The Vortic Miltary Edition The Vortic Vo1rtic Militarym
Edition Edition current Hamilton catalog , it is easy to see that — despite being entirely a Swiss company for nearly half a century — Hamilton is deeply reliant on that American heritage .
But Hamilton ’ s reliance on the American heritage of the brand is not a conclusive argument that Vortic Watches is in the wrong here . Much of what mattered is whether the U . S . Federal judge overseeing the case would decide whether Vortic is in any way misleading its customers .
As one starts to investigate the relevant U . S . legal precedents , we wind up on a sinuous path that digs up Rolex Watch , U . S . A ., Inc . v . Michel Co , in which Rolex sued for trademark counterfeit based on Michel Co . having refurbished older Rolex watches using unmarked non-Rolex parts .
This was a minor win for Rolex in which the judge demanded that the non-Rolex parts be marked as such , and that receipts indicate that non-Rolex parts were used , so as not to confuse customers . That case was a significant reference in another case that seems to be highly relevant to Hamilton International Ltd . v . Vortic LLC — a case involving golf balls .
In the 2003 case of Nitro Leisure Products v . Acushnet Company , Acushnet sued Nitro for selling used and refurbished golf balls from Acushnet ’ s various brands , including Titlist and Pinnacle .
Significantly , both the used and refurbished balls carried the original trademarks . The judge ruled that , as long as it was clear to consumers that these were either used and / or refurbished balls , selling them with the original trademark was fair game because the used and refurbished balls are , effectively , a different product .
The parallels with Hamilton International Ltd . v . Vortic LLC seem clear enough : Vortic simply makes it absolutely clear to consumers that the watches they are selling contain refurbished used movements and dials , and all is good .
Last year in New York ’ s Southern District federal court , co-founder of Vortic watches , RT Custer , was questioned by both prosecuting and his own defense attorneys . Custer made his case in front of the few witnesses that bothered to attend ( I was pleased to have been one of them ) and the day in court came to a close .
A few months later on September 11 , 2020 , the ruling came in with an appealing Vortic victory against all claims . David had defeated Goliath and Vortic has won their defense .
“ Appealing ” might be the right verbiage here because Hamilton aka Swatch Group has proffered their intent to appeal and apparently are willing to continue all the way to the Supreme Court if they don ’ t get their way . For RT ’ s sake , and for the Vortic brand ’ s sake – I almost hope they do .
Too few in the watch industry have taken notice of this case and the kind of notoriety that comes with that kind of highprofile attack would only further the Vortic brand ’ s success .
WINTER 2021 | INTERNATIONAL WATCH | 19