Cousins update: Swatch v Cousins

[Vich]

Here is the reply from Cousins about Colditz enquiry:-

 

Thank you for letting us know.

The fund was set up by the British Watch and clock makers guild and is/was run & administered by them.

The current legal fight between Cousins and Swatch has been entirely funded by Cousins. Thank you for the interest and offers of contributions, however this is not required. Hopefully we shall have some good news to report in the coming weeks.

Kind regards,
Sam Cousins
Cousins Management Team

[KarlvonKoln]

Thank you for the update.  I will keep following this matter. 

[Michael1962]

Is there any more update to this?

This is part of the reason, as well as not much turning up in Australia to buy, that I have not taken up either Mark's courses or started the BHI course.

I know that is a poor excuse, but speaking to repairers over here, even they are concerned.

[jdm]

2 hours ago, Michael1962 said:

Is there any more update to this?

You can read the the latest development on Cousins website, as well other news related to the Right to Repair:

https://www.cousinsuk.com/page/news

[Michael1962]

Thanks.

[Vich]

Update: 20/10/21 - Swatch v Cousins

The dispute between Cousins Material House Limited and three companies of the Swatch Group before the Commercial Court of the Canton of Berne on the question of whether Swatch can simply stop supplying spare parts to a long-time wholesaler has been pending for five years now. Cousins hoped to be able to speed up the proceedings somewhat by waiving the oral hearing, but unfortunately this was not the case, apparently also because the responsible law clerk of the court has changed. According to an oral information from the court this summer, however, the judgment should be ready around the fall/autumn vacation period, which means that it should be issued shortly.

 

[Vich]

Here is The reply to my actual enquiry

Hi Vic,

Unfortunately (and unbelievably) we are still waiting on a verdict from Switzerland. They have been deliberating since last year and we have been given multiple deadlines for a decision and each one has been missed. Initially it was before Christmas  (2020), then after Christmas, then before the summer break, then after the summer break, then before the Autumn break, now after the Autumn break. Our Swiss lawyers say they are as perplexed us as as to what is happening.  Our hope is they cannot delay much longer and a decision must be forthcoming soon.

As soon as we know, we shall publish the news on our website.

As before i am happy for you to share this on your forum should you wish.

Kind regards,
Sam Cousins
Cousins Management Team

[jdm]

1 hour ago, Vich said:

Unfortunately (and unbelievably) we are still waiting on a verdict from Switzerland.

In my country that is called the "rubber wall" approach to wear out the appeallant.
In my opinion, Cousins UK took a risky move when suing in the UK, when disputes on their trade agreement are to be judged by the Swiss judiciary. Which switched them from being plaintiff to defendant in a foreign, domestic-defensive country.
Good luck to them.

[Michael1962]

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that Swatch have made it 'beneficial' to the judges to keep delaying a decision in the chance that Cousins give up?

[jdm]

1 hour ago, Michael1962 said:

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that Swatch have made it 'beneficial' to the judges to keep delaying a decision in the chance that Cousins give up?

Based on the corruption perception index, which rates Switzerland on the 3rd place as one of the less corrupted countries, I would say very unlikely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#2012–2020 

[Michael1962]

Well that's good to know. I admit that I didn't even know that a listing like that existed.

Australia doesn't seem too bad. Phew.

[Paul80]

But given that the legal profession is the most corrupt immoral profession going  I would suggest it's quite likely. Just look at the politicians that have a legal background. 

[clockboy]

Cousins update: Swatch v Cousins

Since writing my message below we have heard from the Court that they promised that we would receive the ruling still within this year. Let's hope that this is correct this time.

Over the past many months my updates have been without much update, pretty much repeating the same narrative of waiting to hear anytime now. Unfortunately this message does not wander far from that narrative either. It is very frustrating to be in limbo with no means of contact or protocols to invoke with the Swiss Court. 

The following is a high level status review of the case;

In August 2020 the Judge closed the receiving of further evidence, and here we are still waiting for a judgement as we approach 2022, an action that started in early 2016.

The decision in Switzerland to be decided is simply, Swatch state that they do not have to supply Cousins with spare parts and we say they do, that’s it!

The argument in a nut shell

Comco (Swiss competition authority) confirmed early this year that Swatch are dominate in their markets not only for watches but also for spare parts for their watches (a key point that we already knew).

There are NO legitimate reasons to manipulate the spare parts market, let alone to shut it off.

