Intangiblia™
Plain talk about Intellectual Property. Podcast of Intangible Law™
Intangiblia™
The Intellectual Property Mechanics Behind Luxury Timepieces
Dive headfirst into the surprisingly cutthroat world of luxury watch intellectual property battles where the stakes are as high as the price tags. From Swiss ateliers to Silicon Valley boardrooms, the gloves come off when horological heavyweights defend their creations against customizers, competitors, and counterfeiters alike.
When does personalization cross into infringement? The Rolex cases against Artisans de Genève and Becker Time reveal the fine line between owning a watch and owning its identity. We explore how courts have split hairs over modified dials, aftermarket bezels, and what it truly means for a timepiece to be "genuine" in the eyes of trademark law. Meanwhile, Vortic's vintage Hamilton restoration saga offers hope for artisans who respect heritage while creating something new.
The battlefield extends beyond physical watches into digital domains. Samsung faced Swatch Group's wrath over app store watch faces mimicking luxury dials, while Richemont convinced courts to make internet service providers block counterfeit websites altogether. Even tech giant Apple wasn't immune when Swatch cheekily registered "Tick Different" and "One More Thing" trademarks, leaving the Cupertino company with no choice but to rebrand their smartwatch.
Perhaps most fascinating is Audemars Piguet's global quest to protect their revolutionary Royal Oak design—a struggle revealing how difficult it is to claim exclusive rights to shapes that have defined entire categories. And as watches evolve into health monitors, AliveCor's patent war against Apple Watch's ECG feature shows us what happens when traditional horology collides with cutting-edge medical technology.
Whether you're a watch enthusiast, legal professional, or simply fascinated by the intersection of luxury and law, these cases illuminate five timeless principles governing intellectual property in the modern marketplace. Subscribe now for new episodes every Tuesday that decode the intangible yet invaluable assets behind the world's most coveted timepieces.
TikTok, my intellectual rebels. If you think the watch world is all elegance and engineering, think again. Behind every polished dial and perfectly calibrated secondhand, there's a legal saga waiting to explode Trademark tantrums, copyright curveballs and patent face-offs so spicy they'd make a terbilian sweat.
Speaker 2:You are listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law playing talk about intellectual property. Please welcome your host, leticia Caminero.
Speaker 3:And who better to walk you through it than us? I'm Leticia, the AI version that is, and I'm a stand-in for the real, leticia Caminero, the fabulous legal strategist, podcast creator, creator and actual human who lives in Switzerland, surrounded by chocolate, innovation and more luxury watches than excuse for being late.
Speaker 1:Or, like her, digital doppelgangers, except we never run out of time or sass.
Speaker 3:And just to keep things transparent, here comes the AI disclaimer. Ass. And just to keep things transparent, here comes the AI disclaimer. This episode was created using artificial intelligence for storytelling and educational purposes. Nothing you hear is legal advice, Just delicious IP drama freshly wound.
Speaker 1:So sit back, tight your watch strap and get ready for the cases that made even the most silent tick go boom. Because in the world of horological IP, elegance meets enforcement and honey. The courtrooms are never off the clock. Let's begin.
Speaker 3:Let's kick things off right here in Switzerland, where the air smells like precision and the lawsuits are as finely tuned as the movements precision and the lawsuits are as finely tuned as the movements. In Rolex Sasek B's Artisans de Genève, we saw one of the most fascinating battles between brand control and creative freedom.
Speaker 1:Imagine this you buy a Rolex not just any Rolex, a Daytona, then you send it off to Artisans de Genève, a private Swiss company that turns your classic into a custom masterpiece Skeletonized dial, transparent case back, a pop of color that says this isn't your grandfather's chronograph.
Speaker 3:It sounds dreamy, right? Except Rolex wasn't dreaming, they were steaming.
Speaker 1:Boiling. In fact, because while Artisans de Genève insisted they only modify watches owned by clients and never sell anything directly, those one-of-a-kind pieces started popping up online, featured in interviews, exhibits and collector blogs, still sporting the Rolex logo.
Speaker 3:That's where the line got blurry. Rolex filed suit in 2023, claiming trademark infringement. Their argument when you drastically modify a product but keep the Rolex name visible, you're misleading the public. It looks like Rolex made it or endorsed it, and they didn't.
