XHCe5.1588$ga2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"The Bill Mattocks" <bmat...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>[...]
--
Dave Hammond
da...@cyberpipe.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
The Bill Mattocks
>
> I'm pretty sure that it is illegal to sell watches
> that have trademarked logos on them like "Timex"and
> "Omega"
Yes. And I wish people would quit calling them "replica" watches. If they
are labeled as another brand and infringe on a copyright or trademark, they
are "counterfeit." Replica implies legality, like it is somehow not as bad
as outright deception, fraud, and theft.
> No question, the people who sell them, whether as manufacturers,
> distributors or retailers are simple thieves and have earned prosecution.
Yes and no. The people who are behind the counterfeit watch business are
bad people. An example:
QUOTE:
http://www.nylj.com/stories/99/05/050399a2.htm
Alan Vinegrad, 39, was an associate at Meister Leventhal & Slade for five
years before he became an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District in
1990. In 1992, Mr. Vinegrad won the racketeering convictions of David Thai
and several members of his Chinatown-based Vietnamese gang "Born To Kill,"
which ran a $13 million-a-year counterfeit watch business that financed a
host of other criminal enterprises.
ENDQUOTE:
Buy a watch, finance a more serious crime. Simple. People who buy these
fake watches are crooks.
Want more?
QUOTE:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/97/0811/6003100A.HTM
The International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition in Washington, D.C. claims
that counterfeiting has trebled in a decade and now costs U.S. companies
$200 billion a year. This is an exaggeration, because many buyers would not
have purchased the goods if they had had to pay full price. Nevertheless,
counterfeit goods cheapen the image of legitimate brands of software,
perfumes, golf clubs, toys, jewelry, food, beverages, cosmetics and apparel.
Sometimes-as with Han's jackets-the counterfeit articles are virtually
identical to the real thing. But frequently they are shoddy, sometimes
dangerous, copies. Last year bogus baby formula was seized in 16 states
after several kids suffered convulsions. There have also been cases
involving fake ulcer medication and birth control pills, not to mention
counterfeit parts for cars, airplanes and nuclear plants.
As in any industry, fat profits attract new competitors. The Russian mob has
become a force in video piracy, and Chinese triads have become heavily
involved in counterfeit software. The former leader of the Vietnamese gang
Born to Kill boasted of making $13 million off counterfeit watches before he
was jailed for murder.
In response, 15 states have passed laws making counterfeiting a felony,
instead of a misdemeanor. In others law enforcement is also beginning to
take notice.
....
The police are also going to court to seize the personal assets of Sonny
Giles, a 59-year-old resident of Atlanta who has made a fortune as a
wholesaler of counterfeit goods. "He's the biggest in Georgia," says Major
Clifford Edwards of the Doraville police. When the police searched Giles'
Doraville warehouse, they found about 4,000 items of counterfeit clothing,
bogus Rolex watches, fake Oakley and Ray-Ban sunglasses and a small stash of
crack cocaine. Giles, whose counterfeiting case is pending, does not deny
that he stocked bogus goods, but says the police "just exaggerate."
....
ENDQUOTE:
Read that last bit? Felony. The guy who said it was a civil crime only was
full of shit. I am not a lawyer, my guess is neither is he.
> What I'm not sure of, is it similarly illegal to purchase
> such fakes?
I can't find the cite, but it was my understanding that US Customs will not
seize a single item brought back into the country by a US citizen, but will
require declaration and duty paid. More than one gets confiscated, owner
arrested on smuggling charges.
I doubt that a person would be arrested for buying a counterfeit watch on
the street. My opinion is that they should be.
> If I purchase something that has been stolen, I will then be in
> posession of stolen goods and that, I'm pretty sure is
> illegal.
Depends on whether or not you know it is stolen. In any case, it gets taken
away.
> If I purchase a fake watch with a trademarked logo it would seem
> to me that I would be equally culpable and should be subject to
> arrest and prosecution. I would be in posession of something with a stolen
> trademark.
Not sure, maybe a lawyer out there can answer.
> So the question is, is it illegal to posess a fake watch
> with a purloined, trademarked logo?
> (Seems to me it should be)
Me too.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
The Bill Mattocks
news:8niq4k$9aq$1...@grind.server.pavilion.net...
