Jump to content

Cousins update: Swatch v Cousins


Recommended Posts

I'm not sure how this can be called a "positive update". Instead of dismissing the Swatch motion on the evident basis explained above, the Swiss judge is taking more time to evaluate it, and could end up deciding that is legitimate, that is, allowing it to go to court (another judge, more time, more money).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK this is my interpretation of the latest update. The best form of defence is attack hence Swatch (who are clearly now worried) have attacked by issuing a NDA in a Swiss court. Cousins have on there side Swiss lawyers who it looks like have put forward a very strong case that a NDA is not appropriate. If this proves correct then a very important step has been taken because this result further enhances the already strong case Cousins is putting forward. The worry for me is if the final case will be in a Swiss not a UK court

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that this is a positive development since it suggests that even on their home ground in a Swiss court the case Swatch has brought against Cousins is at least questionable. If the further deliberations by the Swiss judiciary bear this out and the NDA is considered to be groundless then from what I can gather the next round would be fought in the UK High Court. Swatch clearly don't want that to happen as they launched their NDA case in Switzerland specifically to try and prevent it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hers the latest update from cousins.... I'm not sure i quite understand it! is this meaning the watchdog says swatch must stop supplying movements??

News Update: 28.10.16 - Watchdog says Swatch must stick to movements deal

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/competition_watchdog-says-swatch-must-stick-to-movements-deal/42549174

The origins of this Comco action are all about the dominant position that ETA has in the Swiss movement manufacture market place. There key rivals in this area are Selita and Soprod, who are minnows in comparison. Comco negotiated with ETA for a reduction in movements sold, the apparent motive being to allow rivals a chance of market share. ETA negotiated the timing of these limits and then unfortunately for ETA, the bottom fell out the Far East market for luxury Swiss watches, and they were left with a massive overstock, so they went cap in hand back to Comco to ask if either the limits could be temporarily raised, or the deadlines extended. No one in the industry is surprised that Comco have said “No”. In the last month, another Swiss movement manufacturer (ISA) has shut down, and whilst they mostly made cheap quartz movements, the result is less competition in the Swiss Movement market, not more, which is what Comco were looking for.

 This story is all about ETA selling movements to all sorts of watch manufacturers, both in and out of the Swatch Group. Remember that ETA do not make complete watches, only movements and components. This matter is not about supply of spares to wholesalers like Cousins. Swatch and media reports use the term "watch maker" and everyone needs to be careful not to confuse the term “watch maker” (meaning in this context watch manufacturer) which is who ETA are trying to shift these movements onto, and “watch repairer”, which is relevant to the after sales repair and service market.

Anthony Cousins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hers the latest update from cousins.... I'm not sure i quite understand it! is this meaning the watchdog says swatch must stop supplying movements??

That they cannot supply more than agreed despite crying for more.
I wasn't even aware there was a cap. Now if they really want to sell more they will have to sell to anyone, anywhere,and maybe for less.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it means that the Swiss competition commision has told E.T.A to limit its supply of movements to third party watch manufactures to allow smaller producers a share of the market, E.T.A agreed to this and is now stuck with too many movements it cant shift because its tied its self into the agreement. They have tried to dominate the market and got there fingers burnt in the far east. 

I think this shows that the Swiss think that E.T.A have got too big and smaller manufacture can not compete, its a sensible decision to make them stick to the agreement on the part Comco.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, wls1971 said:

I think it means that the Swiss competition commission has told E.T.A to limit its supply of movements to third party watch manufactures to allow smaller producers a share of the market, E.T.A agreed to this and is now stuck with too many movements it cant shift because its tied its self into the agreement. They have tried to dominate the market and got there fingers burnt in the far east. 

I think this shows that the Swiss think that E.T.A have got too big and smaller manufacture can not compete, its a sensible decision to make them stick to the agreement on the part Comco.

 

 

These legal rulings are difficult to interpret & yes that is my take on it too. The ETA movement is a great reliable  workhorse that was replaceable & repairable & was therefore fitted to millions of watches. However this is no longer the case with Asian movements now being fitted. Customers, such as Sellita or Tudor, have ordered 700,000 fewer movements for 2017 than for this year, leading to idle capacity at ETA. Also companies such as Brietling are now manufacturing their own movements.  Sadly it seems to me that the Swatch board just took their eye of the ball. They already had 60% of the mechanical market & all was well. However instead of consolidating this position they decided (despite being warned about the consequences) to restrict movements parts etc. Now they are spending a lot of money & time in the courts & not spending it on R&D developing an affordable smart watch using their brand name Swatch. If I was a share holder of Swatch I would be demanding answers to what actual the end game was.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Customers, such as Sellita or Tudor, have ordered 700,000 fewer movements for 2017 than for this year, leading to idle capacity at ETA. 
Not Sellita, they are ETA competitors not customers.
Now they are spending a lot of money & time in the courts & not spending it on R&D developing an affordable smart watch using their brand name Swatch.
I don't think the case brought forward by Cousins (I don't know of any other) is being very expensive for ETA or the Swatch group and certainly not to influence product development decisions. And it will be a Swiss court, so home play for them. Who is risking is Antony Cousins which is actually a defendant, I hope he will receive financial support from others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