Speaker 1:Rolex doesn't do collaborations. If you see a skeleton Daytona, it wasn't born that way and Rolex does not want its brand diluted or associated with anyone else's design decisions.
Speaker 3:Artisans the genuine fire bag. Hey, we don't sell watches, we offer a private service. The client already owns the Rolex. They're just hiring us to personalize it.
Speaker 1:But here's the rub. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court split the matter down the middle. The ruling in 2024 said yes, modifying your own watch privately. That's fine. Personal use, personal taste, personal joy.
Speaker 3:But if you put that custom Rolex on display, sell it on the secondary market or even post it online in a way that looks like Rolex was part of the design, thus an authorized commercial use, and that, my friends, crosses into trademark infringement.
Speaker 1:In other words, you can commission a skeleton dial and dance with diamonds all day, Just don't parade it around as if Rolex blessed your wildest design dreams.
Speaker 3:It's a classic case of post-sale confusion. Even if the original buyer knows it's been modified, what about the next person or the collector in Tokyo who sees a photo and thinks Rolex just dropped a limited edition see-through?
Speaker 1:That confusion, real or potential, is enough to trigger trademark protection, especially when we're talking about a brand like Rolex, which builds its entire identity on consistency, exclusivity and quality control.
Speaker 3:Since the ruling, artisans de Geneva has had to be extra cautious no Rolex logos in public facing materials, no interviews implying partnership and certainly no marketing that blurs the origin story.
Speaker 1:The message is clear you can own the watch, but the brand that's still Rolex's territory and they'll protect it like it's made of solid gold.
Speaker 3:Now let's head across the Atlantic to the United States, where Rolex took another swing, this time not at a Swiss artisan, but at a Texas-based eBay power seller, becker Time.
Speaker 1:Oh, Becker Time, they weren't cracking open Rolexes in some underground lab. They were buying pre-owned Rolex watches, replacing a few parts maybe a dial here, a bezel there, even throwing in some diamonds for that weekend in Dubai feel and reselling them online as, wait for it, genuine Rolex watches.
Speaker 3:And here's where the tick meets the tock. Rolex argued if you change enough of the original parts, especially with aftermarket non-Rolex pieces, it's no longer genuinely Rolex, even if the base movement is legit.
Speaker 1:Eckertine was like what we're just improving the classics. But the court didn't agree. Modifying a Rolex with unapproved parts, then branding it as genuine, that's trademark infringement, plain and simple.
Speaker 3:The Fifth Circuit said yes, these watches were originally Rolex, but the additions made them materially different from what consumers expect when they hear Rolex. So selling them under that name without clarification that's a misrepresentation.
Speaker 1:Here's the twist, though. The court also said Rolex waited too long to bring this suit. Becker Time had been customizing and selling these watches since at least 2010, and Rolex only sued in 2020. That's a whole decade of ticking tolerance.
Speaker 3:That delay triggered detortion of laches, which is legal. Speak for if you snooze, you lose. The court said Rolex was too late to claim damages. No money for you.
Speaker 1:So, yes, Rolex won the legal argument, but not the payout. Becker Time had to change the way they described their watches, but they didn't have to hand over a cent. The courtroom equivalence of you're right, but go to your room anyway.
Speaker 3:This case matters because it highlights something crucial for all luxury brands. It's not enough to be right. You also have to be right. You also have to be timely. Trademark rights have to be enforced consistently and promptly, Otherwise courts may let the clock run out on your claims and for resellers.
Speaker 1:a makeover doesn't make a watch a fraud, but you better disclose, disclose, disclose. No shady sparkle, no pretending it's stock when it's souped up.
Speaker 3:It's a case about boundaries between originality and modification, between clarity and confusion, and between protecting your brand or letting it slowly slip into the aftermarket wild. Okay, so we've seen what happens when you modify a Rolex, but what if you don't start with a watch at all, just with?
Speaker 1:its heart. Enter Vortec, a small American company with big vintage energy. Their specialty Salvaging antique Hamilton pocket watch movements, some over 100 years old, and turning them into beautiful handcrafted wristwatches.