> In the UK at least, (I think its similar in the US) it is not illegal to
> own a fake watch, it is not illegal to sell a fake watch unless you do not
> make it very clear that it is fake, in which case it is deception/fraud.
As I understand it (and I am not a lawyer), it doesn't matter if the
original seller makes it clear that it is a fake - the current
interpretation says that if it can be reasonably assumed that someone down
the line, like a secondary buyer might be fooled, then it is unlawful.
> The only people who can prosecute are the owners of the watch's trademark
or
> copyright or patent, (this would be a civil procesuction.).
> And they have to prove that you made the watch or was profiting from the
> sale of the watch.
Not in the US. Many states make it a crime, some a felony. Civil asset
forfeiture laws make it possible for the cops to seize the counterfeiter's
personal property as well.
> You cannot 'steal' a trademark, only reproduce it without permission,
(which
> is a civil law requireing a private procescution).
The criminal violation is "counterfeiting," which is not the theft part.
The civil crime is unlawful use of trademarked items.
> It is not in the watch company's interest to procescute every single
seller
> of fake watches it would cost more than the company makes, but they could
> increase relations with china, and other manufacturers of these items and
> get thier government to stop them.
Efforts continue. Some countries just pay lip service, continue to let
counterfeiting flourish. Sad.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Dave Hammond
"Mark Ford" <ma...@NOSPAMsouthern-scientific.co.uk> wrote:
> In the UK at least, [...] it is not illegal to sell a fake watch
unless you do not
> make it very clear that it is fake, in which case it is
deception/fraud.
Check out this eBay ad -
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=411365030
and this one (same seller) -
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=411379881
Both (IMO) are clearly represented as Rolex, but little hints in
the description give the fraud away - "synthetic sapphire" crystal,
"gold wrapped oyster style" case, "non-rolex movement".
No place in the description do I see any notion of this being a
replica, except the phrase "non-rolex movement", and that is
well hidden.
To me, these represent the dangerous middle-ground where a seller
is trying to pass off the fake as other than a $35 copy, and the
buyer is stupid enough to think he has found the deal of the
century - a Datejust for $800, or better yet a President for $1500.
Seamaster
> Any rationalization that someone makes for purchasing a fake
> {Rolex,Breitling,Omega,Patek,Cartier,Movado} is simply the
> purchaser's attempt to reduce whatever self-conciousness or
> embarrasement they surely feel when they are around people who
> are wearing the real thing, or worse still, when they're
> confronted about the quality of their watch.
> Frankly, when I was 17 and first fell in love with Rolex,
> I bought one of those $35 fakes from a Manhattan street
> hustler. I wore it for about a week and got more self-
> concious with each passing day. I finally threw it out and
> bought a Seiko, which might not have been an expensive watch,
> but at least it was "real".
I agree wholeheatedly. To those who would buy a counterfeit Omega or
Rolex, I say just buy the best Seiko or Invicta you can afford. You'll
get a much better quality watch, that's for sure, and a warranty on it.
> This year (25 years later!) I finally purchased an Oyster Datejust
> and have to say the wait was worth it. The feeling of having
> a Rolex on my wrist is undescribeable.
Again, I agree. I'm no Rolex fan myself, but I know exactly what you're
getting at here. Part of the whole fine watch experience is the pride of
ownership. You get none of that from a fake, however convincing. Even if
you fool everyone else, you can't fool yourself, and so it is only you
that ends up cheated.
> IMO, a willingness to wear a fake watch and expect to pass it
> off as the real thing says an awful lot about the person's
> integrity - and that extends to matters far more significant
> than the watch they wear.
I tend to make unspoken value judgements about people I encounter who
wear counterfeit anything. I know I probably shouldn't, but I keep
asking myself, what else are they being misleading about?
> As for whether people wearing fake Rolexes diminishes my
> experience - I don't feel that way at all. I take pity on
> them because they think there is some social distinction which
> can be achieved by wearing a Rolex - or pretending to do so.
I go further. I think coming across a fake of a watch you own is
actually quite satisfying -- imitation is, after all, the sincerest form
of flattery!
--
Glenn Roberts
Mark Ford
like the real thing, some of them are actually quite ingenious, having moon
phase etc!, if these 'manufacturers' put their efforts into producing their
own brand names they would actually do quite well!