The myth of how the USA works is that we have a system that is governed by constitutional compliance and a sense of fairness to the American people as a whole. The sad reality is that the system works well for a small group of wealthy special interests that  provide seemingly endless amounts of money to control those who are in charge. The wealthy Swiss watch companies can out bribe any efforts made by independent watchmakers so the outcome is the current situation that now exists.

 

Until people begin to look at quality as the actual precision, craftsmanship and functional value of a product, instead of its designer label, interests such as the Swiss watch companies will continue to take advantage  of the situation. When I look at the tooling marks made from a stamping press on Swiss watch movements I wonder how people can't see what is really going on.

 david  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

For those who don't get these directly, Cousins has sent out an update to their case. In true legal style, this doesn't mean anything with respect to the main issue, it is just progress in removing an obstacle placed in the way

S

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Swatch v Cousins. All submissions to the court are in Judge has advised that he will deliver his verdict shortly.
527fdbed-f661-4095-aab7-752b9a331bc7.jpg

Swatch v Cousins

News Update: 27.4.17 - All submissions to the court are in, the Judge has advised that he will deliver his verdict shortly.


Many of you have asked for an update on the progress of the law suit that Swatch have brought against us in the Swiss courts. You will recall that we followed the required legal process of writing a letter advising Swatch that we would be taking the matter to the High Court in London if they refused to resupply us with parts.  In response, they have attempted to prevent the English courts from hearing the case by launching pre-emptive action against us in Bern.

Our Swiss lawyers responded to their claim by pointing out to the court several reasons why this case was not admissible, and were successful in arguing (against Swatch’s wishes) that this issue should be decided by the judge before any arguments about the legality of parts restrictions are heard. I can now advise you that all submissions on these points of jurisdiction and admissibility have now been made to the court, and the Judge has advised that he will deliver his verdict shortly. We hope that this will be within the next six to ten weeks.

If the Swiss courts agree that the Swatch claim against us is not admissible, then we will begin the process of asking the High Court in London to hear the matter, and give a binding decision on whether or not Swatch’s refusal to supply spares is an abuse of their dominant market position.

We will update again on this process when the decision comes in from the judge in Bern.

Kind Regards
 
Anthony Cousins
 





 

Cousins Material House · Unit J, Chesham Close · Romford, Essex RM7 7PJ · United Kingdom 
 

open.php?u=ceefad6307d366a92a1b87c7b&id=05e7a4e3d1&e=ac8628f87e

Edited by StuartBaker104
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Obstacle removed (although still subject to appeal)...

527fdbed-f661-4095-aab7-752b9a331bc7.jpg

Swatch v Cousins

Swiss Court Rules against Swatch and in Favour of Cousins


Late yesterday afternoon, our lawyers in Zurich received the ruling we have been waiting for from the Court in Bern. I am pleased to advise you that the Judge has declared the claim that Swatch brought against us to be inadmissible under Swiss Law, and has dismissed the case.
 
Cousins had originally given Swatch three weeks to resupply spares, or face legal action to be brought by us in the High Court in London. Their response was to bring a pre-emptive Negative Declaratory Action against us in the Berne Court. What Swatch were asking for, was that a Swiss judge should rule that they had done nothing wrong under British and European law, and that they were not obliged to resupply us.
 
Clearly, the best place to determine what British law requires is in a British court, so it was immediately apparent to us that the Swatch claim in Bern was a blatant attempt to waste time, and avoid facing the consequences of their unlawful parts embargo on the independent repair trade. As we have explained in previous news releases, it is a requirement of Swiss law that anyone bringing a Negative Declaratory Action must firstly show that there was little prospect of their opponent bringing the matter before the courts in their own right. As the action that triggered Swatch to make this claim was Cousins letter declaring its intention to bring an action in the High Court, this requirement was not met, and it is for this reason that Swatch’s case has been thrown out by the Bern Court.
 