Speaker 3:Now here's the catch those movements still sit Hamilton on them, years old and turning them into beautiful handcrafted wristwatches. Now here's the catch those movements still said Hamilton on them and when Vortig cased them in custom designs and sold them as restored Hamilton watches the Swatch Group, which owns the Hamilton brand, today said ah ah, trademark infringement.
Speaker 1:But Vortig wasn't trying to pass off new watches as official Hamiltons. They were super transparent. They made it clear these were vintage American movements repurposed with love and often bore both names, vortig and Hamilton, not trying to fake anything.
Speaker 3:Still Hamilton sued in 2015. The case dragged on for years and it went deep into what trademark law calls likelihood of confusion. Basically, would the average buyer think this was a new Hamilton product made or endorsed by Swatch.
Speaker 1:Spoiler. The court said no In 2021,. The Second Circuit backed Vortec. The judge was like these watches are what they say they are. There's no deception here. Vortig disclosed the origin of every part. No mystery, no funny business.
Speaker 3:This was a big deal because, unlike the Becker Time case, where the modifications weren't clearly explained, vortig made the lineage of its watches part of the story. The court even said the use of the Hamilton mark was fair use because it referred to the actual origin of the movement.
Speaker 1:I mean, come on, that's like restoring a vintage Ferrari engine and putting it into a custom chassis. You'd still say this is a Ferrari engine, not. Oh no, I can't mention the F word.
Speaker 3:Ha exactly. Trademark law isn't there to punish people who respect heritage and tell the truth. It's there to prevent deception.
Speaker 1:And Vortex Wind showed that small businesses with good faith and good documentation can go toe-to-toe with big brands and come out ticking.
Speaker 3:This gave hope to the entire restoration community. It drew a crucial line between honest reuse and brand dilution.
Speaker 1:So if you're an artisan, a rebuilder or a creative reuser, here's your gold rule Be clear, be truthful and never pretend you're something you're not.
Speaker 3:Portici Purazzi proved that honoring the past doesn't have to infringe on the present. Now let's rewind the dial to a case that made every luxury brand raise its eyebrows and probably its retail prices Omega, de Sebi, costco, wasn't just about watches. It was about control over markets, over margins, over a tiny logo. You'd need a magnifying glass to even see.
Speaker 1:Oh, this one is delicious. Omega, the Swiss maker of James Bond's favorite wrist candy, was furious that Costco was selling genuine Omega watches in the US for a lot less than Omega's boutique prices.
Speaker 3:And, to be clear, costco wasn't selling fakes. These were real Omega watches imported from authorized distributors abroad, but Omega hadn't authorized those specific watches for sale in the US.
Speaker 1:So what did Omega do? They didn't file a trademark suit, no no, they got creative. They registered the tiny Omega globe design etched into the back of each watch as a copyrighted work.
Speaker 3:You heard that right, not the dial, not the case. A minuscule engraving on the underside of the watch became their weapon of choice. Why? Because copyright law has this lovely clause the first sale doctrine doesn't always apply to goods manufactured abroad.
Speaker 1:Translation. Omega argued that because the watches were made outside the US, their copyright gave them the right to block unauthorized import and resale, even if the watch itself was genuine.
Speaker 3:And for a moment it worked. In 2010, the Ninth Circuit agreed with Omega Costco, took it all the way to the US Supreme Court, which split 4-4. That meant the Ninth Circuit's ruling stood, but without setting a national precedent.
Speaker 1:But then came the plot twist the case got sent back to the lower court for more proceedings and that court said Omega's entire strategy was wait for it. Copyright misuse.
Speaker 3:Basically, the judge looked at Omega and said you're not really trying to protect art, You're trying to manipulate copyright law to control distribution and that's not what copyright is for.
Speaker 1:Boom. Copyright misuse is like the legal version of don't play games with us. It's the doctrine that slaps back when rights holders push the law too far.
Speaker 3:So Costco wins, omega's clever little backdoor maneuver shut down, and the Supreme Court, in a different case shortly after Kirtzang v Swiley, confirmed that the first sale doctrine does apply to goods made abroad, to goods made abroad.
Speaker 1:So what's the big picture? You can't use copyright as a sneaky tool to control genuine goods in the gray market. If the product is real and you sold it somewhere in the world, you may have to live with the resale this case was a wake-up call for luxury brands.
