Welcome to Malaysia Watch Forum, a place on the web for Malaysian Watch lovers to share their common interests. All are welcome to sign up. Registration is free.
It turns out that there was no fraud at all; truth can be stranger than fiction.Hublot uses a third party vendor to guard its IP and prosecute/ claim against infringers. Fair enough; I’d do the same. The problem is, said third party vendor was either a) not properly instructed, or b) properly instructed but did not bother verifying anything before submitting claims. The onus is once again back on Hublot – as a brand principal, you are responsible for all of those agents representing you – legally or perceptually – because they are acting on behalf of your brand. It is in your interests to ensure that the representation is to your liking since your profitability is directly linked to perceived brand value. Vet your vendors!
looks like some poor exec in hublot somewhere will be getting the blame for this.QuoteIt turns out that there was no fraud at all; truth can be stranger than fiction.Hublot uses a third party vendor to guard its IP and prosecute/ claim against infringers. Fair enough; I’d do the same. The problem is, said third party vendor was either a) not properly instructed, or b) properly instructed but did not bother verifying anything before submitting claims. The onus is once again back on Hublot – as a brand principal, you are responsible for all of those agents representing you – legally or perceptually – because they are acting on behalf of your brand. It is in your interests to ensure that the representation is to your liking since your profitability is directly linked to perceived brand value. Vet your vendors!
