Panerai wins a lawsuit to stop counterfeit manufacturing in China

According to a Panerai press release, the brand has reached a “favorable decision” in a lawsuit against Chinese manufacturer Awsky for the sale of unauthorized copies of Panerai’s watches.

The decision, rendered by Guangdong Shenzhen Luohu District People’s Court last October 12, 2019 and confirmed as final on April 13, 2020, was the last step in a process that started in 2016, when Panerai first took legal action against Awsky. As Awsky initially agreed to stop the infringement, the matter was settled, however, later Awsky reneged on the agreement which forced Panerai to act again.

According to Panerai, Awsky was ordered to stop selling the infringing watches immediately, and also paid “sizeable” financial compensation to Richemont-owned Panerai for its trademark infringement.

Awsky’s designs might not be “counterfeits” in the strict sense that consumers often think of them: They are not exact copies, don’t include protected trademarks (logos), and the designs are not exact recreations of existing Panerai products. One frequently cited example of this (photo above) is an Awsky model judged as a counterfeit of the black cased Panerai Radiomir PAM00532. While this Awsky watch clearly copies certain aspects of the Radiomir’s design, including the blacked-out cushion case, lumed sandwich dial, and straight lugs, there are several immediately recognizable differences between the two pieces.

Of course, commentators have observed it’s a potentially important case because a Chinese court has sided with a Western company in enforcing the protection of its intellectual property within China’s borders. Perhaps it’ll put Chinese manufacturers on notice that they can’t do (or copy) whatever they want without consequence.

That said, counterfeits in China aren’t going anywhere: Search Alibaba for your favorite Panerai reference and you’ll likely find a few options running you less than $100 per piece (indeed, I just did this and can confirm it’s true — I won’t provide links so as not to over-publicize the efforts of these manufacturers, but you get the idea).

Separately, the reporting of this decision has been odd: aBlogtoWatch and Watchonista both regurgitated what looks to be a Panerai press release on the final judgment in the case. Perhaps the publicity is meant as a warning signal to other counterfeit or imitators: Stop what you’re doing, or we’ll come after you. But, I haven’t been able to find any primary source reporting on this case yet (granted, I don’t have access to Chinese language publications or documentation). More to come on this story as I work to dig beyond the glorified press releases.