Speaker 3:It said copyright protects expression, not your global pricing strategy.
Speaker 1:So if you're a brand trying to block resellers with a logo no one sees and an argument no one buys, maybe think again.
Speaker 3:And if you're Costco, pass the popcorn. You just save gray markets everywhere. All right, let's talk about a legal face of Sobold. It went beyond the Bezal. This one's all about virtual dials, digital decor and what happens when your smartwatch app store starts looking a little too.
Speaker 1:Swiss. Imagine firing up your Samsung Galaxy Watch and browsing through third-party downloadable faces. You see a moon swatch, a speedy Sunday, or maybe a dial that looks suspiciously like an Omega Seamaster. All beautifully designed. All definitely not licensed.
Speaker 3:Swatch Group, the parent company of Omega, tissot, longines, reggae, you name. It took one look at those faces and said, excuse you.
Speaker 1:Their lawyers probably didn't even blink before filing. In 2019, Swatch sued Samsung for trademark infringement, saying those watch face apps were direct copies of their protected designs. Even worse, Samsung's Galaxy App Store was hosting and distributing them.
Speaker 3:Now Samsung's first defense was classic hey, we didn't make these apps, we're just the platform. Don't shoot the messenger.
Speaker 1:But the UK courts weren't buying that. The high court and later the court of appeal ruled that Samsung wasn't just some passive bulletin board. They curated the store, they shared profits, they had notice and they still did basically nothing. Exactly Once Samsung was notified that infringing apps were available, they had a legal duty to act, not just remove a few here and there, but prevent repeat infringements. You can't just shrug and say users will be users while collecting download revenue. The ruling was clear Platforms that profit from infringing content can't hide behind safe harbor when they've been told and shown that what they're hosting is illegal.
Speaker 3:This case said a real precedent in Europe, because it wasn't about counterfeits you could touch. It was about digital mimicry, downloadable knockoffs, and courts said, virtual or not, a trademark is a trademark.
Speaker 1:What's especially juicy, swatch had receipts. They documented the exact number of infringing designs, showed how close they were to their own models, and even caught developers naming them after Swatch's own collections Oof.
Speaker 3:That's not just inspiration, that's imitation with extra pixels.
Speaker 1:After the ruling, samsung had to clean house and fast.
Speaker 3:App Store started tightening submission guidelines, especially for digital watch faces and brand theme designs and other platforms they took notes, because if you're profiting from user-generated content and you don't have a decent IP enforcement mechanism in place, you're not an initial tech platform, you're a legally liable co-host.
Speaker 1:So what did Swatch win, aside from moral vindication?
Speaker 3:A clear legal victory, an injunction and a hefty nod to tech companies. Digital trademarks matter and design rights don't disappear in the cloud.
Speaker 1:And let's be honest, Swatch may be colorful and fun, but when it comes to defending its brands, they go full steel bracelet.
Speaker 2:Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law. Plain talk about intellectual property.
Speaker 3:Now it's time for a trademark tango between two heavyweights, apple and Swatch. Or as I like to call it Think Different versus Tick Different.
Speaker 1:Ooh, yes, this case is peak drama. Apple was planning the launch of their smartwatch empire and wanted to trademark iWatch. Makes sense, right? Iphone, ipad, imac, iwatch.
Speaker 3:But Swatch had already filed eSwatch and said very politely I'm sure no darling.
Speaker 1:And so Apple had to pivot. That's why we all wear Apple watches today, not iWatches. Swatch blocked them in several jurisdictions, including the UK and EU.
Speaker 3:But Swatch wasn't done being cheeky. They went on the offensive. They filed a trademark for Think Different, a very thinly veiled parody of Apple's legendary Think Different campaign.
Speaker 1:And not just that, swatch also filed for One More Thing which, if you're a true tech fan, you know was Steve Jobs' iconic phrase before revealing something game changing on stage.
Speaker 3:So Apple was like excuse me, are you trolling us? That's our legacy. And they challenged the firings, arguing by faith that Swatch was deliberately mocking Apple or filing defensively to block them.
Speaker 1:But the UK Intellectual Property Office and later the high court said that's not how trademark law works. Swatch may have had a playful intent, sure, but unless Apple could prove that Swatch filed solely to block Apple or that consumers were likely to be confused, it wasn't bad faith.