Mark
Michael Robbins
--
Michael Robbins
Director, Primary Dealership
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, World Markets
New York
Seamaster
The most "ingenious" replica I ever saw was a phoney Rolex that, instead
of the crown logo, had the McDonalds "golden arches" instead! I'd like
to think it was making a witty observation about "billions and billions
served" and Rolex's one-million-units-per-year "exclusivity", heh heh.
--
Glenn Roberts
BELJAN E
<seam...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>
>I agree wholeheatedly. To those who would buy a counterfeit Omega or
>Rolex, I say just buy the best Seiko or Invicta you can afford. You'll
>get a much better quality watch, that's for sure, and a warranty on
>it.
>
Occasionally you find a good watch at a great price, example I found a
brand new Bulova Accutron (the new quartz versions) for $99, about 1/4
of the average retail, has a sapphire crystal, swiss movement, and it
looks amazing.
>Again, I agree. I'm no Rolex fan myself, but I know exactly what
>you're
>getting at here. Part of the whole fine watch experience is the pride
>of
>ownership. You get none of that from a fake, however convincing. Even
>if
>you fool everyone else, you can't fool yourself, and so it is only you
>that ends up cheated.
>
people buying fakes probably dont know what a quality watch is, and
thus simply dont care whether it is real or not, the cost is the
factor.
>
>I tend to make unspoken value judgements about people I encounter who
>wear counterfeit anything. I know I probably shouldn't, but I keep
>asking myself, what else are they being misleading about?
>
simply do not want to wear it for fear of theft, damage etc. I never
wear my good watches to work, I instead purchased some older junk
automatics to serve that purpose.
William Fisher
I agree 100% with what you said. I hate fakes.
BUT...just so you know, all sapphire crystals are really "synthetic
sapphire".
csr...@my-deja.com
illegal to sell, buy, own fakes. Fines are at least the prize of
original.
So, you came in holidays in France with a fake Cartier (5'000$) you
bought last year at Bankok for 10$, airport customs can take the watch
and put you a 5'000$ fine.
Managers of companies who make business with fakes go jail for many
years.
The cost for employment in EC of fakes is about 100'000 jobs and 30'000
for France.
this article in french (sorry) couldt be interesting
http://www.ens-
mag.com/ressources_pedagogiques/ressources_pedagogiques/Ouverture%20sur%
20l'entreprise/INPI/5_mois/ressources1.htm
In article <8niq4k$9aq$1...@grind.server.pavilion.net>,
"Mark Ford" <ma...@NOSPAMsouthern-scientific.co.uk> wrote:
> In the UK at least, (I think its similar in the US) it is not
illegal to
> own a fake watch, it is not illegal to sell a fake watch unless you
do not
> make it very clear that it is fake, in which case it is
deception/fraud.
> The only people who can prosecute are the owners of the watch's
trademark or
> copyright or patent, (this would be a civil procesuction.).
> And they have to prove that you made the watch or was profiting from
the
> sale of the watch.
>
> You cannot 'steal' a trademark, only reproduce it without permission,
(which
> is a civil law requireing a private procescution).
>
> It is not in the watch company's interest to procescute every single
seller
> of fake watches it would cost more than the company makes, but they
could
> increase relations with china, and other manufacturers of these items
and
> get thier government to stop them.
>
> Mark
>
> Garnet Brace <ha...@cent.com> wrote in message
> news:Pn0n5.4093$If.1...@news2.tor.primus.ca...
Peter Vos
Garnet Brace wrote:
> There are two parts to this question.
>
> I'm pretty sure that it is illegal to sell watches
> that have trademarked logos on them like "Timex"and
> "Omega"
>
First off I am not a lawyer, however --- I do have some working knowledge of
the issues surrounding copyrights, trademarks, and patents in the area of
intellectual property. So here is a layman's understanding of US Trademark.
Trademark laws developed from the practice during westward expansion of the US
in the 19th century when ranchers BRANDED their horses and cattle. Hence the
common parlance of talking about "Branding your product" or "Product Branding"
Related to Trademark but different are Trade Dress and Trade Name.
"McDonald's Corporation" is a Trade Name. "Big Mac" is a Trade Mark. The
words "Golden Arches," as well as the IMAGE we all know are BOTH Trademarks.
