Watches of Switzerland and a boutique creative studio tasked with producing luxury campaign imagery are at odds over where a pair of rival lawsuits should play out. At issue in the two cases – one that Shawn Carter Creative LLC (“SCC”) filed in federal court in Ohio in July, and another that Watches of Switzerland (“WOS”) filed in Florida in August – are the rights to ad images and videos produced for some of WOS’s most high-profile U.S. marketing campaigns, namely, ads for Rolex Certified Pre-Owned products.
What began as a collaboration between WOS and SCC, whose owner Jay Gullion previously served as creative director of WOS, to elevate WOS’s branding has now spiraled into dueling federal lawsuits, with each side accusing the other of overreaching: WOS insists it owns the campaign media outright, while SCC contends it retained copyright and is owed money for unpaid work.
The Background in Brief: On July 24, SCC filed a lawsuit against WOS in Ohio, alleging that it produced photo and video campaigns, including for Rolex Pre-Owned watches, independently using its own resources, invoiced WOS as a contractor, and retained copyright, only licensing the works during Gullion’s tenure. SCC claims that despite the terms of the agreement, WOS continued to exploit 800–1,000 assets without authorization and seeks damages and injunctive relief.
Eight days later, on August 1, WOS filed a suit of its own in Florida, asserting that Gullion was a full-time employee from 2022 to 2025, that the campaigns – including those for Rolex, Patek Philippe, Omega, and TAG Heuer – were created within the scope of his employment or as works made-for-hire, and that it alone owns the rights.
On September 23, SCC sharpened its claims in an amended complaint in Ohio. Unlike the initial filing, which only named Watches of Switzerland Group USA, the amended version adds Watches of Switzerland LLC as a defendant, tying it to Ohio through retail operations and digital marketing. It also adds specific U.S. Copyright Office registrations for key campaigns, such as Rolex Certified Pre-Owned Daytona and QB1 featuring Breitling, to bolster its infringement claims. The amended filing also acknowledges the competing Florida lawsuit, framing it as a reactive attempt by WOS to control the dispute.
Creative Assets, Clash of Forums
The procedural battle is proving just as consequential as the underlying copyright fight. Early this month, SCC and Gullion asked the Florida court to dismiss WOS’s case outright – or at minimum, transfer it to Ohio – pointing to the first-to-file rule. They argue that SCC’s Ohio lawsuit was lodged a week earlier, involves the same parties and assets, and should proceed as the controlling case.
SCC also contends that WOS’s Florida complaint is defective on its face because WOS never alleged that the disputed works were registered with the Copyright Office, a prerequisite for pursuing ownership claims in federal court. Without registration, SCC says, WOS cannot maintain its declaratory judgment or conversion claims.
Beyond technical pleading, SCC stresses that Ohio is the more appropriate forum: it is SCC’s home base, the place where the creative work was produced, and where the first suit is already pending. By contrast, they characterize Florida as a less convenient forum chosen by WOS to wrest control of the litigation. Unless WOS can show “compelling circumstances” to justify keeping its second-filed case, SCC maintains, the Florida court should step aside in favor of Ohio.
The Bigger Fight
No matter where the matter ends up, the dueling cases are unlikely to break new ground. Save for very rare instances (Hedi Slimane’s ownership of ad images and videos created during his tenure at Saint Laurent – and reportedly Celine, as well – are a prime example), the work of even the most high-ranking creatives routinely belongs to the companies that employ them.
Nonetheless, the cases are still interesting for a few reasons. Primarily, while courts have frequently applied the Reid test – a multi-factor framework for determining whether a creator is an employee or an independent contractor for copyright purposes – in cases that center in publishing, film, and software, it is far less common to see the issue arise in the luxury retail and branding context.
At the same time, the case highlights how blurred the lines can become when a creative director wears two hats – serving both as an employee of a brand and as the principal of another company, which is not entirely unheard of, as companies tap multi-hyphenate creatives to take on in-house roles. That overlap raises practical questions about when work falls within the scope of an employment relationship and when it should be treated as belonging to a third-party.
Still yet, the sheer scale and value of the assets in dispute makes this matter stand out. With between 800 and 1,000 campaign images and videos tied to marquee names like Rolex and Patek Philippe at issue, the litigation underscores that marketing content itself has become a core corporate asset, rivaling trademarks or distribution rights in importance.
The fact that Watches of Switzerland alleges Gullion withheld final files from a Rolex Certified Pre-Owned campaign only adds to the commercial significance of the dispute.
The cases are Watches of Switzerland, LLC v. Shawn Carter Creative, LLC, 0:25-cv-61562 (S.D. Fla.) and Shawn Carter Creative, LLC v. Watches of Switzerland Group USA Inc., 2:25-cv-00820 (S.D. Ohio).
Share
