1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 

ROLEX WATCH U.S.A., INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

SOLIDSWISS.CD, an individual, partnership or unincorporated 

association, 

Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES 

 Plaintiff, Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. (“Rolex” or “Plaintiff”) hereby sues Defendant, the 

Individual, Partnership, or Unincorporated Association identified in the caption (“Defendant”). 

Defendant is promoting, selling, offering for sale, and/or distributing goods bearing counterfeits 

and infringements of Rolex’s trademarks within this district through an interactive commercial 

Internet website operating under the domain name solidswiss.cd (the “Subject Domain Name”). In 

support of its claims, Rolex alleges as follows: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. This is an action for federal trademark counterfeiting and infringement, false 

designation of origin, and common law unfair competition pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1116, 

and 1125(a), and The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Accordingly, this Court has subject 

matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. 

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Rolex’s state law 

claims because those claims are so related to the federal claims that they form part of the same 

case or controversy. 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 1 of 19
2 

2. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district because it operates an 

interactive commercial website under the Subject Domain Name accessible in this district, as well 

as directs business activities and sells counterfeit products to consumers throughout the United 

States, including within this district. 

3. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Defendant is, upon 

information and belief, an alien who engages in infringing activities and causes harm within this 

district by advertising, offering to sell and/or selling infringing products into this district. 

THE PLAINTIFF 

4. Rolex is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of 

New York, having an office and principal place of business at 665 Fifth Avenue, New York, New 

York, 10022. Rolex is engaged in the business of distributing high quality luxury watches 

throughout the United States, including within this district, under the federally registered 

trademarks identified in Paragraph 16 below. Defendant, through the sale and offering for sale 

counterfeit Rolex watches is directly, and unfairly, competing with Rolex’s economic interests in 

the State of Florida and causing Rolex harm and damage within this jurisdiction. Rolex regularly 

enforces its intellectual property rights and authorized this action be brought in its name. 

THE DEFENDANT 

5. Defendant operates an interactive commercial Internet website through the Subject 

Domain Name registered with a registrar in a foreign country and is comprised of an individual, 

partnership and/or business entity of unknown makeup, whom, upon information and belief, likely 

resides and/or operates in a foreign jurisdiction. 

6. Defendant has the capacity to be sued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

17(b). Defendant targets its business activities towards consumers throughout the world, including 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 2 of 19
3 

the United States and within this district, through the operation of the interactive commercial 

Internet website under the Subject Domain Name. 

7. Defendant is the past and present controlling force behind the operation of the 

Internet website operating under the Subject Domain Name. 

8. Defendant has purposefully directed some portion of its illegal activities towards 

consumers in the State of Florida through the advertisement, offer to sell, sale, and/or shipment of 

counterfeit Rolex watches into the State, and by operating an illegal marketplace enterprise which 

impacts and interferes with commerce throughout the United States, including within the State of 

Florida. 

9. Upon information and belief, Defendant has registered, established or purchased, 

and maintained the Subject Domain Name and the website operating thereunder. Upon information 

and belief, Defendant has engaged in fraudulent conduct with respect to the registration of the 

Subject Domain Name by providing false and/or misleading information to its registrar during the 

registration or maintenance process. Upon information and belief, Defendant has registered and/or 

maintained the Subject Domain Name for the sole purpose of engaging in illegal counterfeiting 

activities. 

10. Upon information and belief, Defendant will continue to register or acquire new 

domain names, and consequently new URL addresses in connection therewith, for the purpose of 

selling and/or offering for sale goods bearing counterfeit and confusingly similar imitations of one 

or more of Rolex’s trademarks unless permanently enjoined. Moreover, upon information and 

belief, Defendant will continue to maintain and grow its illegal marketplace enterprise at Rolex’s 

expense unless permanently enjoined. 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 3 of 19
4 

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff’s Trademark Rights

11. Rolex imports, distributes, sells, promotes and warrants Rolex watches, watch 

bracelets and related products in the United States. 

12. Rolex watches are identified by the trade name and trademark ROLEX and one or 

more of the Rolex Registered Trademarks. 

