Published: July 29, 2025 | By TFL
In a landmark ruling that may reshape how luxury brands protect their image, the Paris Court of Appeal has ruled in favor of Rolex in a legal dispute against French luxury trunk maker Pinel & Pinel. At the heart of the case were Pinel & Pinel’s watch winders, which the court found were improperly leveraging Rolex’s iconic branding and trademarked identity—despite Rolex not producing watch winders itself.
🔑 Key Highlights:
- Rolex won its unfair competition case against Pinel & Pinel in the Paris Court of Appeal.
- The court found that Pinel & Pinel’s watch winders misused Rolex’s reputation and model abbreviations.
- Rolex was awarded €75,000 in damages and the court banned further sales of the infringing products.
Background: How the Legal Dispute Began
In 2024, Rolex filed a lawsuit against Pinel & Pinel, accusing them of unfair and parasitic competition. The issue stemmed from Pinel & Pinel launching a line of luxury watch winders—mechanical devices used to keep automatic watches running—that featured branding elements strongly associated with Rolex.
While Rolex itself does not manufacture or sell watch winders, the court noted that the design language, color schemes, and model names used by Pinel & Pinel bore an uncanny resemblance to Rolex’s famous timepieces. These included model codes like “GMT,” “SUB,” “DT,” and “XP,” which clearly mirrored Rolex’s GMT-Master, Submariner, Daytona, and Explorer series.
Court Verdict: Branding Exploitation Confirmed
The Paris Court of Appeal declared on June 20 that Pinel & Pinel’s watch winders did not stem from original or industry-standard designs, but rather appeared to mimic Rolex’s unique style. The court emphasized that this was not simply inspiration but a deliberate attempt to capitalize on Rolex’s global prestige—without contributing any genuine creativity or brand identity of their own.
The court concluded that this behavior amounted to parasitic competition, where a company benefits from another’s brand equity without investing in its own. Consumers might mistakenly assume the winders were endorsed by Rolex or specifically tailored for its watches.
Why the Abbreviations Mattered
One of the most pivotal points in the ruling was the use of abbreviations like “GMT” and “SUB” on Pinel & Pinel’s products. Though these may appear generic to outsiders, they are deeply associated with Rolex’s heritage and product lines. The court found that their usage was likely to confuse customers and create a false association between the two brands.
Even though Rolex does not produce winders, the court awarded a €75,000 lump-sum compensation to cover reputational harm and banned Pinel & Pinel from selling the disputed products. Importantly, the court dismissed a counterclaim from Pinel & Pinel alleging defamation, stating that Rolex’s correspondence to its distributors was accurate and justified.
Broader Implications for the Luxury Market
This ruling sends a strong message across the luxury industry: just hinting at a luxury brand’s identity can land a company in legal trouble. European courts, especially in France, are showing increasing willingness to protect luxury brands not just within their own product categories but even in adjacent markets.
This means that even if a brand doesn’t make a certain type of product—like Rolex not making watch winders—it can still enforce its brand rights if another company tries to exploit its image and heritage.
Additionally, the court’s stance on abbreviated branding is particularly relevant in today’s market, where shorthand product names and codes are common. These abbreviations, when tied to iconic models, can become protected brand identifiers, not just casual labels.
Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call for Accessory Brands
The outcome of Rolex vs. Pinel & Pinel has far-reaching consequences. Accessory makers, especially those in luxury-adjacent spaces, must tread carefully. Simply borrowing visual cues or familiar names from established brands can be seen as parasitic and legally punishable.
As courts increasingly view brand identity as an intangible asset, companies looking to enter the high-end market must ensure their designs and marketing do not blur the lines between homage and infringement.