Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
trailboss99

US Customs in bed with Rolex?

Recommended Posts

trailboss99

Comment by CBR in a thread at RWI:

ALSO, be aware that importing even GENUINE Rolex watches is illegal. Im not sure if illegal is the word, but US CUSTOMS CAN AND MOST LIKELY WILL confiscate the watch if they get ahold of it. In order to import a genuine Rolex, it must be done through a US based Rolex dealer.

 

Aperantly this is correct! My horrified reply:

WTF???????? How in heavens name do they get away with that piece of cr*p? It's a gen, no copy right issues, you own it and (presumably) purchased it in a legit mannor. Who the hell do Rolex think they are and how/why does the Land of the Free let them get away with that?????? Do you guys have any rights any more? I would love to know what piece of law they think they can do that under. That stinks! Realy. I very much doubt it would stand up in court and am appaled that US Customs are involving themselvs with such an blatent infringment of your basic rights. Appaling.

 

Realy, that shocks the shit out of me. Who runs the country anyway? A damn pack of Swiss barristers?

John, any idea under what possible law this could happen?

 

 

Col.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AustinTech

I really don't think that is true. Or if it is true, that it would actually be in practice. It makes no sense. You aren't leasing the watch, Rolex should have zero rights to the watch after it is purchased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trailboss99

Again from CBR:

I cannot find it again on the US Customs page, but several months ago this was discussed and I posted a copy/paste of an article from the customs website.

I do not recall any differentiation between new and pre-owned. And with a quick google search, I found several discussions and none stated that the law only effected NEW watches.

I recall it being ALL Rolex watches.

 

But it just can't be so! Shurly?

 

 

Col.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnG

I think that is bullshit but I will check it out. I recall that Rolex prohibits their dealers from exporting from one market to another, but they cannot prohibit you from transporting a watch once you own it. I don't believe it for a minute. I think this is a case of somebody is confusing one thing with another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnG

Okay, it is SOMEWHAT true - you cannot purchase overseas and have them imported. If it was yours to begin with, no problem (you might be forced to prove this).

 

The Rolex trademark recordation with Customs indicates "Import of Goods Bearing Genuine Trademarks or Trade Names Restricted." This means that genuine Rolex products can only be imported with the permission of the trademark owner, Rolex Watch U.S.A. Inc. A private individual can hand carry one Rolex watch from a trip overseas without obtaining permission. Bring in more than one, and they will all be seized as a trademark violation. Purchasing a Rolex from overseas by mail is also a trademark violation.

 

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/Fe...r/christmas.xml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeyB
I think that is bullshit but I will check it out. I recall that Rolex prohibits their dealers from exporting from one market to another, but they cannot prohibit you from transporting a watch once you own it. I don't believe it for a minute. I think this is a case of somebody is confusing one thing with another.

I know for certain that the Authorized Rolex Dealer in Waikiki offered to sell me a watch, pay for it there and ship it to Chicago saving me the sales tax. It's not import/export, but that is one market to another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trailboss99
Okay, it is SOMEWHAT true - you cannot purchase overseas and have them imported. If it was yours to begin with, no problem (you might be forced to prove this).

 

The Rolex trademark recordation with Customs indicates "Import of Goods Bearing Genuine Trademarks or Trade Names Restricted." This means that genuine Rolex products can only be imported with the permission of the trademark owner, Rolex Watch U.S.A. Inc. A private individual can hand carry one Rolex watch from a trip overseas without obtaining permission. Bring in more than one, and they will all be seized as a trademark violation. Purchasing a Rolex from overseas by mail is also a trademark violation.

 

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/Fe...r/christmas.xml

 

Well bugger me, that sucks big time. What a violation of your basic rights! Rolex realy are a pack of knobends. Free trade realy is a one way afair ain't it? Wonder how many ebayers have been caught out?

 

Col.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnG
What a violation of your basic rights! Rolex realy are a pack of knobends.

 

I agree they are knobends, but it isn't really a violation of any right. I consider basic rights to be freedom of expression, freedom from detention without due process of law, freedom of movement, procreation, and a few others. But "right to buy a Rolex for cheap from an internet seller and have it imported into the United States"? Haven't heard of that one.

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member X

It's a good one though, it needs to go in with the rest of the ones you mentioned ;) lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AustinTech
What a violation of your basic rights! Rolex realy are a pack of knobends.

 

I agree they are knobends, but it isn't really a violation of any right. I consider basic rights to be freedom of expression, freedom from detention without due process of law, freedom of movement, procreation, and a few others. But "right to buy a Rolex for cheap from an internet seller and have it imported into the United States"? Haven't heard of that one.

 

:D

 

You don't consider ownership of personal property a right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnG
What a violation of your basic rights! Rolex realy are a pack of knobends.

 

I agree they are knobends, but it isn't really a violation of any right. I consider basic rights to be freedom of expression, freedom from detention without due process of law, freedom of movement, procreation, and a few others. But "right to buy a Rolex for cheap from an internet seller and have it imported into the United States"? Haven't heard of that one.

 

:D

 

You don't consider ownership of personal property a right?

