On a sweltering summer night when sleep decided to play hard to get, I found myself wide awake, wondering how best to pass the hours. And what better way to cure insomnia than diving headfirst into the thrilling world of recent court filings and legal dockets? Just as I was about to regret this decision, low and behold, a fresh Rolex lawsuit surfaced ready to keep me up just a little longer.
On 28 July 2025, Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc., the American subsidiary of the Swiss watchmaking giant, took the unusual but increasingly necessary step of filing a trademark infringement lawsuit against Wrist Aficionado LLC and several associated entities and individuals. The case, docketed in the Southern District of New York as 1:25-cv-06193, brings into sharp relief the ongoing tensions between luxury watch brands and the secondary market’s less transparent elements, particularly where digital marketing intersects with sales practices that Rolex alleges damage the brand’s reputation and confuse consumers. Similar in some respects (but also very different) to the recently discussed Richemont case.
At its core, the lawsuit alleges that Wrist Aficionado LLC, along with related companies, have engaged in the unauthorized use of Rolex’s trademarks. The claims focus on the defendants’ marketing and sales activities, which allegedly involve presenting themselves as authorized Rolex dealers or affiliates when, according to Rolex, they are not. The complaint further points to specific examples of how the defendants have utilized Rolex’s trademarks across various digital channels, including YouTube, to promote products in ways that mislead consumers about the origin and authenticity of the watches they are purchasing.
The lawsuit further alleges that Wrist Aficionado and its affiliates have sold Rolex watches outside Rolex’s authorized dealer network, including through channels not approved by Rolex itself. The company argues this damages the exclusivity and prestige traditionally associated with its brand, while also exposing consumers to risks associated with unauthorized sales. Rolex claims that such sales dilute the brand’s value and unfairly divert revenue from its carefully controlled distribution system.
Rolex’s legal claim is grounded in the Lanham Act, the principal federal trademark statute in the United States, which prohibits the unauthorized use of trademarks in a way that is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers. The company seeks injunctive relief (injunctive relief means the court orders someone to immediately stop doing something that is causing harm or breaking the rules) to prevent the defendants from further using Rolex’s trademarks, monetary damages for any harm suffered, and disclosure of the defendants’ suppliers and sales records to identify the origin of unauthorized or counterfeit goods.
This case is part of a broader pattern of intellectual property enforcement actions by Rolex, which reflects the company’s long-standing commitment to protecting its brand’s integrity in an increasingly complex marketplace. Over the last decade, Rolex has been proactive in pursuing legal action against unauthorized dealers, counterfeiters, and entities it sees as jeopardizing the exclusivity of its products. (Rolex is one of the most trusted brands in the world, so yes, it is worth protecting that brand!). While this lawsuit centers on alleged trademark infringement and unauthorized sales, it is also emblematic of the growing challenges luxury brands face in regulating secondary markets and the digital sphere.
When viewed alongside Rolex’s previous legal actions, the Wrist Aficionado lawsuit fits into a continuum of enforcement strategies aimed at different aspects of trademark protection. For example, in 2019, Rolex initiated legal proceedings against La Californienne, a company known for customizing vintage Rolex watches by adding colorful dials and bezels. Though the watches were genuine Rolex models, the brand took issue with the aftermarket modifications and the use of Rolex’s trademarks in connection with these altered products. That case highlighted Rolex’s concern with protecting not only the sale of new watches but also the brand’s image in the resale and customization markets.
More recently, Rolex was involved in a case with Beckertime, a retailer specializing in pre-owned Rolex watches with aftermarket customizations. The court allowed Beckertime to continue selling modified Rolex watches but required clear disclosure to consumers that the products were customized and not original Rolex configurations. This ruling underscored the balance courts attempt to strike between protecting trademark rights and allowing legitimate resale and customization practices, provided consumers are not misled.
Beyond Rolex itself, other major watch groups have been equally active in trademark enforcement, often addressing similar issues around unauthorized sales and counterfeit goods. LVMH, which owns brands such as TAG Heuer and Hublot, has pursued lawsuits targeting unauthorized dealers and counterfeiters who operate online and offline. Similarly, the Swatch Group has taken legal action against resellers selling unauthorized Swatch Group watches or infringing on their intellectual property. Richemont, the parent company of brands like Cartier and Van Cleef & Arpels, has also been a vigorous enforcer of trademark rights. Their recent lawsuit against Malidani Jewelry Corp., a New York-based jeweler accused of selling high-quality counterfeit or “superfake” products, signals the industry-wide concern with the evolving sophistication of counterfeit goods and the difficulties in policing online and offline sales channels.
The Wrist Aficionado case reflects the “forever” tension between luxury brands’ desire to maintain strict control over their distribution networks and the realities of a secondary market fueled by online commerce, digital marketing, and globalized consumer demand. Many buyers today conduct extensive online research before purchasing, relying heavily on digital content such as YouTube “reviews”, unboxing videos, and an avalanche of influencer endorsements. This has created fertile ground for unauthorized sellers who present themselves as legitimate, authorized dealers to capture demand without the constraints or oversight that authorized retail partnerships impose.
The case is still in its early phases. As far as I can tell, the defendants have not publicly responded, and the court has yet to rule on motions or discovery requests. The proceedings are expected to involve detailed exchanges of evidence, expert testimony on trademark law and watch authenticity, and possibly settlement negotiations.
I am rather curious where they will go with this case. It is worth noting that this is in the USA, where most civil cases like this (about 90 to 95 percent!) are settle outside of court because going to trial takes a lot of time and money. Luxury brands like Rolex usually prefer to settle so they can quickly stop unauthorized sales without a long fight. Based on how Rolex has handled similar cases before, it’s very likely they will settle this one too, especially if the evidence is strong or the other side cooperates. But they might still push hard at first to make a point.
Now, before we go, and just so we’re clear: I’m not a lawyer, this isn’t legal advice, and I definitely don’t get paid to decode court documents. I do get paid a little something when you buy something nice through our wonderful online shop. I’m just a watch enthusiast who happened to stumble upon this case when battling insomnia, and figured you might find it as interesting as I did. Everyone involved here is innocent until proven otherwise, and the courtroom drama has just begun.
Rolex’s Legal War on Trademark Infringement Hits YouTube and Beyond. Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Wrist Aficionado LLC