13. Rolex is responsible for assembling, finishing, marketing and selling in interstate 

commerce high quality Rolex watches, watch bracelets and related products for men and women 

(hereinafter referred to as “Rolex Watches”). 

14. Rolex is responsible for maintaining control over the quality of Rolex products and 

services in this country. 

15. Rolex has developed an outstanding reputation because of the uniform high quality 

of Rolex Watches. 

16. Rolex is the owner of, including but not limited to, the following federal trademark 

registrations in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: 

Trademark Reg. No. Reg. Date Goods 

CROWN DESIGN 

657,756 1/28/58 Timepieces of all kinds and parts thereof. 

DATEJUST 674,177 2/17/59 Timepieces and parts thereof. 

DAY-DATE 831,652 7/4/67 Wrist watches. 

DAYTONA 2,331,145 3/21/00 Watches. 

DEEPSEA 4,378,540 8/6/13 Watches. 

EXPLORER 2,518,894 12/18/01 Watches. 

EXPLORER II 2,445,357 4/24/01 Watches. 

GMT-MASTER II 2,985,308 8/16/05 Watches and parts thereof. 

MILGAUSS 875,616 8/26/69 Watches [and clocks,] and parts thereof. 

OYSTER 

PERPETUAL 

1,105,602 11/7/78 Watches and parts thereof. 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 4 of 19
5 

Trademark Reg. No. Reg. Date Goods 

ROLEX 101,819 1/12/15 Watches, clocks, parts of watches and 

clocks, and their cases. 

SEA-DWELLER 860,527 11/19/68 Watches, clocks and parts thereof. 

SKY-DWELLER 4,280,289 1/22/13 Watches and parts thereof. 

SUBMARINER 1,782,604 7/20/93 Watches. 

YACHT-MASTER 1,749,374 1/26/1993 Watches. 

ARABESQUE DESIGN 

5,517,631 7/17/2018 Watches and parts thereof. 

Correct and true copies of Rolex’s federal trademark registrations (hereinafter collectively 

referred to as the “Rolex Registered Trademarks”) are attached hereto as Exhibit 1, which are 

incorporated herein by reference. The Rolex Registered Trademarks are in full force and effect 

and have become incontestable pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1065. 

17. All Rolex Watches are identified by Rolex’s registered ROLEX and 

(hereafter “CROWN DESIGN”) trademarks and one or more of, but not limited to, the following 

registered trademarks owned by Rolex: OYSTER, OYSTER PERPETUAL, PRESIDENT, GMTMASTER, YACHT-MASTER, SUBMARINER, and DAYTONA (see Exhibit 1). 

18. The Rolex Registered Trademarks are distinctive marks used to identify these high 

quality products originating with Rolex. 

19. The Rolex Registered Trademarks are arbitrary and fanciful and are entitled to the 

highest level of protection afforded by law. 

20. Rolex and its predecessors have used the ROLEX trademark for nearly a century 

on and in connection with Rolex Watches and related products. As such, the ROLEX trademark 

is one of the most famous marks in the world. 

21. Rolex and/or its predecessors have used the Rolex Registered Trademarks for many 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 5 of 19
6 

years on and in connection with Rolex Watches well prior to the activities of the Defendant 

complained of herein. 

22. Visibility on the Internet, particularly via internet search engines, such as Google, 

has become increasingly important to Rolex’s overall marketing efforts. Accordingly, a 

substantial amount of money has been invested over the past decade in Internet marketing and 

search engine optimization (“SEO”) strategies, which include using the Rolex Registered 

Trademarks in its metatags to direct consumers to the www.rolex.com website. 

23. Based on Rolex’s extensive advertising, sales and the wide popularity of Rolex 

products, the Rolex Registered Trademarks are now famous and have been famous since well prior 

to the activities of the Defendant complained of herein. Rolex Registered Trademarks have 

acquired secondary meaning so that any product or advertisement bearing such marks is 

immediately associated by consumers, the public and the trade as being a product or affiliate of 

Rolex. 

24. Rolex has gone to great lengths to protect its name and enforce the Rolex Registered 

Trademarks. 

