A copy that fails to tick: Success for Rolex in trademark infringement dispute

In June 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled in favour of luxury watchmaker Rolex in a longstanding dispute with Pinel et Pinel over its watch winders, which reproduced the appearance of Rolex bezels and used the references ‘GMT’, ‘SUB’, ‘DT’ and ‘XP’. In its ruling, the Court found Pinel liable for unfair competition, misleading commercial practices and parasitism, as Florence Chapin explains. 

In Rolex SA v Pinel & Pinel (RG 24/00808), the Paris Court of Appeal ruled in favour of luxury watchmaker Rolex, finding that Pinel’s use of the abbreviations ‘GMT’, ‘SUB’, ‘DT’ and ‘XP’ to designate different winder models would likely cause confusion among the relevant public 

Background to the Rolex trademark infringement case 

In 2019, luxury leather goods company Pinel et Pinel (Pinel & Pinel) designed and marketed automatic watch winders under the name Twin, the bezels of which reproduced the appearance of Rolex watch bezels (GMT-Master, Submariner, Daytona and Explorer II). The products were presented to the public using the references ‘GMT’, ‘SUB’, ‘DT’ and ‘XP’. Rolex (comprising Rolex SA and Rolex France) brought an action for unfair competition, misleading commercial practices and parasitism. At first instance (Commercial Court of Paris, 2 October 2023), Rolex’s claims were dismissed, and Rolex France was instead held liable for disparagement. 

Rolex appealed, seeking the recognition of acts of unfair competition and parasitism, together with an injunction prohibiting the marketing of the disputed watch winders and ordering the destruction of all stock. Pinel et Pinel sought confirmation of the dismissal of Rolex’s claims and an increase in the damages awarded against Rolex France for disparagement.  

Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal almost entirely overturned the lower court’s judgment and held Pinel et Pinel liable for unfair competition, misleading commercial practices and parasitism, on the basis of its reproduction of the distinctive visual features of the Rolex bezels and its use of explicit references (‘GMT’, ‘SUB’, ‘DT’ and ‘XP’). Such use was deemed capable of misappropriating the individualised economic value attached to the reputation of Rolex models and of suggesting, in the eyes of the public, a licensing or co-branding relationship with Rolex.  

This aspect was central to the court’s reasoning, as the use of the abbreviations ‘GMT’, ‘SUB’, ‘DT’ and ‘XP’ to designate different winder models was found likely to cause confusion among the relevant public. Consumers could reasonably believe that the winders were approved by Rolex or designed specifically for Rolex watches.  

For the court, this was not merely suggestive marketing, but a deliberate attempt to benefit from the prestige and renown of the Rolex model names, which have become synonymous with entire categories of watches after decades of marketing and market presence. The Court of Appeal also dismissed any claim against Rolex for disparagement. The email sent by Rolex France to distributors in July 2019 – which was factual and measured – merely recalled the absence of any agreement with Pinel et Pinel and did not amount to disparagement. 

That email read as follows: “Our attention has been drawn to watch winders for automatic watches conceived, manufactured, offered for sale and marketed by Pinel & Pinel, which refer to the bezel of Rolex models. Pinel & Pinel may falsely lead one to believe that the winders it manufactures have been authorised by the Rolex company, under a licence agreement or even a co-branding arrangement, which we refute. To avoid any misunderstanding, we would prefer these winders not to be associated with the Rolex brand, and we would be grateful for your support in this matter.” 

The court considered that the email was based on sufficient factual grounds, since it was established that the bezels of the winders did in fact evoke Rolex watch bezels. The wording was measured, as it did not formally allege that Pinel et Pinel had committed unfair competition, parasitism or misleading practices. Rather, it simply informed distributors in general terms that Rolex France had not entered into any agreement with Pinel & Pinel concerning the marketing of these products, and invited them not to present the winders as being connected to Rolex watches.  

Remedies  

As a result, Pinel & Pinel was ordered to pay €75,000 in damages to Rolex SA and Rolex France, as well as €30,000 under Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure. The court further prohibited the promotion and sale of any winders reproducing the features of Rolex bezels or using the references ‘GMT’, ‘SUB’, ‘DT’ and ‘XP’, subject to a penalty of €1,000 per infringement, enforceable two months after service of the judgment, for a period of six months. By contrast, the requests for destruction of stock and judicial publication were rejected. 

Takeaways from the Rolex trademark infringement ruling 

The Paris Court of Appeal considered that the disputed winders did not fall within the usual design repertoire of the watchmaking sector – nor did they fall within Pinel et Pinel’s own creative choices. Rather, they amounted to an appropriation of Rolex’s brand codes, enabling Pinel to unduly profit from Rolex’s reputation, thereby exceeding the tolerable limits of competition. Of particular interest is the court’s finding that abbreviated references such as ‘GMT’ and ‘SUB’ may constitute protected and enforceable signs.  

Florence Chapin is a French and European Trademark Attorney based at Novagraaf in Bordeaux.  

This article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in September 2025. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.