Rolex’s Latest Lawsuit Tests the Boundaries of the Secondary Market
Rolex is once again in court, but this time the fight isn’t with a customization atelier. Instead, it’s with resellers accused of marketing altered watches as “100% genuine” Rolexes. The case could shape how far the brand can go in drawing legal boundaries around the secondary market.
The Background
Image Source: IISG
According to Rolex’s complaint, the three resellers ran e-commerce storefronts and used platforms like Chrono24 and eBay to sell pre-owned Rolex watches that were advertised as “100% genuine.” But when Rolex investigators bought from them, they say the watches weren’t fully authentic. Some contained aftermarket parts, others had altered engravings or imitation dials bearing the crown logo. Rolex also singled out First Class Dials for allegedly manufacturing fake dials outright.
Rolex argues this kind of activity undermines its quality control and risks confusing buyers into thinking they’re getting an untouched, factory-original product. The brand is asking for damages, the destruction of infringing goods, and an injunction to stop further sales.
The Defendants’ Pushback
Image Source: Reddit u/Dunder-MifflinPaper
In their response, the defendants denied Rolex’s allegations and put forward two notable defenses.
First, they accused Rolex of trademark misuse, saying the brand is using its intellectual property not just to prevent counterfeiting but to control resale and suppress lawful competition. That’s essentially an antitrust argument — Rolex’s market control framed as an unlawful restraint of trade.
Second, they claimed there was no consumer confusion because their listings included disclaimers that made it clear they weren’t affiliated with Rolex and that some watches had aftermarket parts. Since confusion is the linchpin of trademark infringement, if the court agrees that the disclaimers were enough, Rolex’s claims could weaken.
Still, it’s tougher to make that antitrust argument with a straight face when the products in question were allegedly being passed off as fully authentic Rolex watches.
How This Differs From the Atelier Cases
It’s worth contrasting this case with Rolex’s recent wins against Artisans de Genève and Skeleton Concept. In those disputes, customization was the whole selling point: consumers knew they were buying modified Daytonas, skeletonized dials, or heavily reworked cases. The legal issue was how far an atelier could go in rebranding customized watches while still leaning on Rolex’s trademarks.
Here, the alleged modifications were hidden. These weren’t being marketed as aftermarket projects — they were being sold as untouched, genuine Rolex watches. That’s an important distinction. Rolex would say both are equally confusing, but for collectors and courts alike, the situations feel very different.
The Bigger Picture
This lawsuit is about more than three resellers. It’s about Rolex testing how far it can go in policing the secondary market. By taking action, Rolex reinforces the perception that the safest place to buy is from an authorized retailer or through its Certified Pre-Owned program. That may not be the stated goal, but it’s a practical outcome.
Counterfeiting and deceptive resale practices are growing problems for Rolex, and cases like this establish new boundaries for what the brand can — and can’t — enforce. Even if Rolex doesn’t win every claim, the process itself helps mark territory.
Final Thoughts
For collectors, the case highlights the risks of buying from unverified online sellers who market their watches as “100% genuine” without the trust to back it up. It also raises a bigger question: should Rolex be able to police resale this closely, or should the secondary market remain freer, even if that means some buyers take on more risk?
What do you think — is Rolex drawing a necessary line here, or reaching too far into the aftermarket?
Leave a comment