Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Luxury Watchmakers Cracking Down on 'Pirated' Smartwatch Faces
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Physical watchmakers have been knocking off designs for years. Look how many name brand watchmakers make a Rolex look alike with fluted bezel and similarly shaped case with a steal linked band. No one would mistake them for a real Rolex nor do the say "Rolex" but it's clear their design was "influenced" by Rolex. Their are plenty of square watches with chronograph functions that look like a Monaco but aren't.
No one is going to confuse a digital watch with a Rolex / Patek / etc. so I would think a trade dress lawsuit would have little merit, IMHO. However, since most sites can't fight one then they simply fold. OTOH, if you use their name or a distinct trademark like Mickey Mouse, as some of the faces have, then you've crossed a line.
----------
No one is going to confuse a digital watch with a Rolex / Patek / etc. so I would think a trade dress lawsuit would have little merit, IMHO. However, since most sites can't fight one then they simply fold. OTOH, if you use their name or a distinct trademark like Mickey Mouse, as some of the faces have, then you've crossed a line.
----------
If you knew the brands that they make watches for you might change your tone.
(Michelle, Burberry, Armani, Michael Kors, Marc Jacobs, DKNY, Tory Burch, Diesel)
Last edited:
You obviously don't know much about high end time pieces. Rolex, Omega, Patek Philippe, Hubolt, Tag, Vacheron etc., all have unique faces that are accentuated by different fonts, hands, style of numerals, and placement of sub-dials.
I'm glad the watcher makers are cracking down.
They've been watching and waiting since day one. There is no ROI in suing a small time player like Pebble. Now that Samsung, Google, and Apple are in the game, the money is big enough to be worth pursuing.
Maybe these companies will make their own versions to sell for the Apple watch. That way they make money and users get the watch faces they want without resorting to piracy.
As an owner of a "high end watch", I can assure you that you are absolutely WRONG! No other watch maker makes a watch with a face like the one on my watch. And ditto for the "high end watches" on the arms of my friends. Each is unique to that particular band and model.
There's a difference between "sort of similar" and actual copies. The luxury watchmakers are going after actual copies that look more like the original product than just "sort of similar". Here's just one example:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.go2android.watchface_aw_rolex_1r
The thing actually says ROLEX on it. THAT is what luxury watchmakers are up in arms about. And rightfully so.
Mark
Last edited:
To me, this is just the case of greedy watchmakers trying to rip some cash from Apple.
There are tons of "replica" watches on the Web produced by shady Chinese companies - yet you don't hear much about the luxury watchmakers cracking down on these. Why? Because there's virtually nothing to be gained from that, for one - and for another, it doesn't really affect their sales, because replica watches is a completely different market. Those who can afford an original would never buy a copy, and those who buy copies would never buy an original.
Now, Apple is another story, that's where all the dough is. And it was fairly stupid for Apple to pay 21M settlement for a watch design, simply because, in truth, there is no infringement - a watch is a watch and a gadget is a gadget. It will not be mistaken for a watch, neither it will affect the watches' sales, nor make a gadget more popular. The same goes for the physical watches vs Apple Watch - if people use "classic" or "luxury" watch face on their gadget, they just do it for fun, not because they actually want to create an impression that this is the watch they use. If anything, having a "classic" or "luxury" face on the AW should be viewed as free advertisement.
Or maybe Apple should turn around and start charging the watchmakers for the amount of time the face is displayed?
There are tons of "replica" watches on the Web produced by shady Chinese companies - yet you don't hear much about the luxury watchmakers cracking down on these. Why? Because there's virtually nothing to be gained from that, for one - and for another, it doesn't really affect their sales, because replica watches is a completely different market. Those who can afford an original would never buy a copy, and those who buy copies would never buy an original.
Now, Apple is another story, that's where all the dough is. And it was fairly stupid for Apple to pay 21M settlement for a watch design, simply because, in truth, there is no infringement - a watch is a watch and a gadget is a gadget. It will not be mistaken for a watch, neither it will affect the watches' sales, nor make a gadget more popular. The same goes for the physical watches vs Apple Watch - if people use "classic" or "luxury" watch face on their gadget, they just do it for fun, not because they actually want to create an impression that this is the watch they use. If anything, having a "classic" or "luxury" face on the AW should be viewed as free advertisement.
Or maybe Apple should turn around and start charging the watchmakers for the amount of time the face is displayed?
Post removed by user due to users commenting on personal life, come here to talk about apple, not my business or real life.
