Rolex, the luxury watch overlords who make timepieces worth more than your rent, are furious that some companies are reselling “genuine” Rolex watches… with a few tweaks. Think changed dials, replaced bezels, new gems. Nothing scandalous, but apparently enough to trigger a legal action.
In May 2025, Rolex went to the federal court in California, accusing a group of sellers, Sdot Watches (aka Swiss Wrist), First Class Dials and Austin’s Watches of flogging what they are calling counterfeit watches. Except these are not your cheap knockoffs from a dodgy stall in Tom Mboya Street or Bangkok. These are Frankensteined Rolexes, genuine-ish watches with a few aftermarket parts, and that is where the action begins. Rolex says these guys are conning buyers with “100% genuine” ads when the goods in question have been tinkered with. They allege shoddy craftsmanship, dodgy engravings, and rogue components. Naturally, Rolex wants damages, injunctions, and a good old-fashioned destruction of anything with a questionable crown on it.
But here is where it gets interesting. The sellers are not just shrugging this off, they are firing back with strong defences.
Defence #1. Rolex Is Using Trademarks as a Monopoly Tool
The sellers say Rolex is not just trying to protect their brand, they are trying to control the entire resale market like a Bond villain with a patent. By claiming “counterfeit” over every modified watch, they are allegedly using trademark law to bully competition out of the game. And that, the defendants argue, sounds a lot like illegal restraint of trade. Basically, they are accusing Rolex of stretching their trademark rights so far, they have snapped into antitrust territory. And if the court agrees? Well, that could mean serious consequences for how brands police resale.
Defence #2. No one is Actually Confused, so what is the Problem?
The sellers claim that buyers are not idiots. The listings apparently include disclaimers, disclosures, and loud reminders that these are not straight-from-Geneva, authorised-by-Rolex timepieces. Just modified ones. They argue that consumers know what they are buying, and more importantly, they know these sellers have no link to Rolex HQ. If true, that torpedoes the heart of a trademark claim, which hinges on consumer confusion. No confusion, no infringement. No infringement, no damages.
The whole “are the disclaimers good enough?” thing has come up before, like in the BeckerTime case, where a judge basically hinted that decent disclosures might have saved everyone a trip to court. And Chanel’s been crying about it too, in their case against What Goes Around Comes Around, complaining that the “we are not affiliated” tag is not loud enough. So this is familiar ground, just with fancier watches and more legal fees.
Why This Case Matters
This case is about something bigger, who gets to control the story of a product after it is sold. Brands want to own the narrative forever. But that is not how ownership works. You buy it, it is yours. You mod it, sell it, bedazzle it, whatever should be your call. Right? The sellers say Rolex is just scared of losing its grip on the secondary market. And let us not pretend Rolex does not care about resale, they have their own “certified pre-owned” programme, because of course they do. But when others try to do the same thing?
The court’s decision here could shift how trademark rights work in the second-hand luxury market. If Rolex wins, brands may get even more aggressive about what you can and cannot do with the stuff you buy. If Rolex loses, it might finally put a limit on how far companies can push trademark law before it turns into trademark tyranny.
Credits (Main source)
Interesting Reads