Panerai Copyright

[nalomb]

Interesting article -- ramifications for both PAM reps and the rep game in general ...

https://www.ablogtowatch.com/panera...QPsR1QKPkF-FCfM1oaEkJWtMS6NvP09_zIPOhxVQXiOBI

 

[mysterio]

Legal action against factories are old news. While the decision is significant, it's against a manufacturer with apparently a physical presence. The factories we know are not (they either do not exist in the normal sense or are hidden in legitimate factories).

Off topic but WTF is "a sea change" mentioned in the article? Uh, English? :lol:

 

[nalomb]

Off topic but WTF is "a sea change" mentioned in the article? Uh, English? :lol:

It’s similar to the phrase “paradigm shift.”




Sent from the RWI mobile app

 

[mysterio]

It’s similar to the phrase “paradigm shift.”




Sent from the RWI mobile app

It was kind of a tongue in cheek comment. They probably wanted to say "turn the tide" (to stay consistent with the nautical theme) but whoever was writing it is not good with English (and ABlogToWatch apparently does not care enough to proofread).

 

[kilowattore]

The article makes an interesting point regarding homage brands such as Parnis and even less blatant copycats, like in ultimate analysis the sued company is.
I did not go through the 48 models produced by the sued company but the two watches shown have so many visible differences that they are somehow as close (or as distant) as a rolex sub and a Steinheart ocean one are.
Different crown, different dial layout, different shape of numbers, no sign of any referral to the P brand. Wheres the copyright infringement?

 

[mysterio]

The article makes an interesting point regarding homage brands such as Parnis and even less blatant copycats, like in ultimate analysis the sued company is.
I did not go through the 48 models produced by the sued company but the two watches shown have so many visible differences that they are somehow as close (or as distant) as a rolex sub and a Steinheart ocean one are.
Different crown, different dial layout, different shape of numbers, no sign of any referral to the P brand. Wheres the copyright infringement?

Although not a legal expert and I have not read the decision, I think it may fall under derivative design.

 

[mrsullivan]

This court decision sounds more like marketing for Panerai than a victory against replicas. Although it is not common that a Chinese company gets suied in its own country for such things, that was an "easy" catch for PAM. And as a fairly "big" company, Awsky is moneywise worth suing.

Judgement seems based on the use of specific PAM easthetical trademarks by Awsky, it's not even about a whole counterfeited model.

What about all these small "hommage" brands then, which widely use big brands trademarks and hugely advertise over FB, social medias and platforms?

Envoyé de mon ELE-L29 en utilisant Tapatalk