Legal Opinion

Rolex Watch, U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 3, 1999No. 97-55877PublishedCited by 50 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:

Micha Mottale, doing business as Michel Co. (“Mottale”), reconditions used Rolex watches with parts that are not provided or authorized by Rolex Watch, U.S.A., Inc. (“Rolex”), and sells the altered watches, as well as generic replacement parts fitting Rolex watches, to jewelry dealers and selected retail jewelers. In addition, Mottale provides the service of specially reconditioning used Rolex watches. The district court held that Mottale’s retention of the original Rolex trademarks on the altered “Rolex” watches that he sells constituted trademark counterfeiting under…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Pullman-Standard v. SwintSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Champion Spark Plug Co. v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  4. Prestonettes, Inc. v. CotySupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  5. Walters v. RenoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by50 opinions

  1. Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. QuattrocchiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
  2. Moroccanoil, Inc. v. Allstate Beauty Products, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2012
  3. Perfumebay. Com Inc. v. eBay, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
  4. Humetrix, Inc. v. Gemplus S.C.A.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  5. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc. v. a & E OIL, INC.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007

45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API