 Defendant’s Infringing Activities

25. Upon information and belief, long after Rolex’s adoption and use of the Rolex 

Registered Trademarks on its products and after Rolex’s federal registration of the Rolex 

Registered Trademarks, Defendant began selling, offering for sale, distributing, promoting and 

advertising in interstate commerce, through the Internet, watches bearing counterfeits and 

infringements of the Rolex Registered Trademarks (the “Counterfeit Watches”) as those marks 

appear on Rolex’s products and as shown in the federal trademark registrations attached hereto as 

Exhibit 1. 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 6 of 19
7 

26. On Defendant’s website under the Subject Domain Name, Defendant advertises, 

promotes, and offers for sale counterfeit products, including but not limited to, watches bearing 

counterfeits and infringements of the Rolex Registered Trademarks. Representative sample web 

captures downloaded from the website under the Subject Domain Name are attached hereto as 

Exhibit 2 as well as images of the watch as received by Rolex’s investigator from Defendant 

attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 

27. On Defendant’s website under the Subject Domain Name, Defendant repeatedly 

refers to his watches as “Rolex replica watches”. Defendant promotes the Counterfeit Watches by 

stating the following: 

Solidswiss.cd Rolex Swiss replica watches are so close in precision 

to the originals that even an expert cannot tell the difference. 

Solidswiss.cd Rolex clone Swiss made movements are perfect 1:1 

replications of original Rolex Caliber movements which on 

inspection can even fool a professional jeweler. The quality of the 

manufacturing materials and precisely calibrate movement ensures 

a Swiss watch that is made for life. Solidswiss.cd manufactures the 

best Rolex Swiss made replica watches in Geneva; Switzerland. Of 

course it is your choice on which replica and quality to go for, 

decisions ultimately are based on price and what you can afford. But 

one should also bear in mind the value you are getting for your 

money. There is nothing sadder than spotting a guy with a cheap, 

faded replica on his wrist. 

28. On or about March 3, 2020, Rolex’s investigator located in Florida placed an order 

for a Rolex Yacht-Master 29mm Steel and Platinum Silver Dial watch (“First Test Purchase”) on 

the website under the Subject Domain Name. Rolex’s investigator received an email confirmation 

from noreply@solidswiss.cd that Defendant received the order and that he will be contacted 

regarding payment. 

29. On or about March 4, 2020, Rolex’s investigator received an email from 

sales@solidswiss.cd regarding the payment method. 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 7 of 19
8 

30. On or about March 5, 2020, Rolex’s investigator paid $1,237.00 in total for the First 

Test Purchase using paygate.com, a foreign payment processor. 

31. On or about March 5, 2020, Defendant confirmed that Rolex’s investigator will 

receive the First Test Purchase within two to three weeks. 

32. On or about April 1, 2020, Defendant notified Rolex’s investigator by email that he 

will receive a refund due to Defendant having a dispute with his bank. Defendant invited Rolex’s 

investigator to place a new order and guaranteed that he will receive his order within seven to ten 

business days. 

33. On or about April 15, 2020, Rolex’s investigator placed a second order for a Rolex 

Yacht-Master 29mm Steel and Platinum Silver Dial watch with Defendant (“Second Test 

Purchase”) for delivery to an address in this district. Rolex’s investigator paid for the Second Test 

Purchase by submitting payment in the amount of $7,822.75 HKD through Reap Global, a foreign 

payment processor. 

34. On or about May 27, 2020, Rolex’s investigator received the watch from the Second 

Test Purchase in this district. The return address on the label stated, “YONGXIN 

DEVELOPMENT CO LTD, ZHANG GEN SUO, C/O LEADON NO 7 LIU TANG RD, BANAN 

PARK IF RTO PLS RIN TO HKG FOR SHPR INST HONG KONG 518000 KWAI CHUNG 

HONG KONG”. The watch was placed in a child’s lunch box. Attached as Exhibit 3, which is 

incorporated herein by reference, are images of the watch as received by Rolex’s investigator from 

Defendant. 

35. Upon information and belief, the watch was shipped in a child’s lunch box to avoid 

detection by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 8 of 19
9 

36. On or about June 1, 2020, Rolex’s investigator received presentation boxes, a 

shopping bag, warranty card and other documentation from Defendant in this district. The return 

address on the label stated, “SZ YONGXIN DEVELOPMENT CO LTD XING LONG, 25 RM 14 

FL JING LONG, BANTIAN LONGGANG DIST, HONG KONG 1, HONG KONG, HONG 

KONG”. 