Dominant manufacturers of spare parts therefore have an obligation to supply wholesalers, in particular if those wholesalers built up the market for spare parts for the manufacturers. 

Every day, week, month & year that goes by more and more of the independent watch repair trade dies, so effectively the delay of positive decision or a continuing lack of no decision in this Court case is a decision against the whole independent trade, including the once thriving Swiss independent sector.

A trade consisting of watch repairers, technicians, service centres, retailers, support staff and no doubt many others directly or indirectly connected, I estimate 10,000’s or even 100,000+ jobs have been lost in our industry Worldwide since Swiss Watch House restrictive activities started back in the 1980’s. 

Many small and medium independent retailers all over the World, historically relied on the important revenue streams from customers visiting the retail shop with a watch for repair which often was an excellent opportunity for cross sales.

We are in a pandemic, the Berne Court is obviously not excluded from this, the Court have also had to replace key members of the judiciary in this case twice, but despite that they have several times missed their stated deadlines for the overdue decision, this also despite other cases being ruled on that started way after mine.

[watchweasol]

I think is what is called in parliamentary terns  A fillibuster or filibustering, on common terms Kicking the ball into the long grass (in the hope it gets lost). Procasternation on the case does two things, in the first place more independants go to the wall and the longer they take  the more it helps SWATCH who are after all the Swiss watch industry, double edged sword.

[clockboy]

Judgement Given by the Bern Court

On 28 December 2021, our Swiss lawyers received the long awaited judgement from the Bern Court.

At the moment we do not have a full translation, but whilst the Court confirmed our position that Swatch are 100% market dominant in the supply of spare parts, it does not appear to have followed previous case law relating to companies with such monopolies, and has ruled that Swatch’s refusal to supply Cousins does not breach British and EU Competition Law.

Cousins has until the 1st of February 2022 to lodge an appeal at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Our legal teams in Switzerland and the UK will be studying the judgement over the next few days, and we will provide further information and updates as we are able.

[Paul80]

Sad outcome but no real surprise really.

Only the Lawyers win in these cases and I bet Cousins legal team will be recommending they Appeal the case. Just so they can win some more.

 

[watchweasol]

Well as Paul80 said no great surprise,  protecting their major industry, In one respect from their poit of view its protecting a major slice of their economy. People will still buy watches from the swatch group.

[Plato]

We'll just have to make our own parts, f**k the Swiss. 

[clockboy]

IMO this ruling will effect all independent watch repairs both for pro and amateur. For example the basic repair for a mechanical watch is the replacement of a tired or broken mainspring. The manufacturer of these are Owned by Swatch. All parts that have a Swiss connection will now gradually dry up with the only source being eBay.

As a result independents will now only be able to offer servicing with customers accepting any mishaps will be fatal or any part requirements will not be possible.

Cousins have spent an incredible amount of their resources fighting this and one has to wonder if Cousins will still now be a viable company. 
 

A very said time indeed with the losers being customers who now have no choice.
 

 

[jdm]

On 1/5/2022 at 1:02 PM, clockboy said:

IMO this ruling will effect all independent watch repairs both for pro and amateur.

The ruling only sanctioned what was happening already since many years, so I don't foresee much change. In other words it's not like Swatch was (officially) supplying anything to Cousins in the interim of the judgment. From a previous communication from Cousins, mentioned earlier on this topic:
The 31st of December 2015 has come and gone, and the supply of spares from Swatch and ETA has ceased.

 

On 1/5/2022 at 1:02 PM, clockboy said:

For example the basic repair for a mechanical watch is the replacement of a tired or broken mainspring. The manufacturer of these are Owned by Swatch.

If you mean General Ressorts, they are not owned the Swatch group, but by the Acrotech Group which describes themselves as follows:
Acrotec is the leading independent supplier of mechanical movement components to the Swiss watch industry.
https://acrotec.ch/en/

 

On 1/5/2022 at 1:02 PM, clockboy said:

All parts that have a Swiss connection will now gradually dry up with the only source being eBay.

I'm confident/hopeful that a good amount of ETA parts will continue to be supplied via the gray market, which likely is the channel that Cousins and other material houses have been using so far.
Beside, Swatch companies are dominant but not the only ones.

 

On 1/5/2022 at 1:02 PM, clockboy said:

Cousins have spent an incredible amount of their resources fighting this and one has to wonder if Cousins will still now be a viable company. 