It is important to understand that the Bern Court has not given any opinion or ruling on whether or not Swatch are obliged to supply us with spares, only that this attempt by Swatch to drag the matter away from the High Court is not valid under Swiss Law.
 
We are very grateful to the Bern Court for the equitable manner in which they have dealt with this case. We now have to wait until the end of August whilst Swatch decide whether or not to appeal against this decision, and will then be able to explain further how this case will progress.
 
In the meantime, we urge all who work in the Independent Watch Repair sector to understand that it is possible to beat the industry giants, and to be assured that Cousins is staying in this fight until it is won.
 
Kind regards
 
Anthony Cousins
Managing Director, Cousins Material House Ltd.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Swatch v Cousins. Swatch Appeal against Bern Court decision.

View this email in your browser

527fdbed-f661-4095-aab7-752b9a331bc7.jpg

Swatch. A Watch Company that Wastes Time...

“Forum Running” is a term that describes an attempt to avoid legal action threatened in one Court, by dragging it to another that has no real reason to deal with it. It is a rather unlawful practice  that is sometimes used by big companies to frighten off smaller opponents by wasting their time and money. When the Judge in Bern dismissed Swatch’s claim against Cousins, he made it tolerably clear that Forum Running was not going to be allowed in his Court.

Wasting time and money in the hope Cousins will go away seems to be one of Swatch’s tactics, and the fact that they have now, as we expected, appealed against the Bern Court ruling seems to demonstrate that they still haven’t learned that Cousins will not be frightened off, and will see this through to the end.

What particularly demonstrates the time wasting nature of the appeal is that the Bern decision was based on a ruling from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, and it is this very same body that the appeal has been made to. Our Swiss lawyers are currently studying the details of the appeal, which arrived with them recently, however, it seems on first reading that Swatch are trying to argue, amongst other things, that the Supreme Court has it wrong, and needs to change its practice. It’s hard to say what the consequences of that would be for the Swiss legal system. The appeal process is likely to run for less than ten months. For now, Cousins is still here, still not frightened, and still fighting.  

Some companies like to waste time, Cousins likes to save time ….. along with the independent repair industry that keeps it ticking. 

Kind Regards

Anthony Cousins
Managing Director, Cousins Material House Ltd.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Vich said:

Swatch v Cousins. Swatch Appeal against Bern Court decision.

 

View this email in your browser

 

527fdbed-f661-4095-aab7-752b9a331bc7.jpg

 

Swatch. A Watch Company that Wastes Time...

 

“Forum Running” is a term that describes an attempt to avoid legal action threatened in one Court, by dragging it to another that has no real reason to deal with it. It is a rather unlawful practice  that is sometimes used by big companies to frighten off smaller opponents by wasting their time and money. When the Judge in Bern dismissed Swatch’s claim against Cousins, he made it tolerably clear that Forum Running was not going to be allowed in his Court.

Wasting time and money in the hope Cousins will go away seems to be one of Swatch’s tactics, and the fact that they have now, as we expected, appealed against the Bern Court ruling seems to demonstrate that they still haven’t learned that Cousins will not be frightened off, and will see this through to the end.

What particularly demonstrates the time wasting nature of the appeal is that the Bern decision was based on a ruling from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, and it is this very same body that the appeal has been made to. Our Swiss lawyers are currently studying the details of the appeal, which arrived with them recently, however, it seems on first reading that Swatch are trying to argue, amongst other things, that the Supreme Court has it wrong, and needs to change its practice. It’s hard to say what the consequences of that would be for the Swiss legal system. The appeal process is likely to run for less than ten months. For now, Cousins is still here, still not frightened, and still fighting.  

Some companies like to waste time, Cousins likes to save time ….. along with the independent repair industry that keeps it ticking. 

Kind Regards

Anthony Cousins
Managing Director, Cousins Material House Ltd.

 

Cousins has a very good chance of winning providing they don't run out of money. Another ten months of legal procedures is going to be costly. If Cousins loses the case and are liable for the costs then sadly I predict it will be the end of our best supplier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope it ends up as a true victory for Cousins partly for the reasons given by CB and partly because I would like to see a company that seems to think the law is something to be worked around, to brings matters to their own largely self serving advantage, to the detriment of others and the industry as a whole.
Vic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope it ends up as a true victory for Cousins partly for the reasons given by CB and partly because I would like to see a company that seems to think the law is something to be worked around to brings matters to their own largely self serving advantage, to the detriment of others and the industry as a whole, properly brought into line.

I have nothing against any company that becomes a market leader because the goods they supply are much better than anything else on sale.