37. Rolex examined the Second Test Purchase and determined the following: 

a. The dial is not a genuine Rolex dial yet bears counterfeit copies of the 

ROLEX, CROWN DESIGN, YACHT-MASTER, AND OYSTER PERPETUAL trademarks. 

b. The winding crown is not a genuine Rolex winding crown yet bears a 

counterfeit copy of the CROWN DESIGN trademark. 

c. The bracelet is not a genuine Rolex bracelet yet bears a counterfeit copy of 

the CROWN DESIGN trademark and the ARABESQUE DESIGN trademark. 

d. None of the parts on the watch were manufactured by Rolex. 

e. The presentation boxes, shopping bag, warranty card and other 

documentation were not manufactured by Rolex. 

38. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant has full 

knowledge of Rolex’s ownership of the Rolex Registered Trademarks, including its exclusive right 

to use and license such intellectual property and the goodwill associated therewith. 

39. Defendant advertises the Counterfeit Watches for sale to the consuming public on 

its website operating under the Subject Domain Name. In so advertising these products, Defendant 

improperly and unlawfully uses one or more of the Rolex Registered Trademarks without Rolex’s 

permission. 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 9 of 19
10 

40. As part of its overall infringement and counterfeiting scheme, Defendant is, upon 

information and belief, employing and benefiting from advertising and SEO strategies based, in 

large measure, upon an illegal use of counterfeits and infringements of one or more of the Rolex 

Registered Trademarks. Specifically, Defendant is, upon information and belief, using counterfeits 

and infringements of Rolex’s famous name and the Rolex Registered Trademarks in order to make 

its website selling illegal goods appear more relevant and attractive to search engines across an 

array of search terms. 

41. By its actions, Defendant is contributing to the creation and maintenance of an 

illegal marketplace operating in parallel to the legitimate marketplace for genuine Rolex Watches. 

Defendant is causing harm to Rolex and the consuming public by (i) depriving Rolex of its right 

to fairly compete for space within search engine results and reducing the visibility of genuine 

Rolex Watches on the World Wide Web, (ii) causing an overall degradation of the value of the 

goodwill associated with the Rolex Registered Trademarks, (iii) increasing Rolex’s overall cost to 

market its goods and educate consumers about its brand via the Internet, and/or (iv) maintaining 

an illegal marketplace enterprise, which perpetuates the ability of Defendant and future entrants to 

that marketplace to confuse consumers and harm Rolex with impunity. 

42. Defendant’s acts as aforesaid are deliberately calculated to confuse and deceive the 

public and are performed with full knowledge of Rolex’s rights. Said acts constitute willful and 

deliberate infringement of Rolex’s rights in the Rolex Registered Trademarks. 

43. Defendant’s use of the Rolex Registered Trademarks including the promotion and 

advertisement, reproduction, distribution, sale, and/or offering for sale of the Counterfeit Watches 

is without Rolex’s consent or authorization. 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 10 of 19
11 

44. Defendant is not now, nor has it ever been, associated, affiliated, or connected with, 

or endorsed or sanctioned by Rolex. 

45. Rolex is not able to monitor, enforce or maintain its quality control standards on 

the counterfeit Rolex products Defendant assembles, offers for sale and sells. 

46. Defendant’s use of the Rolex Registered Trademarks in the manner described 

above tends to and does create the erroneous impression that Defendant’s products emanate or 

originate from Rolex, and/or that said products are authorized, sponsored, or approved by Rolex, 

even though they are not. This confusion causes irreparable harm to Rolex and the Rolex 

Registered Trademarks. 

47. Defendant has been unjustly enriched by illegally using and misappropriating 

Rolex’s intellectual property for its own financial gain. Furthermore, Defendant has unfairly 

benefited and profited from Rolex’s outstanding reputation for high quality products and its 

significant advertising and promotion of Rolex Watches and the Rolex Registered Trademarks. 

48. Defendant’s acts, as set forth herein, were willful and deliberate. Therefore, this 

case constitutes an exceptional case under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). 