The image is an integral part of the McDonald's Trade Dress. Note what
happens if you go to www.MACdonalds.com.
The litmus test for trademark infringement is "confusingly similar."
Infringement can only be claimed against trademarks that are registered with
the US Patent and Trademark Office.
In order to protect your trademark you have to use it consistently and trade
dress has to be consistent, otherwise you dilute your brand by creating
"confusingly similar" treatments.
For example, there is no such thing as a Yellow Dodge Ram logo - there are
SPECIFIC Pantone colors of acceptable Red, Silver, or Black and White which
MUST be used in all marketing. There is no such thing as a Dodge Rammer or
just a Ram. It is ALWAYS a Dodge Ram. Check out Microsoft's site for how
Microsoft Windows must be referred to. Note it is not JUST Windows.
In the world of watches, if someone could show that the LOOK of the Movada
MoMA watch is so distinctive that ANY copy of that is "confusingly similar"
simply making a copy of that LOOK even without Movado's name on it is
infringement. That is cause for a lawsuit. Putting someone ELSE'S trademark
on your product is more serious and opens you to federal criminal
investigations
Although the government is generally not in the business of ferreting out
counterfeiters (with the exception of folks counterfeiting GOVERNMENT products
like money), they definitely will prosecute big operations because of the
damage counterfeiting does to the market.
On the civil side, in the US, there is a federal law called the Lanham Act
which specifically covers the issue of trademark infringement - which
technically is what happens when you put something in the market that is
"confusingly similar" to a trademark or trade dress that is registered with
the US Patent and Trademark Office. In the case of the Lanham Act you have to
demonstrate the infringer intentionally is deceiving folks about the ownership
of the trademark. I believe the law originated because someone was making Bar
B Que grills that LOOKED like the classic Coleman charcoal grills that dotted
Suburban back yards until the recent introduction of gas grills.
If you can demonstrate that the confusion is intentional, in effect allowing
you to trade on SOMEONE ELSE's reputation, there are STATUTORY TREBLE DAMAGES
that can be assessed. Someone selling a fake Rolex could arguably be sued for
MILLIONS even if they only sold one. Why? Because the damage to Rolex's
reputation is impossible to accurately price. But we would all agree that
generating the kind of consumer good will that goes into making Rolex a
household name is probably worth tens of millions. The fragility of that
commodity called "good will" is well known. Look at what happened to the
Hamilton Watch Company when it rushed the Electric Movements to market. The
fact that Timex started infringing on their patent (a separate issue) did not
help them.
The issue of Trade Name is not relevant in the above. That is the legal name
of a company registered with the state of incorporation.
>
> No question, the people who sell them, whether as manufacturers,
> distributors or retailers are simple thieves and have earned prosecution.
>
> What I'm not sure of, is it similarly illegal to purchase
> such fakes?
I believe the issue is treated as if you were purchasing stolen goods. If it
can be shown that a "reasonable person" could have purchased the item
believing it was legit, they are not liable. For example, if I have a receipt
from a watch store, a Rolex box, a Rolex certificate and I paid $25 - likely
something is fishy. And a reasonable person should know that. On the other
hand, if I buy a watch that has an MSRP of $1,500 for $800, but don't have a
receipt or certificate, I could reasonably argue that is a hell of a lot of
money and I THOUGHT it was a legit watch. How do I know the store's mark up?
If I buy the watch from someone on the street, I could still make the same
arguement - he needed money and this was a gift from his mother so he sold
it. Now if I bought a CASE of them without any documentation that would be
different.
>
>
> If I purchase something that has been stolen, I will then be in
> posession of stolen goods and that, I'm pretty sure is
> illegal.
> If I purchase a fake watch with a trademarked logo it would seem
> to me that I would be equally culpable and should be subject to
> arrest and prosecution. I would be in posession of something with a stolen
> trademark.
>
> So the question is, is it illegal to posess a fake watch
> with a purloined, trademarked logo?
