Watch counterfeiting – A precise and technical pleading (Part 8)

Observers of the watchmaking world and Rolex enthusiasts will have noticed a few inaccuracies and risky statements made by Maître Thibault Lachacinski during his closing argument on behalf of his clients, Rolex SA and Rolex France. We can hardly hold this against him, given how technical the subject is, both from a horological standpoint and from the standpoint of how counterfeiting procedure is structured.

There is, however, one lawyer who made a strong impression with a closing argument brilliant in its precision and technical mastery: Maître Romain Boulet. His involvement in the trial was exemplary, as he was the only lawyer we can attest to attending every session, while all the others only came in for their own portions. Regrettable!

Here are a few selected excerpts from his highly eloquent closing argument on behalf of his clients Audemars Piguet, Chanel, Omega, Patek Philippe, and Richard Mille.

“This case is a historic first, allowing a comprehensive view of the scourge of counterfeiting. We owe this to the Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry (FH), even ahead of the investigators from the Judicial Investigation Service for Finance (Customs). The FH drew up a highly comprehensive report that was submitted to the case file. This illustrates how concerned the brands are to curb this trafficking. Your ruling (he is addressing the Court, Ed.) will be scrutinised and valued by the civil parties. And if the FH was able to gather this mass of data, it is because the harm is colossal.”

“We are not here to defend ‘Swiss Made’ or the profits of Swiss manufacturers, but when you see the organisation on the other side, what we are up against is the counterfeiting industry itself. This is not a matter of crude counterfeits, but of ‘fine craftsmanship’. It goes as far as assembling genuine parts to sell a product as authentic. And we have seen weapons, and there have been threats made against watchmaking staff. So we are not dealing with nice young men who admit to the facts.”

“My clients’ reputation and excellence are being called into question. It should be noted that counterfeit jewellery and watches represent a market of €1.9 billion in the European Union, or 13% of trade and 15,000 jobs, according to a report by the Ministry of the Economy and Finance dating from 2018. (The results of the latest report had not yet been published when the lawyer worked on the subject, Ed.)”

“Regarding the calculation method we chose, we felt it fairer to target the defendants’ profits. Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights allows for this. And the Paris Court of Appeal guides us through a “step-by-step” handbook.”

“There is material harm and there is moral harm. Julien V. said he earned €3 million. Florian R. earned less. But as criminal lawyers, we will seek joint liability from both defendants. As for the number of watches sold, there were 12,000 according to Julien V.’s statements. But in public he spoke of ‘thousands upon thousands’. 12,000 being, in my view, a minimum. I represent 5 brands, which, by my calculations, works out to 300 watches per brand on average, given that Rolex accounts for 80% of the harm. With an average profit of €400 per watch, we arrive at €120,000 in profit per brand concerned.”

“Given that advertising and sponsorship expenses represent, on average, 10% of brands’ turnover in watchmaking, I am asking for an additional €30,000 to be added to the €120,000 for material harm. That makes a total of €150,000 per brand and an overall total for material harm of €750,000.”

“For the moral harm component, I will follow the examples and criteria set out by the Court of Appeal. There are six of them, and we find all of them in our case. The image of the brands I represent has been built up over years. Through me, James Bond is also pleading. So are Serena Williams and Michael Phelps… I would have appreciated it if ‘Natacha Deglingue’ or ‘Tony 77’ (nicknames of Julien V.’s clients, Ed.) had worn the genuine article. But please note carefully that this is not contempt for these people, nor class contempt. We will therefore be seeking €80,000 in moral harm for each of the brands. That comes to a total of €400,000.”

“We are not naive. We know that others have already taken their place. We also know that the sentence itself is not what will deter other counterfeiters. But we are thinking of the customers of our brands and of the victims who were customers of the counterfeiters. So, in addition, under Article 131-35 of the Criminal Code, we are requesting publication in a general-interest newspaper such as Le Figaro, and in the specialist press such as Montres Magazine. And we are requesting publication on the social media accounts of the defendants who are still active.”

Finally came the last closing argument, that of Maître Jean-Sébastien Mariez, for the brands Hublot and Fred Paris.

“I can adopt my colleagues’ conclusions as my own. We detected the counterfeiting through an operation carried out by a Commissaire de Justice (judicial officer) whom we had instructed to make a covert purchase of a watch offered by Julien V. My clients’ harm concerns 300 Hublot watches and 78 Fred Paris pieces of jewellery. We are seeking €70,400 for the Hublot brand in material harm, to which we add a flat-rate €40,000 for moral harm. That comes to a total of €110,400. For Fred Paris it is €83,600 in material harm and a flat-rate €40,000 in moral harm. That comes to a total of €123,600. And we too are requesting a publication order in the general and specialist press.”

As Customs were not present at this hearing, it was closed by the Presiding Judge. It is therefore time for us to give you a summary of the amounts sought by all the civil parties:

• Rolex SA and Rolex France: €7,380,000 in material harm and €4 million in moral harm.
• Audemars Piguet, Chanel, Omega, Patek Philippe, and Richard Mille: €750,000 in material harm and €400,000 in moral harm.
• Hublot and Fred Paris: €154,000 in material harm and €80,000 in moral harm.
• That is an overall total of €8,284,000 + €4,480,000 = €12,764,000 combined, sought by the civil parties from the two defendants.

In our next article, you will find the conclusions of the Customs prosecuting officer and the submissions of the public prosecution (Parquet).

Frequently asked questions