49. The injury and damages sustained by Rolex have been directly and proximately 

caused by Defendant’s wrongful reproduction, use, advertisement, promotion, offers to sell, and 

sale of the Counterfeit Watches. 

50. Rolex has suffered irreparable harm and damages as a result of Defendant’s 

conduct. If Defendant’s counterfeiting and infringing, and unfairly competitive activities are not 

permanently enjoined by this Court, Rolex and the consuming public will continue to be harmed. 

51. Rolex has no adequate remedy at law. 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 11 of 19
12 

COUNT I - TRADEMARK COUNTERFEITING AND INFRINGEMENT 

PURSUANT TO § 32 OF THE LANHAM ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1114) 

52. Rolex hereby adopts and re-alleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 

51 above. 

53. This is an action for trademark counterfeiting and infringement against Defendant 

based on its use of counterfeits, copies, and/or colorable imitations of the Rolex Registered 

Trademarks in commerce in connection with the promotion, advertisement, distribution, sale 

and/or offering for sale of counterfeit Rolex watches. 

54. Specifically, Defendant is promoting and otherwise advertising, selling, offering 

for sale and distributing watches bearing counterfeits and infringements of one or more of the 

Rolex Registered Trademarks. Defendant is continuously infringing and inducing others to 

infringe the Rolex Registered Trademarks by using them to advertise, promote, sell, and/or offer 

to sell counterfeit Rolex watches. 

55. Defendant’s counterfeiting and infringing activities are likely to cause and actually 

are causing confusion, mistake, and deception among members of the trade and the general 

consuming public as to the origin and quality of Defendant’s counterfeit products. 

56. Defendant’s unlawful actions have caused and are continuing to cause 

unquantifiable damages and irreparable harm to Rolex and are unjustly enriching Defendant at 

Rolex’s expense. 

57. Defendant’s above-described illegal actions constitute counterfeiting and 

infringement of the Rolex Registered Trademarks in violation of Rolex’s rights under § 32 of the 

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114. 

58. Rolex has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury due to Defendant’s 

above described activities if Defendant is not permanently enjoined. 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 12 of 19
13 

COUNT II - FALSE DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN 

PURSUANT TO § 43(a) OF THE LANHAM ACT (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) 

59. Rolex hereby adopts and re-alleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 

51 above. 

60. Defendant’s counterfeit products bearing, offered for sale, and sold under copies of 

one or more of the Rolex Registered Trademarks have been widely advertised and offered for sale 

throughout the United States. 

61. Defendant’s counterfeit products bearing, offered for sale, and sold under copies of 

one or more of the Rolex Registered Trademarks are virtually identical in appearance to Rolex’s 

products. However, Defendant’s products are different in quality. Accordingly, Defendant’s 

activities are likely to cause confusion in the trade and among the general public as to at least the 

origin or sponsorship of the counterfeit goods. 

62. Defendant, upon information and belief, has used in connection with its 

advertisement, offer for sale, and sale of their counterfeit goods, false designations of origin and 

false descriptions and representations, including words or other symbols and trade dress which 

tend to falsely describe or represent such goods and have caused such goods to enter into commerce 

with full knowledge of the falsity of such designations of origin and such descriptions and 

representations, all to Rolex’s detriment. 

63. Defendant has authorized infringing uses of one or more of the Rolex Registered 

Trademarks in Defendant’s advertisement and promotion of their counterfeit and infringing 

products. Defendant has also misrepresented to members of the consuming public that the 

counterfeit goods being advertised and sold by them are genuine, non-infringing goods. 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 13 of 19
14 

64. Additionally, Defendant is using counterfeits and infringements of one or more of 

the Rolex Registered Trademarks in order to unfairly compete with Rolex and others for space 

within search engine organic results, thereby jointly depriving Rolex of a valuable marketing and 

educational tool which would otherwise be available to Rolex and reducing the visibility of 

Rolex’s genuine goods on the World Wide Web. 

65. Defendant’s above-described actions are in violation of Section 43(a) of the 

Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 

66. Rolex has no adequate remedy at law and has sustained indivisible injury and 

damages caused by Defendant’s conduct. Absent an entry of an injunction by this Court, Rolex 

will continue to suffer irreparable injury to its goodwill and business reputation, as well as 

monetary damages. 