However, when a company systematically sets about buying out and removing the competition with the intention of controlling and monopolising an entire industry in the most protectionist of self serving ways - well, I don't like it, something inside me screams about fairness and dishonour. At the risk of sounding dramatic their actions and attitudes are perhaps even coming close to being evil.

Vic

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Latest I have received:-

d9d4cf2b-e560-4cbb-97d4-18aef2ec0117.jpg

CEAHR loses EU Court case against the Commission

Earlier this week, the European General Court gave its ruling in the case that CEAHR brought against the EU Commission. The Court ruled that it could not overturn the findings of the second Commission investigation, which was closed on the ground of ‘administrative priorities’.  The Commission is under no obligation to investigate every complaint if it believes there is insufficient justification for the costs of an investigation.  The Court confirmed the Commission’s assessment, and found that the Commission was within its powers to close the investigation without making a final finding of infringement or non-infringement.  This ruling has not changed anything for Cousins in its legal dispute with Swatch, and the English courts remain free to find that that the conduct of the Swiss watch manufacturers is anti-competitive.
 
The onus was always on CEAHR to demonstrate where the Commission had got its reasoning wrong, and reading through the judgment it becomes clear that CEAHR just did not produce sufficient evidence to support their arguments, refuting the findings of the EU Commission.
 
From the moment Cousins first considered taking action against Swatch, we knew that evidence was the key to winning. We applied to be an intervener in support of the CEAHR position and the need for an investigation, in the same way LVMH, Rolex, and Swatch intervened to support the closure of the investigation. The EU Court refused our application on the basis that CEAHR represent watch repairers, and as Cousins is a parts supplier not a repairer, we were not directly involved in the European proceedings. The opportunity for Cousins to present its arguments and evidence proving the anti-competitive nature of Swatch’s conduct to the English High Court will come in due course.

Kind Regards

Anthony Cousins
Managing Director, Cousins Material House Ltd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

If I cannot easily obtain or even make a minor part then I do not fix the watch. I am not entering into arguments with suppliers and certainly not putting myself in between a rock and a hard place nor am I making donations.  Neither am I pleading for spare components. I sometimes want to purchase a part and pay the account, if this is not good enough then that is too bad. I have about an 85% strike rate including all types. The mechanical watch is slowly dying being taken over by quartz. Most traditional watches I receive for attention are the older higher end ones. Most are serviceable without too much of a problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ecodec said:

If I cannot easily obtain or even make a minor part then I do not fix the watch.

The point of Cousins "fight" is not about you, me  or anybody else being in the position to cherry pick work, hobby entertainment or even live happily without touching watches at all. It's about a shameful practice that goes against all principles of "equal access", and fair competition. Have a read on their letters, courts papers and try to put things in perspective. BTW I haven't seen Cousins pledging donations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, clockboy said:

The real danger now is if the costs force Anthony Cousins to close his business. 

We don't know their legal costs. We don't know their business balance, or personal funds. We don't know how it will end.

I/we can just say again, good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 7/30/2015 at 9:59 AM, Vich said:

Latest Receipt,

 

Will Your Business “Survive” or “Thrive”?

View this email in your browser

 

d88c0778-6851-4412-9d82-7147126a97e6.jpg

 

E-mail: [email protected]
 

 

Will Your Business “Survive” or “Thrive”? from Steve Domb, Project Manager, BWCMG Industry Action Fund

 

When monies for the Industry Action Fund arrive ( http://bwcmg.org/iaf ), they are often accompanied by statements from Contributors about the damage the Swiss policy on spare parts has already done to their business, and the devastating effect that the ETA embargo is likely to have. We get feedback from Companies that signed up long ago to become accredited Service Centres, who are worried by the restrictions on the calibres that they are allowed parts for, and some long standing and highly qualified Service Centres are finding themselves cut off altogether. The common question is “How will my Business Survive?”, but should you really ask “How can I make my Business Thrive?”
 
All businesses are at the mercy of external factors over which they have little or no control. What marks out the ones that “Thrive” from those that just “Survive” is the effort they put into preparing for potential issues, and responding effectively if they occur. But Small Businesses and One-Man-Bands just don’t have the resources and time to do an effective job, so what should they do? The answer is that they need to band together, and commit a small but sensible amount of resources to an effective collective effort, and that is exactly what the British Watch and Clock Makers’ Guild, and the Industry Action Fund (IAF) are all about.
 