It is not actually defined as such in most legal texts and the Constitution does not mention any such right, except that you may not be deprived of property without due process of law. But the government can and does regulate the ownership of property in a way that it cannot restrict fundamental rights. You can buy land but not the right to restrict the airspace above it. Or to remove the minerals below it. Or to drain a swamp on it. You can buy a house but not the right to expand it to any size you wish. Or to paint it any color you want. Or to destroy or even change it, if it is of historical interest. You can buy a car but not the right to drive it in any condition you wish. The government may TAKE your property (though it must compensate you) if it needs to to promote the public good (without such powers there would be no highways).

 

Likewise, the seller of goods may sell you any of a number of interests in property, without selling them ALL. You can buy a book but you do not buy the right to copy the book and distribute it for profit. You can buy a piece of land and the seller may retain, and donate to a land trust, the right to develop the land. So, it does not surprise me that Rolex does not sell, with their watches, the right purchase them in other markets for import to yours, in order to save money. There is nothing about this that is offensive to the nature of property "rights."

 

So while there are "property rights" the actual concept of property ownership, in jurisprudence, is better likened to a priviledge.

 

I will also say that the Australian legal system, like that of the U.S., is based on the English system and the concepts of property there are very similar to those in other common-law jurisdictions. It is likely that Australia has the same or similar restrictions on the importation of Rolexes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member X

Great post, John.

 

I bow to your greater knowledge :morebeer: and thank you for putting it into plain english :wub: lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trailboss99

Nope, as I said earlier, we canned our paralell import laws some time back. Here you are free to import, whether for trade or personal use any item that you may legaly posses and/or sell as the case may be. Just as it should be. If I could find a source of Rolex watches over seas I am quite withing both my rights and the law to sell them. Rolex obviously are not going to honor any warrenty and may welll refuse to even service or supply parts for them but that's another matter.

 

The issue here however goes even further than the grey market. It prevents a person buying a product from OS for his or her own use and bringing it into his home country. While I can understand preventing import for resale this prevention of import for personal use of a perfectly legal product is bullshit and an impost on the good folk of the USofA on behalf of a forign company and IMHO it stinks.

 

 

 

Col.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
greg_r

+1 to everything Col said. This sort of restriction is illegal in most of the EU too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnG
Nope, as I said earlier, we canned our paralell import laws some time back. Here you are free to import, whether for trade or personal use any item that you may legaly posses and/or sell as the case may be. Just as it should be. If I could find a source of Rolex watches over seas I am quite withing both my rights and the law to sell them. Rolex obviously are not going to honor any warrenty and may welll refuse to even service or supply parts for them but that's another matter.

 

The issue here however goes even further than the grey market. It prevents a person buying a product from OS for his or her own use and bringing it into his home country. While I can understand preventing import for resale this prevention of import for personal use of a perfectly legal product is bullshit and an impost on the good folk of the USofA on behalf of a forign company and IMHO it stinks.

 

 

 

Col.

 

 

From Australian Customs:

 

What can I do to protect Intellectual Property?

 

To protect trade marks, copyright material or

protected expressions from counterfeit,

pirated or unauthorised importation, the owner, or in

some cases an authorised user, must have a Notice

of Objection in place with Customs.

 

There is a notice of objection on file for Rolex....

 

This language suggest to me that the owner of a trademark may designate who is authorised to import goods bearing the trademark....

 

 

http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=5369

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AustinTech

John is ON THAT SHIT!

 

Thx for the info. I see what you are saying about property rights, but there is one difference between what you are saying and the Rolex situation. What you are saying is correct, the government can restrict certain aspects of your property ownership - like you can own a gun, but not fire it within city limits, etc. But in the Rolex situation you have the government restricting your property rights on behalf of another entity (Rolex). That would be pretty shitty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnG
John is ON THAT SHIT!

 

Thx for the info. I see what you are saying about property rights, but there is one difference between what you are saying and the Rolex situation. What you are saying is correct, the government can restrict certain aspects of your property ownership - like you can own a gun, but not fire it within city limits, etc. But in the Rolex situation you have the government restricting your property rights on behalf of another entity (Rolex). That would be pretty shitty.

But it could be said that Rolex is simply selling you rights in the watch which DON'T include the right to export to other markets, therefore the person selling to you over the internet from another market is exercising a right they don't actually have.

 

In property law there is also a concept called a "reversionary interest" - basically I can sell you a house and say you can live there as long as you want but if you stop living there, right of posession reverts to me. You can create a reversionary interest when you sell something, almost anything, under English common law. I could sell you a Parnis and say, I sell you the right to possess this watch until such time as you get a scratch in the crystal, if you scratch it, ownership reverts to me. I have sold you PART of the watch really, not total ownership. I suspect this is what Rolex does, and I suspect it is all laid out in the ownership agreement when posession is transferred from Rolex Montres to the dealer. And likewise to the first owner. And if that is true, then even if the papers are missing, the restriction still holds true (unless both ends of the transfer occur in jurisdictions where such restrictions are illegal or against public policy). That is to say, you cannot sell more rights that you have. Hence, if you buy stolen property, even if you don't know it is stolen, you never actually own it, because the seller had NO rights in the property to begin with and therefore transferred to you exactly nothing.

 

Anyway, I agree it is bullshit but I also like the idea of divided interests in property. In the U.S. you can sell land without the right to develop it, something that is not possible here in Spain. Then ownership of development rights may be trasnferred to land trusts that exist only to hold and guard these rights so that certain tracts of land can never be developed, and that is fantastic, but then you get companies like Rolex who use the law to micromanage their markets to squeeze every last cent out of the consumer....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×