COUNT III - COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION

67. Rolex hereby adopts and re-alleges the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 

51 above. 

68. This is an action against Defendant based on its (i) promotion, advertisement, 

distribution, sale, and/or offering for sale of goods bearing marks which are identical, both visually 

and phonetically, to the Rolex Registered Trademarks, and (ii) creation and maintenance of an 

illegal, ongoing marketplace enterprise operating in parallel to the legitimate marketplace in which 

Rolex sells its genuine goods, in violation of Florida’s common law of unfair competition. 

69. Specifically, Defendant is promoting and otherwise advertising, selling, offering 

for sale and distributing infringing and counterfeit Rolex watches. Defendant is also using 

counterfeits and infringements of one or more of the Rolex Registered Trademarks to unfairly 

compete with Rolex and others for (i) space in search engine results across an array of search terms 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 14 of 19
15 

and/or (ii) visibility on the World Wide Web. 

70. Defendant’s infringing activities are likely to cause and actually are causing 

confusion, mistake and deception among members of the general consuming public as to the origin 

and quality of Defendant’s products by its use of the Rolex Registered Trademarks. 

71. Rolex has no adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable injury and 

damages as a result of Defendant’s actions. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

72. WHEREFORE, Rolex demands judgment on all Counts of this Complaint and an 

award of equitable relief and monetary relief against Defendant as follows: 

a. Entry of a permanent injunction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116 and Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 65 enjoining Defendant, its agents, representatives, servants, employees, 

and all those acting in concert or participation therewith, from: 

 (i) using any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of the 

Rolex Registered Trademarks to identify any goods or the rendering of any services 

not authorized by Rolex; 

(ii) engaging in any course of conduct likely to cause confusion, deception or 

mistake, or injure Rolex’s business reputation or weaken the distinctive quality of 

the Rolex Registered Trademarks, Rolex’s name, reputation or goodwill; 

(iii) using a false description or representation including words or other symbols 

tending to falsely describe or represent their unauthorized goods as being those of 

Rolex or sponsored by or associated with Rolex and from offering such goods in 

commerce; 

(iv) further infringing or diluting the Rolex Registered Trademarks by 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 15 of 19
16 

manufacturing, producing, distributing, circulating, selling, marketing, offering for 

sale, advertising, promoting, displaying or otherwise disposing of any products not 

authorized by Rolex bearing any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy or 

colorable imitation of the Rolex Registered Trademarks; 

(v) using any simulation, reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable imitation 

of the Rolex Registered Trademarks in connection with the promotion, 

advertisement, display, sale, offering for sale, manufacture, production, circulation 

or distribution of any unauthorized products in such fashion as to relate or connect, 

or tend to relate or connect, such products in any way to Rolex, or to any goods 

sold, manufactured, sponsored or approved by, or connected with Rolex; and 

 (vii) engaging in any conduct constituting an infringement of any of the Rolex 

Registered Trademarks, of Rolex’s rights in, or to use or to exploit, said trademark, 

or constituting any weakening of Rolex’s name, reputation and goodwill; 

(viii) using or continuing to use the Rolex Registered Trademarks or trade names 

in any variation thereof on the Internet (either in the text of a website, as a domain 

name, or as a keyword, search word, metatag, or any part of the description of the 

site in any submission for registration of any Internet site with a search engine or 

index) in connection with any goods or services not directly authorized by Rolex. 

(ix) from engaging in search engine optimization strategies using colorable 

imitations of Rolex’s name or the Rolex Registered Trademarks, and from 

otherwise unfairly competing with Rolex. 

b. Entry of a permanent injunction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), The All 

Writs Act, enjoining Defendant and all third parties with actual notice of the injunction from 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 16 of 19
17 

participating in, including providing financial services, technical services or other support to, 

Defendant in connection with the sale and distribution of non-genuine goods bearing counterfeits 

of the Rolex Registered Trademarks. 

c. Entry of an order that, upon Rolex’s request, those acting in concert or 

participation with Defendant who have notice of the injunction, as service providers cease hosting, 

facilitating access to, or providing any supporting service to any and all domain names, including 

but not limited to the Subject Domain Name, and websites through which Defendant engages in 

the promotion, offering for sale and/or sale of goods using counterfeits and/or infringements of the 