Speaker 3:And here's the kicker. The court even acknowledged that One More Thing had a pop culture presence, but it wasn't distinctive enough in the UK to belong to Apple legally.
Speaker 1:So Swatch kept both trademarks Tick Different. One More Thing they even used them on watches, and Apple had to swallow its pride with a side of irony.
Speaker 3:What this case really highlighted is that being famous isn't enough. If you don't fight the trademark, someone else might. And parodies, even salty ones, can be totally legal if there's no consumer confusion.
Speaker 1:I mean. The slogan isn't trademarks or feelings, it's function, no confusion, no misrepresentation, no problem.
Speaker 3:Plus, Swash argued that their slogan referred to a literal tick-ass in TikTok. So cute.
Speaker 1:So calculated.
Speaker 3:So if you're a brand with iconic language. File those trademarks yesterday, because if you wait, the other side might just tick different. All right, let's switch gears. You've heard about platforms being held liable. Now let's talk about what happens when the internet pipeline itself gets pulled into the courtroom. This case is about Cartier, but not just Cartier, also Montblanc, iwc and the rest of the Richemont squad All part of the luxury Avengers.
Speaker 1:And who were they fighting? Pirate websites, tons of them selling counterfeit watches, jewelry, you name it. But here's the twist Richemont didn't go after the counterfeiters directly. They went after the internet service providers Yep, bt, sky, talktalk, eid the companies literally connecting users to the internet.
Speaker 3:Bridgemore asked the court to order these ISPs to block access to a bunch of domains pushing fake Cartier and Montblanc goods. Their argument you have the power, Use it.
Speaker 1:Now let's be real. The ISPs were not thrilled. They were like we're just the road, we don't drive the cars, and also, are we supposed to pay for this blocking technology?
Speaker 3:But the UK High Court said yes, actually you are the road and if there's a crash ahead and we know it's coming, you've got to put up a sign. The court issued the blocking orders. For the first time ever a trademark owner got a site blocking injunction in the UK.
Speaker 1:Before that, site blocking was mainly a copyright thing, like for movie piracy. This extended that same principle to trademark infringement a massive win for luxury brands.
Speaker 3:But that didn't end the fight. The ASP's appeal. They argued that blocking would cost money, create a dangerous precedent and put too much burden on neutral intermediaries.
Speaker 1:By 2018, the UK Supreme Court weighed in and guess what? They upheld the blocking orders, but they made one thing clear the brands have to pay the reasonable costs of enforcement.
Speaker 3:In short, rights holders can ask ISPs to block infringing sites, but they can't offload the whole financial burden.
Speaker 1:So what's the big takeaway here? This case opened the floodgates for brand owners to protect their IP upstream, before consumers even reached the fake goods.
Speaker 3:It also put ISPs on notice. You can't just sit back and play innocent. If a court shows you a pirate side and you can block it without causing chaos, you might be required to act.
Speaker 1:And for Richemont, this wasn't just about watches. It was about preserving luxury itself in the age of online everything.
Speaker 3:They weren't just protecting logos. They were protecting consumer trust, distribution models and the meaning of the brand.
Speaker 1:And doing it with one of the boldest legal moves in recent memory, from boutiques to broadband. Richemont made it clear if you're helping infringers, even passively, you're part of the problem.
Speaker 3:Okay, let's talk icons, not influencers, not movie stars. I'm talking about a watch the Royal Oak by Audemars Piguet.
Speaker 1:Ugh, that octagonal bezel, the eight screws, the tapisserie dial, the integrated bracelet. You can spot it from across the room and, if you're lucky, across the yacht deck.
Speaker 3:Designed by the legendary Gerald Genta in 1972, the Royal Oak changed everything. It turned stainless steel into luxury. It blurred the line between sport and horology. It's a vibe and a half. Designed by the legendary Gerald Genta In 1972, the raw oak changed everything. It turned stainless steel into luxury. It blurred the line between sports and old horology. It's a vibe and a half.
Speaker 1:So of course Audemars Piguet wanted to protect that vibe. But here's the thing about vibes they don't always play well with IP law.
Speaker 3:They tried everything Design registrations in the EU, 3d trademarks in the US, configuration trademarks in Japan, even unfair competition claims in China and spoiler mixed results mostly losses.