IMHO Cousins decision to formally threaten to sue was a very risky one which could only go downhill when the UK courts washed their hands about the matter. So Swatch counter-sued in Switzerland as the Swiss trade allowed them to do. Basically Cousins be became the defendant and Swatch the plaintiff. At this time we don't know if the judgment awarded any money to the Swatch Group.
We all can think and shout that watch parts supply should not be restricted, but to affirm that a law is needed. That is what the EU has recently obtained for certain goods and limitations: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2ddc8907-8b7c-4a5a-807b-2bb5995608cc

[Tony13]

Switzerland is not in the EU.

Else it would have been easy as they even forced Apple to supply spares.

 

[jdm]

On 1/6/2022 at 2:08 AM, Tony13 said:

Switzerland is not in the EU.
Else it would have been easy as they even forced Apple to supply spares.

Actually the fact that Switzerland it's not in the EU (yet it adopts many important treaties and regulations like Schengen agreement, free mobile phone roaming) doesn't matter, because when you sell products into other countries, you must follow laws ands regulations of the latter, not your own.
Not even the EU has not forced Apple to supply parts, because at this time smartphones are not included in the "right to repair" new legislation. Rather, Apple did that "spontaneously", starting with the US: 

Today, Apple announced that some parts, tools, and manuals — starting with iPhone 12 and iPhone 13 — will be made available to individual consumers in the United States from early 2022.
The Right to Repair campaign welcomes this announcement but remains cautious about the implementation, which is not expected to be applicable to Europe until later in 2022.
https://repair.eu/news/too-good-to-be-true-apple-announces-giving-access-to-some-spare-parts-and-repair-information-to-consumers/

The products covered by "right of repair" in the EU, and the UK that has adopted aligned legislation are:
Dishwashers;
Washing machines and dryers;
Fridges and freezers;
Televisions and other electronic displays for home use. 
For appliances used by businesses, the rules also apply to electric motors, vending machines, retail fridges and freezers, power transformers and welding equipment.
The rules notably exclude laptops, tablets and smartphones. However, further products may be added in the future; the EU has shown support for extending the rules to consumer electronics and the UK may well follow suit.
https://www.globalcompliancenews.com/2021/08/05/eu-and-united-kingdom-uk-implements-new-right-to-repair-rules-for-household-products-to-align-with-eu-ecodesign-requirements210721/

My personal opinion is that it's unlikely that this legislation will be expanded to watches, because these are to all effects non-household and non-necessary items, rather fashion, apparel and/or luxury purchases. 

 

[Vich]

Lates I have received does not look too promising.

"Judgement Given by the Bern Court

On 28 December 2021, our Swiss lawyers received the long awaited judgement from the Bern Court.

At the moment we do not have a full translation, but whilst the Court confirmed our position that Swatch are 100% market dominant in the supply of spare parts, it does not appear to have followed previous case law relating to companies with such monopolies, and has ruled that Swatch’s refusal to supply Cousins does not breach British and EU Competition Law.

Cousins has until the 1st of February 2022 to lodge an appeal at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Our legal teams in Switzerland and the UK will be studying the judgement over the next few days, and we will provide further information and updates as we are able."

 

My thoughts are that the court appears to have accepted that Swatch control a monopoly but they rule that it is ok to do so as it does not " breach British and EU Competition Law".  I am no expert but simplistically that seems a bit odd, there can not be any competition against a monopoly as regards spare parts copyright/patented and owned totally by that monopoly. We will see as Cousins are not giving up at all though there must be quite a financial burden involved for them.

Cheers, Vic

[jdm]

2 hours ago, Vich said:

Lates I have received does not look too promising."
Judgement Given by the Bern Court

That is, the subject of discussion in this topic before your post.

[Neverenoughwatches]

On 8/25/2015 at 12:56 PM, mwilkes said:

+1, Lee. It seems to be a rather peculiar approach to the problem.

I thought it was stated the fund was to be used or as much of it as necessary to research  and determine the industry size in the UK. Then use this information to convince our government the industry  is worth saving and then take a legal standing against  the Swiss. If the Swiss are ignoring email enquiries, then I imagine any kind of meeting will be totally dismissed. It's been in the planning for 20 years probably  more. I have wondered  if this is their payback for the quartz crisis, I don't believe  the UK had any involvement though I could be wrong. A blanket payback if you will. Surely other companies could step in and make production, I wouldn't know about patents on parts though. And obviously a collective companies effort would be needed for such a massive demand. I thought Seagull made reasonable replacements. Someone would surly grap such an opportunity  to fill the gap. Would be a proud two fingers up if our UK could make it happen.