View Single Post
      03-09-2014, 04:23 AM   #67
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
1042
Rep
5,660
Posts

 
Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RR-NYC View Post
I really don't understand why people buy and wear fakes or counterfeit products.

From beginning to end, fake/counterfeit products are made to deceive people for one reason or another.

People who make them are stealing the name and design or the people or corporation who owns the applicable trademarks, copyrights, patents, etc.

People who buy them are [attempting to]deceive everyone around them by wearing/using it. If you are wearing a "Rolex" that wasn't made by Rolex, it's a counterfeit. The person wearing it knows this yet they are trying to pass it off as the original. Even if they are quick to admit it's a fake, why would they patronize a business that has no regard to the work of another?

For some, they may want a Rolex look without paying the Rolex price but there are plenty of watch manufacturers that have copied designs of Rolex without using the name. If it's the name they want, then that comes at a price.

People can argue whether watches are worth it's price. Thats fine with me - it might not be worth it to some but there are plenty that find the value in its name and price. It doesn't have to equal the cost of raw goods, it could have 800% markup and it still doesn't matter.

Like the Picasso napkin story, a company like Rolex has "earned" their right to charge their prices because the movement, the materials, and the brand command a premium price.
TY for sharing your thoughts and pointing out a germane factor pertaining to fake watches. You've answered the question I've asked and I don't expect more than that. The statutory basis for your eschewing fakes is certainly a sound one and one for which there is no real counter.

The legal aspects you point out are real and well worth considering by anyone who is of a mind to buy such things. There's no question of the illegality associated with making and selling counterfeit watches. It is the legality of the matter that prevents me from specifically recommending anyone buy them, regardless of my insouciance about encountering them on folks' wrists.

The only thought I can offer for consideration is that concerning the watch industry's opportunistic approach to taking action against companies that the authentic makers see as infringing on their duly earned trademark rights. I have seen only one instance where legitimate holders of trademarks bring suit against the most egregious violators of those rights.
I would imagine there are others, but the fact is that there are billions of people in the PRC. This lawsuit does nothing to really stop the counterfeiting and it does nothing to prevent anyone from buying the things. At best, all it does is cause these folks to use new domain names and new business names. The suit needs to be brought and won in the PRC if it is to have any real impact. I have my doubts about whether the defendants will even show up in court or whether they can even be found for service.

That Bulgari brought suit in the US against primarily Chinese based offenders is what I'm getting at when I say the companies that own authentic trademarks don't seem to be doing more than making a token effort at defending their trademark rights. Don't make more of that than there actually is to it.

As I understand it, one aspect of U.S. trademark law is that an owner of such rights must show a pattern of defending its rights. If a company like Bulgari or Rolex or IBM, for that matter, allows to go unaddressed too many affronts against its rights, the courts may opt to deny their claims of infringement. But filing a suit that is little more than a bunch of paperwork such as the one described above is sufficient to show a pattern of consistent defense of one's rights. Then one is on firmer footing when one finds a deep pocketed defendant.

More often, one can find suits being brought against well funded Western companies. These lawsuits that AP brought are quite typical.
Here are the offending watches.


Swiss Watch International



Tommy Hilfiger




You can check out Audemars Piguet's website to see the full line of RO models, but here one. Now to my eye, even casually, the SWI and Tommy watches don't look enough like a Royal Oak to me that I would have ruled in AP's favor. IMO, there are far closer copies that don't even remotely pretend not to be replicas of the RO. And yet, the makers of those companies are out there thriving.




As you may have seen earlier in this thread, I don't encourage ordering fakes over the Internet. Buying them specifically in the PRC is something of a different matter. The fact is that doing that there doesn't break any Chinese laws. Like it or not, we are all subject to the laws of the nation in which we find ourselves, unless one has diplomatic immunity. Bringing such items out of China is a different matter and one does so at one's own risk.

As far as understanding why folks buy fakes, well there are some reasons that aren't hard to to grasp if one knows of them.
  • To get a sense of whether the look is indeed appealing.
  • To have a cheap version of an expensive watch to wear when the risk of theft is high
  • To buy the least expensive thing one can that looks good
  • To experience wearing a look that can only be had by spending vastly greater sums (granted this doesn't apply to a lot of watches)
  • To pretend to have the authentic article, in short, to deceive. Though I know this motivation is firmly in the mind of some folks who buy fakes, I never have had any sound basis for asserting when and for whom it is and isn't. That is to say, nobody has ever represented to me that their fake watch is indeed authentic and I had specific evidence to know it wasn't. Therefore, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt on this one because there really isn't anything for me to gain, regardless of whether I can in fact prove to them or to my own satisfaction that the watch is a fake.
Sidebar Thought:
I'm aware of the slippery slope regarding ignoring laws, yet the matter of fake watches seems in terms of its scope and practical realities, to be yet another effectively "victimless" crime. I'm not particularly concerned about the existence and practice of the world's oldest profession any more than I am about fake watches on the wrist of the occasional fellow here and there. Indeed, my preference would be to find and implement ways to overcome the things that motivate folks to buy such things rather than to take with with the things themselves.


All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed