Looks like Swatch wins case vs Costco...

[jimyritz]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010 ... atch-case/

[watchdaddy1]

Glad to see that.

[BSears]

goddam split vote = court of appeals ruling upheld. Guess this means an end to gray market dealers in Omegas - and you can bet others are looking at this for supporting their own desires to gut out gray market/non-AD dealers. The good part? because it was a split decision, there is no precedent here. So any other disputes in similar cases will still result in one side citing prior US Supreme Court precedent and the other side citing the Court of Appeals here. Although, there is one even bigger bright side (depending on whose side you're on) - this is a narrow issue as the Court of Appeals found that Omega's copyright protection for the emblem on the caseback was enough to get past the first sale rule. So unless and until other makers have US registered trademarks, they can't rely on this opinion.

[aikiman44]

Thanks for the interpretation.

[dshap]

goddam split vote = court of appeals ruling upheld. Guess this means an end to gray market dealers in Omegas - and you can bet others are looking at this for supporting their own desires to gut out gray market/non-AD dealers. The good part? because it was a split decision, there is no precedent here. So any other disputes in similar cases will still result in one side citing prior US Supreme Court precedent and the other side citing the Court of Appeals here. Although, there is one even bigger bright side (depending on whose side you're on) - this is a narrow issue as the Court of Appeals found that Omega's copyright protection for the emblem on the caseback was enough to get past the first sale rule. So unless and until other makers have US registered trademarks, they can't rely on this opinion.

Thanks for the scoop Forum Lawyer

[jimyritz]

goddam split vote = court of appeals ruling upheld. Guess this means an end to gray market dealers in Omegas - and you can bet others are looking at this for supporting their own desires to gut out gray market/non-AD dealers. The good part? because it was a split decision, there is no precedent here. So any other disputes in similar cases will still result in one side citing prior US Supreme Court precedent and the other side citing the Court of Appeals here. Although, there is one even bigger bright side (depending on whose side you're on) - this is a narrow issue as the Court of Appeals found that Omega's copyright protection for the emblem on the caseback was enough to get past the first sale rule. So unless and until other makers have US registered trademarks, they can't rely on this opinion.

-------------

Thanks Brad...

[vbuskirk]

Code: Select all

The Man :  --1--
Logic   :  --0--

Look for silly little cartoon logos to start showing up on the casebacks of all your watches now.

[BSears]

Code: Select all

The Man :  --1--
Logic   :  --0--

Look for silly little cartoon logos to start showing up on the casebacks of all your watches now.

that's exactly what this means, provided those companies don't already have something on their watches that is a US registered trademark.

[jimyritz]

Essentially this impacts places like The Watchery, Authentic, etc who are "reselling" Swatch brand watches as BNIB (no mfg warranty)--with deep discounts...

Places like Bernard, The Watch Seller, etc who are clearly selling pre-owned watches would not really be effected.

Yes...No, Maybe...

[BSears]

Essentially this impacts places like The Watchery, Authentic, etc who are "reselling" Swatch brand watches as BNIB (no mfg warranty)--with deep discounts...

Places like Bernard, The Watch Seller, etc who are clearly selling pre-owned watches would not really be effected.

Yes...No, Maybe...

Mike, that's probably right, especially if the "first sale" rule still has any meaning after this case (and it does, I'm just being cheeky there).

[polaco23]

i buy used

[vbuskirk]

I was searching Ofrei's inventory of straps and deployants this morning, and I stumbled across this interesting blurb.

Watchmakers you need parts to be able to work, let the FTC know it now. Consumers you must be able to have your watch service/repair by the watchmaker of your choice at competitive price let the FTC know that immediately. Monopoly is against the law. Making you believe that only the restricting company is able to service/repair your watch is deceitful.

The FTC wants to hear from you, restricting companies are now entered in their computer system and will act when a pattern is detected. That will be achieve by sending your complaints, and let all people around you know about this.

Sent your complaint to:
Federal Trade Commission
Consumer Response Center
600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20580.
Ref. No. 27462283


Do you really Own your Watch?
This site represent personal opinion. When you purchased your watch, along with the warranty document was there a disclosure? A disclosure telling you that periodic service or any repair needed for the proper working of your watch can only be performed by that brand Service Center(s). That Service Center(s) reserve the right to decide for you what your watch needs and how much that Service/Repair will be. An estimate will be given to you with your choice to pay or pick-up your watch as is?

No, no such disclosure was given to you; however you will be subjected to the described policies. Companies by restricting the sale of the necessary replacement parts needed for the proper service/repair of your watch successfully monopolized the Service/Repair of their watches. Depending of the brand you purchased, you may not really own your watch. You are now at the mercy of that company and they didn’t even have the courtesy to let you know that!!

[ezcheese]

I was searching Ofrei's inventory of straps and deployants this morning, and I stumbled across this interesting blurb.

Watchmakers you need parts to be able to work, let the FTC know it now. Consumers you must be able to have your watch service/repair by the watchmaker of your choice at competitive price let the FTC know that immediately. Monopoly is against the law. Making you believe that only the restricting company is able to service/repair your watch is deceitful.

The FTC wants to hear from you, restricting companies are now entered in their computer system and will act when a pattern is detected. That will be achieve by sending your complaints, and let all people around you know about this.

Sent your complaint to:
Federal Trade Commission
Consumer Response Center
600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20580.
Ref. No. 27462283


Do you really Own your Watch?
This site represent personal opinion. When you purchased your watch, along with the warranty document was there a disclosure? A disclosure telling you that periodic service or any repair needed for the proper working of your watch can only be performed by that brand Service Center(s). That Service Center(s) reserve the right to decide for you what your watch needs and how much that Service/Repair will be. An estimate will be given to you with your choice to pay or pick-up your watch as is?

No, no such disclosure was given to you; however you will be subjected to the described policies. Companies by restricting the sale of the necessary replacement parts needed for the proper service/repair of your watch successfully monopolized the Service/Repair of their watches. Depending of the brand you purchased, you may not really own your watch. You are now at the mercy of that company and they didn’t even have the courtesy to let you know that!!

Amen.

[BSears]

Interesting. This is a good indicator of the trickle down effect that ruling is having. Without saying it, Otto Frei is suggesting that the first sale rule doesn't mean what it says. I don't think that's what the Supreme Court was getting at in that opinion (but I haven't had time to read the whole thing yet - maybe that'll be some light reading over Christmas break from work). But OFrei does make some valid and very good points, so kudos to them.