In a decision that could have ripple effects beyond the world of watches, the Paris Court of Appeal recently sided with Rolex in a dispute against French luxury trunkmaker Pinel & Pinel. At the center of the case? Pinel & Pinel-branded watch winders, which the court found were trading off Rolex’s reputation, design codes, and broader brand identity – even though the Swiss watch-making titan does not offer up watch winding products of its own.
Background in Brief: Rolex filed suit against Pinel & Pinel in 2024, lodging unfair and parasitic competition claims against the company with the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris. The Swiss watchmaker argued that Pinel & Pinel’s watch winders borrowed too heavily from its distinctive brand, despite Rolex not manufacturing or selling winders, itself.
Rolex – whose catalog consists of some of the most iconic timepieces in modern watchmaking, including the GMT Master, Submariner, Daytona, and Explorer models – argued that the designs, color schemes, and product names used by Pinel & Pinel drew a direct association with its models. Case in point: Pinel & Pinel’s winders were branded with abbreviations like “GMT,” “SUB,” “DT,” and “XP.”
Profiting from Rolex’s Reputation
Siding with Rolex in its June 20 decision, the Paris Court of Appeal set the stage by asserting that the contested winders do not emerge from the general design vocabulary of the watchmaking industry, nor did they reflect Pinel & Pinel’s own creative choices. Instead, they were presented as a deliberate homage – if not outright appropriation – of Rolex’s brand codes. The court found that this went beyond fair competition and amounted to parasitic behavior, allowing Pinel & Pinel to profit from Rolex’s reputation without making any independent creative or economic investment.
A key factor in the court’s decision was its determination that the use of the “GMT,” “SUB,” “DT,” and “XP” abbreviations to refer to different winder models was likely to cause confusion among the relevant public. Consumers could reasonably believe that the winders were either endorsed by Rolex or intended specifically for its watches. In the court’s view, this was more than suggestive marketing. Instead, it amounted to a direct attempt by Pinel & Pinel to leverage the recognition and prestige of Rolex’s model names, which have become synonymous with entire watch categories after decades of sustained branding and cultural prominence.
While the lack of Rolex-manufactured winders did not impact the court’s decision with regard to its unfair competition claim, it did impact the damages award. Because Rolex does not sell watch winders, there was no lost profit to quantify and as such, the court awarded it a lump sum of €75,000 to reflect the harm caused to Rolex’s brand image and the undue advantage gained by Pinel & Pinel. More critically, Pinel & Pinel was ordered to stop selling the infringing winders.
Pinel & Pinel’s counterclaim for disparagement, which stemmed from a letter Rolex sent to its distributors, was dismissed, with the court finding that Rolex’s communication was factual, balanced, and not defamatory.
Implications for Other Brands
The decision underscores a broader theme in French and EU jurisprudence: freedom of trade and competition is not absolute when it comes to enforcement by iconic luxury brands. Courts are increasingly willing to recognize that these brands do not merely sell products; they sell a carefully-crafted image and an exclusive universe. When another company trades on that image without adding its own creative value, it risks being held liable for parasitism.
The damages sum was small in the case, but the ruling is significant, nonetheless, as it affirms that protection can extend beyond a brand’s actual product categories. In other words, Rolex’s prestige in watchmaking was sufficient to block sales of watch winders – a product it does not manufacture – because the products were deemed to piggyback on its reputation. This sends a clear message to accessory makers and adjacent industries: the mere invocation of luxury brand codes, especially when done overtly, can cross legal boundaries.
The court also highlighted how abbreviated references like “GMT” and “SUB” can be treated as actionable signs. (This is worthy of attention in light of the rise in abbreviated branding.) These types of terms may seem generic to outsiders, but they are shorthand for Rolex’s most famous models and were enough, in this context, to create a misleading association.
The case is Rolex SA v. Pinel & Pinel, RG 24/00808 (Paris Court of Appeal).
Share