Rolex Registered Trademarks. 

d. Entry of an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), The All Writs Act, and 

the Court’s inherent authority, authorizing Rolex to serve the injunction on any e-mail service 

provider with a request that the service provider permanently suspend the e-mail addresses which 

are used by Defendant in connection with Defendant’s promotion, offering for sale, and/or sale of 

goods using counterfeits, and/or infringements of the Rolex Registered Trademarks. 

e. Entry of an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), The All Writs Act, and 

the Court’s inherent authority, that upon Rolex’s request, the top level domain (TLD) Registry for 

each of the Subject Domain Name, and any other domains used by Defendant or its administrators, 

including backend registry operators or administrators, place the Subject Domain Name on 

Registry Hold status for the remainder of the registration period for any such domain name, thus 

removing them from the TLD zone files which link the Subject Domain Name, and any other 

domain names being used and/or controlled by Defendant to engage in the business of marketing, 

offering to sell, and/or selling goods bearing counterfeits and infringements of the Rolex 

Registered Trademarks, to the IP addresses where the associated websites are hosted. 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 17 of 19
18 

f. Entry of an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), The All Writs Act, and 

the Court’s inherent authority, canceling for the life of the current registration or, at Rolex’s 

election, transferring the Subject Domain Name and any other domain names used by Defendant 

to engage in its counterfeiting of the Rolex Registered Trademarks at issue to Rolex’s control so 

they may no longer be used for illegal purposes. 

g. Entry of an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), The All Writs Act, and 

the Court’s inherent authority, authorizing Rolex to request any Internet search engines which are 

provided with notice of the injunction, to permanently disable, de-index or delist the URL 

www.solidswiss.cd based upon Defendant’s unlawful activities being conducted via the Subject 

Domain Name as a whole and via the URL www.solidswiss.cd. 

h. Entry of an order requiring Defendant, its agent(s) or assign(s), to assign all 

rights, title, and interest, to its Subject Domain Name(s) to Rolex and, if within five (5) days of 

entry of such order any Defendant fails to make such an assignment, the Court order the act to be 

done by another person appointed by the Court at any non-complying Defendant’s expense, such 

as the Clerk of Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 70(a).

i. Entry of an order requiring each Defendant, its agent(s) or assign(s), to 

instruct all search engines to permanently delist or deindex the Subject Domain Name(s) and, if 

within five (5) days of entry of such order any Defendant fails to make such a written instruction, 

the Court order the act to be done by another person appointed by the Court at any non-complying 

Defendant’s expense, such as the Clerk of Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

70(a). 

j. Entry of an order requiring Defendant to account to and pay Rolex for all 

profits and damages resulting from Defendant’s trademark counterfeiting and infringing activities 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 18 of 19
19 

and that the award to Rolex be trebled, as provided for under 15 U.S.C. § 1117, or, at Rolex’s 

election with respect to Count I, that Rolex be awarded statutory damages from Defendant in the 

amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) per each counterfeit trademark used and product 

sold, as provided by 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)(2) of the Lanham Act. 

k. Entry of an award pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (a) and (b) of Rolex’s costs 

and reasonable attorneys’ fees and investigative fees associated with bringing this action. 

l. Entry of an award of pre-judgment interest on the judgment amount. 

m. Entry of an order for any further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

DATED: June 30, 2020. Respectfully submitted, 

 STEPHEN M. GAFFIGAN, P.A. 

 By: Stephen M. Gaffigan

 Stephen M. Gaffigan (Fla. Bar No. 025844) 

 Virgilio Gigante (Fla. Bar No. 082635) 

 T. Raquel Wiborg-Rodriguez (Fla. Bar No. 103372) 

 401 East Las Olas Blvd., #130-453 

 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

 Telephone: (954) 767-4819 

 E-mail: stephen@smgpa.net 

 E-mail: leo@smgpa.net 

 E-mail: Raquel@smgpa.net 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff ROLEX WATCH U.S.A., INC. 

Case 0:20-cv-61283-AHS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2020 Page 19 of 19