Ministers & counterfeiting
Discussion
News article here.
www.managingip.com/default.asp?page=9&PubID=198&SID=617973&ISS=21503&LS=EMS66903
Minister admits to owning and sporting a fake watch. I thought that HM Customs had power (and a duty) to seize any counterfeit goods (try telling Customs at an airpot that you are bringing in a fake!).
Vote -
Will HM Customs act and seize the fake
Will a Government minister do "the right thing" and hand it over?
www.managingip.com/default.asp?page=9&PubID=198&SID=617973&ISS=21503&LS=EMS66903
Minister admits to owning and sporting a fake watch. I thought that HM Customs had power (and a duty) to seize any counterfeit goods (try telling Customs at an airpot that you are bringing in a fake!).
Vote -
Will HM Customs act and seize the fake
Will a Government minister do "the right thing" and hand it over?
esselte said:
More fool the person who wears the fake watch.It must be bad enough getting mugged and having a real Gucci,Rolex etc stolen,but to be beaten up for a £5 fake.........
Equally however it can hardly be believed that the sale of counterfeit watches is in any way detrimental to the makers of the real article, people who buy the fakes are never going to be in the market for the real thing.
Einion Yrth said:
Equally however it can hardly be believed that the sale of counterfeit watches is in any way detrimental to the makers of the real article, people who buy the fakes are never going to be in the market for the real thing.
Devils advocate: It could be seen as detrimental as it dilutes the market, if everyone had a fake roller then it devalues the novelty of having a proper one.
scorp said:
Devils advocate: It could be seen as detrimental as it dilutes the market, if everyone had a fake roller then it devalues the novelty of having a proper one.
Except we already have a legit market for kit cars that look like something a whole lot more expensive...
And in general, is owning the real thing, whether it be a car, a watch, perfume etc, more about the exclusiveness or more about the quality? Would people buy a real Roller if it was uber-exclusive but total crap to drive/be driven around in?
Eliminator said:
Kit cars are different. You don't get a kit for the latest design. The design right expires after 15 years and anyone can copy the shape. Still cannot add the Brand badge (though perhaps those building the kit car might do).
The fake Rolex are of the models available today.
Umm, how do you explain the F355 MR2s then?
Edited to add, AFAIK it is only illegal if it is sold as the 'real' thing, advertising and selling watches that 'resemble Rolex' is not illegal. Don't forget all Rolex have a unique ID number, the fakes do not, therefore it is easy to tell the fake.
>> Edited by F348 on Tuesday 7th March 16:06
twister said:It might be about financial exclusiveness for some (the children), but for most it's because they want to be different, which is perfectly reasonable.
And in general, is owning the real thing, whether it be a car, a watch, perfume etc, more about the exclusiveness or more about the quality? Would people buy a real Roller if it was uber-exclusive but total crap to drive/be driven around in?
If, for example, you took a lot of time to design a tattoo and had it done on yourself, then a month later the tattoo shop had put yours on everyone in town, you probably wouldn't be too pleased.
There are different rights. Design right and brand (tradename / mark) exist with the kit car. Only breach trademark / name if you try to call it / disguise it as the real thing.
Typically a kit of a model still under design right protection has slight changes so that it looks like the intended but is not in breach of design right.
See www.patent.gov.uk/ for design rigt law / practice
Typically a kit of a model still under design right protection has slight changes so that it looks like the intended but is not in breach of design right.
See www.patent.gov.uk/ for design rigt law / practice
twister said:
Devils advocate: It could be seen as detrimental as it dilutes the market, if everyone had a fake roller then it devalues the novelty of having a proper one.
Except we already have a legit market for kit cars that look like something a whole lot more expensive...
And in general, is owning the real thing, whether it be a car, a watch, perfume etc, more about the exclusiveness or more about the quality? Would people buy a real Roller if it was uber-exclusive but total crap to drive/be driven around in?
My point is, manufacturers of the original items won't appreciate the market being flooded with cheap lookalikes, this is (one of the reasons) why we have trademark, copyright, patent, etc laws.
Eliminator said:
News article here.
www.managingip.com/default.asp?page=9&PubID=198&SID=617973&ISS=21503&LS=EMS66903
Minister admits to owning and sporting a fake watch. I thought that HM Customs had power (and a duty) to seize any counterfeit goods (try telling Customs at an airpot that you are bringing in a fake!).
Vote -
Will HM Customs act and seize the fake
Will a Government minister do "the right thing" and hand it over?
A guy was jailed recently in Belgium for wearing a fake Rolex.
You would be led to believe that Fake DVD's fund terrorism so I'm sure you could argue that the fake watch market does the same. Or am I being a victim of spin here?
I have a genuine Tag and a fake one so you can't really say that these are mutually exclusive. Interestingly, the fake one hasn't fallen to bits like the real one!
Scott
I have a genuine Tag and a fake one so you can't really say that these are mutually exclusive. Interestingly, the fake one hasn't fallen to bits like the real one!
Scott
Did anyone see the Money Programme this week about Umbro England shirts? They have paid the FA something to the tune of £180m for the rights to produce the kit, so obviously have to charge £50 for a shirt to get their money back. Cue some geezer employed specifically to shaft the counterfeiters.
My view is this - if the FA charged less for the rights, but capped the maximum retail price of the kit, everyone wins - less counterfeiters, more people able to buy the legit kit. Alright, less bunce to plough into 'grass roots' football but with cheaper kits, kids will have more money to spend on, er... watching and playing football.
That's the gamble of maintaining a premium brand - make the price high enough to keep the brand in position, but not too high that you flood the market with fakes 'cos your prices are so high. Look at Burbery!
My view is this - if the FA charged less for the rights, but capped the maximum retail price of the kit, everyone wins - less counterfeiters, more people able to buy the legit kit. Alright, less bunce to plough into 'grass roots' football but with cheaper kits, kids will have more money to spend on, er... watching and playing football.
That's the gamble of maintaining a premium brand - make the price high enough to keep the brand in position, but not too high that you flood the market with fakes 'cos your prices are so high. Look at Burbery!
esselte said:
More fool the person who wears the fake watch.It must be bad enough getting mugged and having a real Gucci,Rolex etc stolen,but to be beaten up for a £5 fake.........
Why would you be beaten up? If I had a fake £5 watch, and someone wanted to mug me for it, I'd say:
"Sure you can have it, here you are!"
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff