This is a US law, but I think the Swiss exercise the same procedure. Emphasis added:
The Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 was enacted to provide additional causes of actions and remedies for injured IP owners. Under the act, courts are authorized to order the seizure of goods and counterfeit marks involved in the violation, the means of making the counterfeit marks, and the records documenting the manufacture, sale, or receipt of items involved in the violation.
Trademark owners may apply to the court for such orders without notifying the adverse party (an ex parte seizure order). Nevertheless, the courts will not grant an application unless security (that is, a dollar amount adequate to cover damages the adverse party may suffer as a result of wrongful seizure or attempted seizure) is provided by the person obtaining the order, and the court finds that the facts clearly show that (1) the application is likely to succeed in showing that the person against whom seizure would be ordered used a counterfeit mark; (2) immediate and irreparable injury to the applicant will occur if seizure is not ordered; (3) harm to the applicant by denying the application outweighs the harm to the interests of the person against whom seizure would be ordered;
(4) the person against whom seizure would be ordered would destroy, move, hide or otherwise make the goods in question inaccessible to the court if notified of the proceeding; (5) the applicant has not publicized the requested seizure; and (6) the items to be seized will be located at a place identified in the application.
THAT is an example of what I wanted to see.... THX
Now what that says is this....IMOP .....
"Trademark OWNERS," ie. Rolex in this case and NOT an AD, can apply to the COURT of jurisdiction for an order to seize, without the items owner knowledge, any items that might be reasonably considered to violate their properly issued copyright, trademark, patent, etc. However, only with a deposit/"security" against the possibility of damages due to a "wrongful seizure"... etc. etc. etc. (rest is pretty self explanatory)
What it doesn't say is an "AD"/"authorized reseller/retailer can take it upon themselves to "seize" an item that is known to be counterfeit and violates the copyright/trademark/patent of the manufacturer of the goods they are retailing/reselling. (which I seriously doubt in most jurisdictions, at least here in the USA, they can) HOWEVER, the question is this, is an "authorized retailer"considered an "owner" of the company they represent and, if they are, can they take it upon themselves to act in the best interest of the company by seizing said item on the spot WITHOUT obtaining any legal authority via the court of jurisdiction????
AS for this thread in general, personally, I think that "debates" like these can be VERY constructive if the proper decorum is maintained. (ie. no juvenile comments, etc.) I've read countless threads, on both rep and genuine forums, over the years pertaining to the very subject we're discussing in this thread. I can't think of ANY that actually resulted in the readers learning the actual facts/laws involved.
IMOP, it would be nice to know what our actual LEGAL rights are in differing parts of the world/jurisdictions. That would be a lot better than the usual "better not wear your watch into an AD or they'll cut it off your arm, crush it, then strike you 50 times with a cane." (which might be the law in Singapore
) Which is then followed by a flame-fest from the all seeing and all knowing "experts" on the forum.
IMOP, not only should this thread not be closed, but, it would be great if the members here did some research in their country as to how the law actually reads, etc. THAT would be some valuable knowledge to pass on to members and would, at least until the law is changed, put an end to these threads.....and the petty, juvenile, and inflammatory responses by the ignorant so often contained within them.
