Replica Piaget watches are often sold due to quality, branding, and marketing. Not about who has right combination of design elements. The major weapon many watch companies have is their brand images, and sometimes the technical ability to do things that one could not copy even if they wanted to.Given the years of time and massive legal expenses it is unclear exactly what FP Journe wanted to prove by funding this legal battle. They ended up having to actually pay the Swatch Group, even after all the years of bitter battling. Seems like a not so wise thing to do for a smaller independent watch brand. If you think about it, all Jaquet Droz needed to do was prove that the FP Journe watch design was not original and it was "case closed" so to say.As to my suspicion of bad blood between the opponents, I can only speculate as to the reasons, but the situation seems likely given what is at risk weighed with the potential outcome of the case.
Why did FP Journe end up paying Jaquet Droz even though they brought the suit? I believe that because the law in Europe sometimes has the losing party pay for the legal costs of the winning party. The specific Replica Piaget watches that FP Journe released that had the infringing design was the Octa (see above is the Octa Perpetual watch in titanium). I am not 100% sure this specific watch was part of the suit (as I seems to have been released recently), but it does display how FP Journe used the design that they alleged was being copied.I personally suspect that the suit was based on a degree of bad blood between the companies. There are potentially dozens of situations like this each year that occur. Where one company could theoretically sue another watch maker for intellectual property infringement and have a good case. Why don't they? One, because it is expensive as hell, and the results are highly speculative. Plus, I believe that this typing of "copying" is often an accepted part of the Replica Piaget watches industry.