Speaker 1:Let's start with Europe. Ap filed for EU design rights and 3D trademarks to protect the look of the Royal Oak, but the EUIPO and later the general court weren't convinced. Why? Because the design was considered too established, too iconic, too generic.
Speaker 3:Ouch. The court said the Royal Oak was part of the design corpus. Basically, it was already so well known it couldn't be treated as distinctive or new enough to warrant exclusive protection. The legal equivalent of yeah, you invented the trend, but now it's fashion history.
Speaker 1:In Japan, AP took another swing, trying to trademark the shape. The Japan Patent Office and later the IP High Court said nope, the features were too functional or decorative and Japanese consumers apparently don't link the watch shape alone to Audemars Piguet. Same song, different country. Then came the United States. Audemars Piguet tried registering the shape and configuration of the Royal Oak as trade dress, but the USPTO said show us the proof. You need evidence that consumers see that shape as a source identifier, not just a pretty face.
Speaker 3:They couldn't do it, the TT abrogated the application in 2025. Again, too functional, too hard to isolate was distinctive. What's just good watchmaking.
Speaker 1:But in China, a bright spot In 2021,. Ap successfully sued a Shenzhen company that was selling knockoffs under the name Royal One with identical design cues. The court ruled in favor of AP not just on trademark grounds, but also under unfair competition law.
Speaker 3:Finally, China recognized the Royal Oak's overall look as a commodity decoration with influence in the market. The cup cat was fine and the watch was pulled Big win.
Speaker 1:So what does all this mean? It's hard, really hard, to lock down a product's shape under trademark law, especially when that shape becomes beloved, copied or referenced over decades.
Speaker 3:Courts are wary of giving permanent monopoly over forms that others might need to compete. You want protection. File early as the design patent. Don't try to trademark your way into eternity.
Speaker 1:Still AP isn't backing down. They're pursuing enforcement under unfair competition, using brand heritage and design legacy as weapons. But they've learned that IP law doesn't always reward fame.
Speaker 3:Because being iconic doesn't mean being exclusive, at least not in the eyes of the registry.
Speaker 1:So next time you see a Royal Oak or a very convincing tribute, just remember. It may be unmistakable, but not always unprotectable.
Speaker 3:Let's close our case file with a futuristic twist, because in the battle between classic horology and high tech wearables, the legal landscape has moved straight to the heart, literally.
Speaker 1:That's right. Enter AliveCore, a US health tech company known for developing portable electrocardiogram at ECG Tech. And they weren't just making medical gadgets, they had patents, lots of them.
Speaker 3:Then came Apple With the launch of the Apple Watch Series 4 in 2018, it introduced built-in ECG features that let you monitor your heartbeat right from your wrist. Consumers loved it. Alivecore not so much.
Speaker 1:They sued Apple for patent infringement, claiming the Apple Watch's heart monitoring features violated their exclusive rights to the underlying technology and algorithms. But they didn't stop at one court, oh no. Alivecore filed with the US International Trade Commission, ITC, and brought separate lawsuits in federal court.
Speaker 3:The ITC case Wild. In 2022, an administrative law judge actually found that Apple had infringed AliveCore's patents. The ITC moved to issue an exclusion order, meaning Apple watches with ECG features could be banned from being imported into the US.
Speaker 1:Can you imagine one of the most popular wearables in the world potentially pulled off American shelves because of a heart monitoring patent? War?
Speaker 3:But Apple didn't sit still. They filed inter-partners reviews with the US Patent Office challenging the validity of AliveCourse patents. And guess what? In 2023, the patent trial and appeal board, ptab, invalidated several of AliveCourse key patent claims.
Speaker 1:That gave Apple ammunition. They told the ITC, hey, these patents not even valid. And a federal court in California also ruled in Apple's favor, dismissing part of the case and freezing the import ban before it could take effect.
Speaker 3:Meanwhile a live court appeal. So while the IDC said Apple infringed the patent office, and other courts said the patents themselves were shaky, the case became a legal see-saw, bouncing between agencies.
Speaker 1:The result as of 2025, there's no import ban. Apple's ECG feature is still pulsing strong, but the litigation isn't over. It's still beating away in the appellate courts.