There are resources out there that can help us overcome those external factors that threaten us, and can also help us to take advantage of the factors that can benefit us. But to get at those resources, we need to make a solid case, and that starts with having clear information on the size of our industry, the number of people who work in it, its economic value, and what its views and requirements are. The first task of the IAF is to conduct a comprehensive survey of the industry, and then use those findings to get the support we need to fight off anti-competitive practices, and obtain a proper share of the education resources for training and apprenticeships. To do this type of work properly, we need to raise £70,000. That is too much to ask any single entity to fund entirely, but is it too much to ask 700 One-Man-Bands to put in £100 each, or 70 mid-size firms to put in £1,000 each, or even 7 large organisations to put in £10,000 each?
 
Take a moment to think about how much time you waste, trying to track down parts for timepieces you are eminently qualified to repair, but are refused access to by some faceless manufacturer who won’t even talk to you. Or the work you have had to turn away from long standing customers for the same reason. If you are trying to expand your business, where is the training for the next generation of Watchmakers coming from so you can get the staff? And if you are looking to retire, shouldn’t there be a new generation wanting to buy your business for a sensible price, rather than you just shutting down and selling off your tools?
 
Since its’ launch, the Industry Action Fund has had contributions ranging from a few pounds to many thousands, and it is the volume of contributions that is as important as the amounts. It demonstrates an industry committed to a vibrant future and strengthens our case even more. If you have already made a contribution, many thanks for doing so. If you intended to contribute, but didn’t get around to it, please take a moment to email [email protected]
with your contact details and the amount you would like to pledge. If you think your few pounds wouldn’t make any difference, then please think again and email us also. We need to add your voice to the collective effort.
 
Life is a lot easier when you can stop worrying about how to “Survive”, and instead move your efforts into thinking about how to “Thrive”. If you want to reach that point, please work with those who think like you, and support the Industry Action Fund.
 

 

 

 
Cheers,
 
Vic
 





 

 

On 8/25/2015 at 4:11 PM, clockboy said:

Unfortunately meetings are not possible as they ignore all correspondence (I have tried many times). I also wrote to my local MP & the present industry minister all to no effect.It was raised a few years ago in the European parliament but Swatch using the best lawyers convinced them that swiss watches were all high end quality movements & they were just protecting their brand. Therefore to raise this issue again at higher levels i.e. european parliaments , etc., the amount of workers it effects, the size of the industry & how it is constructed i.e., how many companies,one man bands are actually now repairing /servicing watches.This must be known for a effective lobby/campaign. I feel we have nothing to loose by supporting this campaign & if it does not work at least some have tried to address this unfair practise. Just my option of course.

I get almost no help at all. Except from WRT. I do not look for it and am not without a jobbers experience and some in depth academic training many years ago. I have no qualifications except a Masters in Electronic Eng. I have a watch "fixed it " strike rate of about 85% including quartz. No spares, then I just hand it back and do not make a rod for my back. I will not send money to anyone on a hope or a whim. Just my way of doing things. Mike. Ecodec.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Topics

  • Posts

    • you think you're going to sleep tonight you're not, you're going to ponder the question of what makes you think those of the right parts?  
    • Does anyone knows what size case a need for a dial diameter 20.60mm?
    • Sounds like the story with my Rolex. Poor (expensive) job done by an official Rolex dealer with an "in-house" watchmaker, hence I learned watchrepair and did the servicing myself. Same story as I learned with the Omega 861, again poor job by an "in-house" watchmaker by an official Omega dealer. Once your watch goes through that back-door, you have no idea what is going to happening to it 🫣   Quite nice that they sent back the parts which had been replaced !
    • yes that's definitely not right at all. I have a picture one of my friends has a Omega coaxial there was having issues to lose asking me where he should send it. As that's a specialty watch I suggested the service center. When he got it back he sent me a picture so the replace the dial as you can see the hands the mainspring barrel and I think the price was really quite decent considering all the stuff they can replace. So I do know they do change the barrels but the other person I worked at the service center when I would ask questions and unfortunately I can't remember all the answers. I think a lot of the changing a parts is at the discretion of the watchmaker. Plus I don't know enough about the chronographs and whether that would be considered a vintage watch? I take some of the vintage watches may have been sent directly to Switzerland or another service center. Obviously with a watch like the one down below they probably have a infinite supply of parts is its relatively modern vintage stuff becomes more interesting even the watch companies don't have necessarily infinite supply of parts. But no matter what the watch shouldn't disintegrated six months that's definitely an issue.        
    • glad it worked out, those ESA movements are obsolete but new old stock is still out there, now that you know the make/model you could also do a cross reference to see if something more current would line up with the dial feet and hands...for future use if needed 👍
×
×
  • Create New...