>
> (Seems to me it should be)
>
> --
> .... Garnet
> return address is fake to try to reduce junk mail
so does that mean you are stealing your own email? :-)
>
> if you wish to send e-mail to me please send to cgbi*ionsys.com
> only replace the * with @
--
* . * . * * * * . . * . * . * . * . . * *
* . . * FIREFLY * . COMMUNICATIONS * . GROUP . * . . * . *
* * 301-408-4080 * . pv...@glow.com * * http://www.glow.com *
* . * * . . * . * * . . * . * . * . . * . * . *
BELJAN E
>
>
>
>In the world of watches, if someone could show that the LOOK of the
>Movada
>MoMA watch is so distinctive that ANY copy of that is "confusingly
>similar"
>simply making a copy of that LOOK even without Movado's name on it is
>infringement. That is cause for a lawsuit.
>
the look of the Rolex Submariner from many companies including even
Casio. Aside from the missing Rolex markings the case and other
stylings are quite similar. Similarly while recently shopping at Target
they had some watches (Cherokee or something similar) that looked like
a Movado, black face, gold dot at the top, did not say much of anything
else for that matter.
Peter Vos
BELJAN E wrote:
Hey, I could be wrong --- That was why I prefaced this with "if someone
could show..." I've seen the knock offs of Movado too. Obviously Movado
never made an effort to stop the copying and similarly Rolex did not stop
the copying... once you let it go you lose the right to stop it later
because the look and feel are no longer distinctive due to dilution in the
marketplace. It is very difficult to prove - I used the Movado example
because it is SO distinctive, unlike the Submariner - which one might argue
is similar to an Ebel - clearly not to an afficionado, but to the "average
consumer" it probably is. Ideally you would have to trademark the LOOK
and probably copyright it as well. Since copyright gives you protection
for the "original expression of an idea." Obviously these are not the sort
of issues that tend to occupy the legal departments of watch companies.
When Hamilton launched their electric watches in the 50s the reason for
having the avant garde asymmetric designs was not to protect the idea (they
used patents for that) but to broadcast the message to the consumer that
this was a "different sort of watch." The fact that the Ventura became the
best selling watch was a shock to their own marketing department.
But as far as the top of the line watch makers go, I think they probably
took refuge behind the elitist notion that "class will always win out."
They probably also figure that the folks buying the forgeries were never
"our customers" anyway since they would naturally not be lured in by cheap
imitations. They may be right, but I'm sure it has to hurt their market
share in the long run and ultimately depresses their ability to get list
pricing.
BELJAN E
>
>But as far as the top of the line watch makers go, I think they
>probably
>took refuge behind the elitist notion that "class will always win
>out."
>They probably also figure that the folks buying the forgeries were
>never
>"our customers" anyway since they would naturally not be lured in by
>cheap
>imitations.
>
some cheap quartz watch labled Rolex, probably just as much so as they
would be likely to buy any other brand at that price range because all
they want is a cheap watch, they never really have the intent of buying
a real one. What I would be more concerned about is people trying to
pass them off as real to people who are willing to purchase the real
deal, as mentioned by some posts here this is going on in online
auctions. Then again always be weary, if it was a real Rolex (or other)
really have a starting bid of $1?
yurig...@gmail.com
> "Leigh & Pranav" <pra...@roanoke.infi.net> wrote in message
> news:01bfebf1$9c732220$03c9ff3f@pranav...
> >
> > It amazes me to see the variety and quality of replica watches available
> > today. I pride myself in being able to tell a genuine watch from a fake,
> > and sometimes I find myself struggling. I guess it allows everyone to
> wear
> > a Rolex, but it can be disastrous for the gullible person who is willing
> to
> > pay for a genuine one.
> >
>
> Replica watches that have the actual brand names on them are illegal in the
> USA, make no mistake. Yes, sometimes it can be difficult for a layperson to
> tell the difference between a real and a fake Rolex, but any competent
> watchmaker should be able to tell the difference instantly by taking off the
> back and observing the movement.
>
> No, it does not allow the average person to "wear a Rolex." It allows them
> to wear a complete fake and fraud. If that makes them proud, so be it.
>
> I often see fake watches being passed off as the real thing to gullible
> persons. I don't know which is worse - the crooks or the people who are
> unwilling to do their due diligence before shelling out thousands for a
> phony watch. Amazingly, I have read ads that pretty much all but state that
> the watch is fake, and still the morons bid thousands for them on e-Bay.
>
> I have no sympathy for crooks or those who knowingly do business with them.
> End of rant.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Bill Mattocks
Bruno