Speaker 3:So why does this case matter for the watch world? Because it draws a line between horology and health tech. When your smartwatch starts offering medical functions, you enter a regulated, highly patented space.
Speaker 1:And patents in that space? Oh, they're vicious. One patent can block an entire product line. The stakes are sky high because it's not just about keeping time anymore, it's about keeping you alive.
Speaker 3:Also, this case reminds us that IP battles aren't fought in one arena anymore. You've got district courts, the ITC, the patent office, all dancing to different legal rhythms.
Speaker 1:And don't forget the drama public relations, consumer trust, developer morale when your flagship feature is at risk of disappearing even temporarily.
Speaker 3:You've got a legal and business headache rolled into one, so here's the final tick If you're innovating in the smartwatch or medtech space, you'd better trickle check your freedom to operate and your paperwork, because even giants like Apple can find themselves one heartbeat away from a courtroom crisis Literally, from Rolexes on the bench to Apple watches in courtrooms. We've covered a lot of legal ground today, but if you've been timing us, then we know some of you have.
Speaker 1:Let's stop the cloud right here and break it all down Because, no matter how shiny the case or iconic the dial, at the heart of it all is strategy, and five core legal principles kept popping up like a tourbillon on overdrive kept popping up like a tourbillon on overdrive.
Speaker 3:So here they are, our five most timeless legal takeaways. Takeaway one trademark law protects more than logos. It's not just about names or crowns or word marks. Trademarks protect the identity and impression a product gives before, during and after the sale.
Speaker 1:That means if you're modifying, reselling or remixing a luxury watch, you're wording better match reality. Genuine isn't a vibe, it's a legal claim.
Speaker 3:Takeaway two shape is not enough. Audemars Piguet found this out the long hard way. Courts around the world told them your watch may be iconic, but it doesn't mean your design is distinctive enough for a trademark, especially if it's functional.
Speaker 1:Form must follow function, but if function swallows the form, kiss your trademark dreams goodbye. That's why early design patent filings are a brand's best friend.
Speaker 3:Takeaway three If you wait too long, the law might not wait for you. Rolex Visbecker time was the ultimate reminder. Enforcement delays can cost you money, even if you're right.
Speaker 1:It's the polite, legal way of saying should have spoken up sooner, sweetie.
Speaker 3:Takeaway. Four Platforms are not off the hook. Samsung learned that the hard way Posting infringing apps or ignoring takedown warnings makes you liable. We didn't know. Doesn't cut it if you're making money.
Speaker 1:Digital infringement is real infringement. Watch face fakes, still fakes.
Speaker 3:Takeaway bi-tech is a legal minefield. Protect your patents or prepare to defend your turf Alive. Core v Apple wasn't just about ECGs. It showed how competitive and litigious the smartware space has become.
Speaker 1:If your feature might save lives, there's probably someone out there with a patent on it. Innovate smart and file smarter.
Speaker 3:So what did we learn today? Listeners Watches aren't just accessories, they're status symbols. Engineering fits digital health companions and, most importantly, legal battlegrounds. Ip defines who owns the design, the function, the face and sometimes even the tick.
Speaker 1:And while time may be, universal brand protection definitely is not. You need the right filings, the right timing and the right legal arguments to survive in this world.
Speaker 3:Remember, we're just your AI co-hosts. The real Leticia, the one living in Switzerland surrounded by precision and fondue, is the brilliant mind behind Intangiblia. She built this podcast to explore the intersection of law, creativity and the future.
Speaker 1:And speaking of the future, new episodes drop every Tuesday in English and Spanish. Tuesday in English and Spanish. So, whether you're rocking a Casio, a Cartier or a custom smart band, just know that behind every dial lies a drama.
Speaker 3:Thanks for listening. Until next time. Protect your ideas, watch your rights and never let the legal plug run out on your brilliant Thank you for listening to Intangiblia, the podcast of intangible law playing.
Speaker 2:talk about intellectual property. Did you like what we talked today? Please share with your network. Do you want to learn more about intellectual property? Subscribe now on your favorite podcast player. Follow us on Instagram, facebook, linkedin and Twitter. Visit our website wwwintangibliacom. Copyright Leticia Caminero 2020. All rights reserved. This podcast is provided for information purposes only.