The last time I was battling insomnia, we took a good hard look at the Rolex vs Wrist Aficionado case, because what else do you do when you can’t sleep but read about lawsuits? But this time, faced with a perfect storm of jetlag, insomnia, and a side of acute depression (don’t worry, I’m joking, I think), I thought, what better way to knock myself out than diving deep into the labyrinthine legal battles that have quietly shaped the watch industry into what we know today.
If you’re a watch enthusiast or a buyer curious about the industry, understanding these lawsuits can give you a whole new perspective on what it takes to keep these brands shining, and why the prices and the market behave the way they do.
And let’s start with perhaps the case that made the most noise around the world (which coincidentally broke first here on DE GRIFF): the case of Krajisnik v. C.D. Peacock, Inc. This one dives into something many buyers don’t see, the internal dealings of authorized dealers. C.D. Peacock, an authorized Rolex dealer in Chicago, was accused by a former employee of racketeering, basically, of selling Rolex watches to gray market resellers rather than genuine customers. Gray market refers to goods sold outside official channels, often without manufacturer warranties and at discounted prices.The lawsuit alleged that C.D. Peacock’s actions violated Rolex’s strict policies for authorized dealers, potentially undermining Rolex’s control over pricing and distribution. While the case was dismissed eventually, it opened a window into the challenges luxury brands face in policing their authorized dealers.
In a case that caused quite a stir in the secondary market, Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. BeckerTime, LLC really brought to light how fiercely Rolex protects its brand. BeckerTime was a retailer specializing in pre-owned luxury watches, but Rolex took issue with the fact that some of the watches BeckerTime sold had been modified with aftermarket parts, things like custom bezels or different dials that Rolex didn’t authorize. Here Rolex argued that these modifications mislead customers into thinking the watches are original Rolex products when, in fact, they’ve been altered. The court sided with Rolex, ruling that selling such modified watches without clear disclosure violates Rolex’s trademarks and could deceive consumers. What this ruling effectively says is that brand integrity matters more than just the sum of parts, even a tiny alteration can damage the perception and value of a Rolex. This case sent shockwaves through the booming pre-owned market, a sector that’s grown rapidly over the past decade.
Now, moving beyond Rolex, the Richemont Group, which owns Cartier, Montblanc, and several other luxury brands, has taken a hard line against what they call “superfakes.” These aren’t your typical counterfeit watches. Superfakes are so expertly made that even seasoned collectors can be fooled. Richemont’s legal efforts target the entire supply chain, manufacturers and sellers of these high-quality fakes, reflecting the increasing threat they pose to the luxury market. This is an important case because superfakes don’t just cost the brands lost revenue, they erode consumer trust. When buyers can’t tell if what they’re getting is genuine, it shakes the very foundation of luxury purchasing. Richemont’s lawsuits demonstrate how seriously these companies are taking intellectual property protection, investing significant resources to shut down counterfeit rings and protect their hard-earned reputations.
The legal landscape isn’t just about traditional watches anymore. When Swatch Group AG v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. hit the UK courts, it was a clear sign that luxury watchmakers are defending their turf even in the tech arena. Swatch alleged that Samsung’s smartwatch designs infringed trademarks belonging to Swatch’s iconic brands like Omega and Tissot. The court agreed with Swatch, affirming that brand identity protection applies just as much to smartwatches as to mechanical ones. I
Design protection is another tricky area, as the watch industry mixes artistry with engineering. The older lawsuit F.P. Journe SA v. Jaquet Droz SA lasted several years, with F.P. Journe alleging that Jaquet Droz copied design elements of its Octa Automatic watch. However, the court ruled in favor of Jaquet Droz, reflecting the difficulty of proving design infringement in watches. Many design elements in watchmaking are driven by function, and courts are cautious not to overextend protection to the point of stifling creativity or competition.
The watch industry is navigating a complex web of challenges, from counterfeiters producing ever-more convincing fakes, to tech companies entering the smartwatch space, to internal dealer networks pushing the boundaries of authorized sales. As watches become both objects of passion and valuable assets, brands are investing heavily in legal strategies to protect their intellectual property and brand equity.
Now, a quick note: I’m not a lawyer, and none of this is legal advice. This is simply a peek behind the curtain of an industry that fascinates many but is often opaque about the legal forces shaping it.
From trademark battles to racketeering allegations...