< Back to latest news & events

Retail Scanner

When is a genuine product no longer ‘genuine’?

September 2018

Legitimate spare part or counterfeit? Rolex has issued proceedings in the U.S against Vintage Watchmaker LLC for offering “non-Rolex approved” replacement parts. Rolex argue that these turn an otherwise legitimate Rolex watch into a counterfeit good.

This raises the question of whether a genuine good can become a counterfeit product by virtue of replacement parts not supplied or authorised by the original manufacturer.

The World Intellectual Property Organisation defines counterfeit goods as “any goods bearing, without authorisation, a trade mark identical to the trade mark validly registered in respect of such goods, or which cannot be distinguished in essential aspects, thereby infringing the rights of the owner.” In this case the traditional definition of counterfeit does not necessarily appear to be present. The watch itself is legitimately bearing the Rolex mark, but do “non-Rolex” spare parts make it counterfeit?

The applicable law concerns an overlap between designs and trade marks. In the UK and EU, the case Acacia (EU:C:2017:992) determined that the design of goods can be copied to create spare parts, provided for repair and to restore original appearance. This then overlaps with trade mark law, as the promotion of  spare parts as compatible with the original manufacturer requires referring to the brand, which raises the possibility of trade mark infringement. Here, Vintage Watchmaker arguably must use the “Rolex” mark to enable consumers to understand that the parts such as a replacement dial or strap can be used for their luxury watch. However, would the use of non-branded spare parts change the physical condition of the traded goods and thus be considered to be trade mark infringement.

In an ever-expanding consumerist society, counterfeit is becoming ever more prevalent, challenging and nuanced to retailers and brand owners. Consumers want a good deal in the marketplace which inevitably raises the possibility of alternative less expensive options. It will be interesting to see whether Rolex succeed in the litigation and the inevitable issue for retailers is how to make products which are hard to reproduce for the purposes of spare parts without infringing intellectual property rights such as designs, trademarks and even patents.

Latest updates

HGF Ranked #1 in the UK for Trade Mark Portfolios in the 2025 Trade Mark Filing Trends Report by Clarivate.

HGF has achieved the #1 ranking for the UK for trade mark portfolios in the newly released 2025 Trade mark Filing Trends report by Clarivate, recognising the firm as a …

Read article

The EPO Board of Appeal comments on the scope of the morality exclusion from patentability

The recent decision, T1553/22 of the Board of Appeal required the Board to consider the scope of the exclusions from patentability under Article 53(a) EPC. The invention in this case …

Read article

IP Ingredients: Summer Case Law Review 2025

As the British summer swings once again between sunburn and showers, it’s a great time to take stock of what the first half of the year has delivered by way …

Read article

Celebrating exam success at HGF!

We are once again delighted to share that our colleagues have achieved success in their recent exams! Their dedication, perseverance, and commitment to professional development have paid off, and we …

Read article

Is the Supreme Court denial in Thatcher’s case a fatal blow against lookalikes?

The dispute between Thatcher’s Cider Company and Aldi Stores Limited has been long running and has sparked legal controversy along the way. On 4th June 2025 the Supreme denied Aldi …

Read article

HGF ranked among Europe’s top patent firms in IP STARS Patent Rankings 2025

HGF has once again made a bold mark in the latest Managing IP Stars 2025 firm rankings, with top-tier recognition across multiple jurisdictions for our patent expertise. This year’s results …

Read article

The Enlarged Board of Appeal has today issued its decision in seminal case G1/24

G1/24, described as one of the most important cases in decades, relates to how claims of patents are to be interpreted by the Boards of Appeal and, by extension, all …

Read article