Let me start by saying that even though you and I differ on the two central points, I think your points/observations are both plausible and/or equitable, even though I don't concur with the conclusions you've drawn.
Red:
Yes, circumstances and situational differences can have an impact. I can only speak to my own sense of "how things go" based on the "world" in which I live. The vast majority of folks in my life are very, very well off people. To that end, none of them will be impressed by a watch, even though plenty of them may see one and think, or on rare occasion say, it's nice. They'll think that regardless of what they think it cost, mainly because they don't care what it costs; they can afford to buy it if they want on just like it. (availability would be their only issue)
Of course, I have "not-very-very-well-off" friends too, but as I've been to visit them or traveled with them, those friends have been to my homes, traveled with me, are friends with my other close friends and been to their homes too, and whatnot, I seriously doubt the watches they see me and our other friends wearing are going to register as "show off" items.
As for how strangers perceive me or my other watchie friends, I can't say. Perhaps some of them think we're showing off? I don't know, but I would hope they don't. I can say that in the main I don't think at all about strangers, but if I see a person -- known to me or not -- behaving in a "showy" way, sure, I'll think they are showing off. A "showy" way might be something like gesturing so as to make their watch apparent to people around them.
Overall, however, I prefer to maintain a state of indifference with regard to most people and their personal effects and I prefer to think that folks regard me with the same indifference. Given my preference, it takes a lot for me to attest to what other folks' motivations are when they do whatever they are doing.
Lastly, it find it curious that there are multiple reasons why consumers buy fakes, yet by and large the one on which most folks here have focused is the "wannabe" reason.
- Why is it that that one motivation is so "important" to the folks in this discussion?
- Why is another individual's quest for "whatever" so disturbing to other individuals' seemingly having something one doesn't and that perhaps one could not have, particularly if the seemingly "privileged" person has little to know bearing on one's own life?
- Is it really that difficult to just ignore folks who seem to have the means to buy stuff one may not be able to buy? I know for my own part, as I go about my day, I have very little trouble ignoring "whole people" (beyond going so far as to hold a door, let someone pass in front of me, or something of that nature), to say nothing of the stuff they wear or use.
Perhaps I'm the odd man out here, but it seems to me that were I to gripe about someone else's use of a fake "whatever" is more telling about me than it is about them. Whereas that person is not around to "defend" themselves, I've clearly implied that I'm envious of their seemingly greater ability to obtain fancy personal effects. I mean really, we're taking about personal effects, aren't we? What does a personal effect need to do but look nice (to its owner at least) and perform whatever task its owner expects it to perform?
Blue:
Interestingly enough, from what I've observed, it seems that thick watches are more likely what one will find at Target than at, say the PP or other high end watch boutique. That's not to say that there are no thick watches in those fancy shops, but in the main, short of selected divers, thick watches (that is, ones that sit tall on one's wrist) tend to cost less, not more. That's even more the case with dress and "dress flexible" watches. The exception is highly complicated watches like PP's Sky Moon Tourbillon. "Shiny" comes in all price ranges.
FWIW, realize that terms like "thick" aren't precisely defined. I use the following guidelines, but the design of a wach's caseback can cause some "thicker" watches to look/wear thinner or thicker.
- Thin & ultra thin --> 7mm thick or less
- Average --> 7mm - 12mm
- Thick --> Greater than 12mm
Green:
There's no two ways about it. They do. If the folks griping about and decrying the existence/use of fake watches are watch company employees, then fine, I suppose they do have a direct stake in the matter and the legal angle would/should matter to them.
Were I a watch company exec, I'd defend my rights when I see the need to do so and not when it's not cost effective to do so. I'd be no different than are the actual watch company execs.
I am a senior executive and my consulting firm has plenty of IP to protect, and that IP is very literally intellectual. What that means is when employees leave the firm, any IP they are personally aware of is going to go with them. We have signed non-disclosure and non-compete agreements with selected employees, but to my knowledge we've never taken a former employee to task over their using methods, approaches, designs, etc. that they used or were party to on our engagements.
That's all beside the point, because the question of this thread and the substance we're discussing isn't with regard to IP owner's position, but rather re: what matters as we consider ourselves and other individuals. Within that context, there simply is no legal constraint. The discussion at hand isn't about a company's rights and discretion re: defending it's IP. Moreover, companies don't need you or I to defend their IP or their right to do so themselves.
Given the context of this thread's OP/title question, while I give all due credence to the legal rights of IP owners, I see no context for the legal position as go my or others' views about another individual's wearing/buying a fake watch. I see the legal angle as being no more relevant that would be the legal angle for arguing that one should despise and decry another driver on the highway who exceeds the speed limit, provided their doing so doesn't result in one's being in an accident or suffering non-accident damage to oneself, one's passengers or one's car.
Purple:
Knock offs are a totally different matter. They are certainly relevant to the Nike and AP cases I cited. I don't think they are for the Rolex one. I introduced the AP case because the item for which IP recourse was sought by AP was a knockoff not a counterfeit.
And that's the thing...if the counterfeits were so troubling -- economically and intangibly as with brand reputation -- one'd think companies like Rolex and AP would go after the counterfeiters. Since they don't, it stands to reason that the watch company managers feel, as you stated the Nike's managers felt -- that it's not economically worth doing so. Assuming the company managers don't think it's economically worth suing counterfeiters, how credible are claims about how financially detrimental to the industry be fake watches?
Moreover, if the company execs don't care enough about the financial impact of the fakes to take action to stop it, why should you or I? Even in the Rolex examples I presented, one sees that Rolex went after not the Chinese counterfeiters who are purported to be the primary source/cause of fake Rolexes being in the marketplace, but rather, Rolex went after what amount to "mom and pop" businesses that sell, not make, fake watches. I'm not so naive that I believe that a maker of fakes, upon losing one seller, cannot find another one to replace it.
Pink:
They do have that right. I'm suggesting even that they don't. Although the store owner may have felt that mimicking in a way Rolex's name might help his business, it's still very hard to see what actual harm his sandwich shop could or did do to Rolex's fortunes or reputation. I think that way because I find it preposterous to associate a deli with a name that sounds like "Rolex" with Rolex, SA.
I suspect too that Rolex feels it's protecting its name, a name that is entirely a "made up" name, from becoming part of the vernacular in some way. I'm sure Rolex managers are well aware that for a time Xerox became so synonymous with "copy/copying" that people would say things like "I'll make a xerox or of it," or "xerox that for me, please," even when the copying machine being used was not a Xerox machine. I can't see how a small deli in Brooklyn could effect a similar outcome for Rolex. But who knows...perhaps that deli will grown to become the next Wendy's or Burger King (in scale) at which point consumers might think they can stop in at the next one on the highway and grab a Rolex watch and a sandwich right after they pee?
Lastly, though the law does allow one to use one's size and wealth to "bully" competitors with trade dress infringement claims, I think doing so, or appearing to do so, especially "bullying" little outfits like that deli or the couple in Nevada, is ethically wrong. What can I do given my ethical dissatisfaction? With Rolex, I can very easily never buy Rolex/Tudor products. Even though I like Rolex and Tudor watches, my life is not going to be worse off if I buy no more of them. I don't know whether I could do that re: Nike, but perhaps Nike doesn't own so much of the shoe/clothing market that I could.
All the best.