Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (1998) p.103supp

SUBJECT

contributory infringement

ISSUE

Whether D was inducing his customers with the Rolex name (counterfeits) on them so as to make D a contributory infringer.

RATIONAL

Court held there was no intentional inducement. Not enough evidence to show that D had reason to know or knew that his customers were using his watches in counterfeit watches. So no contributory Infringement.

Created on: Thursday, March 09, 2000 at 17:34:31 (PST)