Last edited:
To me, this is just the case of greedy watchmakers trying to rip some cash from Apple.
There are tons of "replica" watches on the Web produced by shady Chinese companies - yet you don't hear much about the luxury watchmakers cracking down on these. Why? Because there's virtually nothing to be gained from that, for one - and for another, it doesn't really affect their sales, because replica watches is a completely different market. Those who can afford an original would never buy a copy, and those who buy copies would never buy an original.
Now, Apple is another story, that's where all the dough is. And it was fairly stupid for Apple to pay 21M settlement for a watch design, simply because, in truth, there is no infringement - a watch is a watch and a gadget is a gadget. It will not be mistaken for a watch, neither it will affect the watches' sales, nor make a gadget more popular. The same goes for the physical watches vs Apple Watch - if people use "classic" or "luxury" watch face on their gadget, they just do it for fun, not because they actually want to create an impression that this is the watch they use. If anything, having a "classic" or "luxury" face on the AW should be viewed as free advertisement.
Or maybe Apple should turn around and start charging the watchmakers for the amount of time the face is displayed?
Once again, someone that doesn't know what he's talking about. Luxury watchmakers "go after" counterfeiters ALL THE TIME! It just happens to be incredibly difficult to go after them in China because piracy and counterfeiting is generally condoned and accepted in China.
Luxury watchmakers not only have the right to "go after" these Android Wear and other watch face copies, the luxury watchmakers have a DUTY to do it. They are REQUIRED, by copyright and trademark law, to "defend their marque" from illicit copies. Failing to do so is tantamount to abandoning their design/trademark.
Mark
So how exactly having a digital image of a physical watch on a device constitutes a copyright infringement? This is not an "illicit copy" of a watch, as is the case with the replica, this is just a picture of its face, not unlike those used in the online stores (a bit simplistic, I know). Everyone understands this is an AW, not Cartier. And if AW face bears a Cartier logo, that serves as an advertisement for Cartier in a sense - doesn't it?
OK, so show me an Omega with the same dial as a Cartier, with the same dial as a Penerai, or a Vacheron Constantin, Breitling, Audemars Piaget.......
Post removed by user due to users commenting on personal life, come here to talk about apple, not my business or real life.
Last edited:
Post removed by user due to users commenting on personal life, come here to talk about apple, not my business or real life.
Last edited:
Companies do that all the time. You must get the permission (with a few exceptions) from the copyright owner in order to use the likeness of copyrighted material. A watch face can certainly be copyrighted.
This isn't something new or unusual.
None of those are exactly luxury either; nice fashion watches but no were in the league of luxury brands.
But as you say, all slightly different. Different from your original statement that "most high end watch faces are standard and used among many brands". Which are they, standard or different?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...philippe-watch-dial-is-made-step-by-step.html
This link describes how Patek make their watch faces. As Audemars and Vacheron are considered equal to Patek, we can assume they go to similar measures. Companies like Stern Creations may be able to use the same stamps to make the brass discs to be turned into faces for various manufacturers, but to make the same face for various manufacturers, no, there will always have to be some difference, however small, as Apple discovered to it's cost with the Swiss Railway clock payout.
----------
Agreed. Personally I'd put most of them in the category of junk, but that's just me!
Post removed by user due to users commenting on personal life, come here to talk about macs, not my business or real life.
Last edited:
Post removed by user due to users commenting on personal life, come here to talk about apple, not my business or real life.
Last edited:
Yes, you are absolutely correct, most watch manufacturers use a standard design. Circular face, numerals around the circumference. If this is what you meant, then I've lost the point of your original post..?
Post removed by user due to users commenting on personal life, come here to talk about apple, not my business or real life.
Last edited:
Clearly.
Thank you for those examples. I knew exactly what you meant, but I was glad you could show physical examples (though somehow some naysayers seem to be unconvinced).
I am under the impression the primary argument from the watchmakers is not so much the faces, but the use of trademark. I am not even sure if a watch faces is copyrightable (unless a new font is created). But from what I can tell with the Google Play store - there is definitely unauthorized use of logos.
Someone mentioned no physical goods are being ripped off. Well that might be true. But if I put the Cartier logo on notebooks, you can bet Cartier would send a cease-and-desist letter even if the item is in a category they don't even participate.
I highly doubt a Rolex, Tissot, Patek Phillipe, etc would ever distribute software watch faces, but I could definitely see a company such as Fossil or Diesel selling customized faces. They would get a nice return since the development costs would be next to nothing.