Replica/Fake questions

[DRCramer1989]

I saw a banner add the other day on another web site that I found a little disconcerting. The web site actually sells "replica" Rolex and other name brand watches. How in the heck do they get away with this? The web site is: Replica Site Removed.

[Alcan]

It's just one of a myriad of sites selling counterfeit watches, often owned by the same people. The manufacture and sale of counterfeits is a major enterprise.

Btw, check out #4 here:

http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=8936

[Tools]

I would be surprised if a reputable watch site was posting a replica site banner..


But, there's a bit of something for everybody in the world..

[DRCramer1989]

I can't believe this kind of thing is legal... They are putting the actual Rolex name on fakes!

[DRCramer1989]

I didn't realize I wasn't supposed to link to any replica sites.. It was not my intention to violate the rules of the board. I just couldn't believe that somebody could actually advertise something like that. I guess I in turn gave it validation by posting it here. Again.. My apologies.

[Tools]

Most of us don't condone fakes or the sites that sell them

However, even though it is illegal (it is counterfeiting), it is estimated that replicas outsell Rolex by a margin of anywhere from 5 to 10 times as many.

Rolex probably spends more than any other watchmaker to try and stop the practice, but with a million fakes made each month, the task is probably impossible.

Here's an example of what happens when caught:

Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Jones , 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15082 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (summary judgment); 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6657 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2002) (magistrate judge's report and recommendation on damages)


Defendant sold counterfeit watches and shirts bearing plaintiffs’ trademarks ROLEX and POLO through his websites including “knockoffalley.com” and “replica4u.com.” In October 2000, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on its infringement and dilution claims, and entered a permanent injunction in January 2001. In granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the infringement claim, the court noted that by marketing his products as replicas, defendant “adopted [his] mark[s] with the intention of capitalizing on plaintiff[s’] reputation and goodwill and any confusion between his and the senior user[s’] products.” The likelihood of confusion was not diminished because defendant’s website displayed a disclaimer stating that the products were replicas, and that “[by] purchasing one of these replicas, the buy [sic] agrees not to sell or represent them as genuine.” This disclaimer failed to diminish the likelihood of confusion because postsale confusion was also actionable. The matter was then referred to a magistrate judge to determine damages. Plaintiffs were unable to obtain meaningful discovery from defendant regarding defendant’s profits. Noting the willful violations by defendant, the magistrate judge recommended statutory damages for trademark counterfeiting of $500,000 for Rolex and $100,000 for Polo. The court distinguished this case from storefront counterfeiting cases in which only $25,000 was awarded per trademark violation because those amounts “would plainly be inadequate to compensate the plaintiffs” here “[i]n view of the virtually limitless number of customers available to [defendant] through his Web sites.” The magistrate judge also recommended awarding attorney’s fees based on defendant’s willful infringement and defendant’s conduct that increased plaintiff’s legal costs

[DRCramer1989]

Thanks for the information! Interesting read. I was just shocked how blatant this kind of thing is. I usually equate a fake watch with a back alley in NYC or Mexico not something this elaborate or marketed quite like that. It's very much an afront to all of us who own the real thing.

[Alcan]

Originally Posted by DRCramer1989

It's very much an affront to all of us who own the real thing.

That it is. There have been several threads here dealing with that subject in recent times.