News

Update 28/03/2024: Global Competition Review Report

Update 28/03/2024: The Full High Court Judgement

Update 28/03/2024: Our High Court claim has come to an end

We have now received the decision from Judge Michael Green on whether or not the High Court has jurisdiction to hear our claim against Swatch, and sadly it is not the decision we had hoped for.

As we have pointed out in previous news items (see below), the rules that Judge Green had to apply strictly prevented him from examining in any way how the Swiss Court arrived at its verdict, even if it is blatantly obvious that the verdict is wrong.

As Swatch’s lawyer was summing up in the last few minutes of the hearing, the Judge twice pinned him asking if it was alright if, as a result of the Swiss verdict, consumers had to pay 50% more for their watch repairs. After some stumbling, their lawyer’s reply was “Yes”, so I am quite sure that Judge Green left his court fully aware that the Swiss verdict does not reflect the norms of British Competition Law. However, the rules simply do not allow him to take that simple fact into account.

Judge Green noted that our two arguments relating firstly to British Competition Law now being different from that of the EU, and secondly to the contention that the legality of the Authorised Service Networks has not been tested, had both been mentioned in the Swiss verdict. Because they had been mentioned, he felt that to allow us to argue them again would constitute re examining the Swiss case, and could not be allowed.

As to our claim that we were denied our right to be heard because our evidence was not considered, our lawyers had argued that the evidence we provided could not have been looked at because had the Swiss Court done so, it could not have reached the conclusion that it did. In his verdict, Judge Green highlighted general statements in the Swiss verdict that evidence had been looked at, and acknowledged the arguments we made to him, but again he considered that this was re-examining the Swiss verdict, and could not be permitted.

Our case has attracted considerable interest within the Legal community, and within minutes of the decision being made public we were approached for comment by one of the largest subscription news services, Global Competition Review. They asked us two very pertinent questions, and I reproduce them for you below along with our responses, as they neatly summarise the consequences arising from our case.

What are the key takeaways?

Enormous damage has been done to the fundamentals of UK and European Competition Law by the Swiss courts. It has always been the case that the effect on consumers and competition has to be considered in any decision making, but we now have a ruling that states even monopolists can remove wholesale markets from the supply chain without any consumer benefit based justification. Those entities looking to subvert Competition Law and exploit consumers for their own benefit will be looking at this very carefully.

Has the court made the wrong decision? If so, will you appeal?

The issue lies not with the High Court, but rather with cross border jurisdiction treaties that have no requirement in them for foreign jurisdictions applying UK law to take account of the Ratio Legis [a legal term for the fundamental reasoning why the law was written] of that law, and have no remedy within them for UK Courts to overcome decisions that clearly do not.

After eight years of work, and a very considerable sum in legal costs, I can not begin to tell you how disappointed I am at this outcome. For the time being, there is no further route through the British Courts that Cousins can follow. However, I promised that we would fight to the end, and that promise stands.

The UK is no longer part of the Lugano Convention, whose rules Judge Green has applied, and as yet nothing permanent has replaced it. The political tide turned against repair prevention by restricting supply of spare parts some time ago, and our efforts on behalf of the Watch Repair industry have resulted in high level contacts within several Government Departments. You can be sure that we will keep working to overcome this unjust situation that we now all find ourselves in.

I will keep you advised.

Kind regards

Anthony.

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Update 29/02/2024:

Yesterday Cousins and its legal team went to the High Court in London to oppose the application by Swatch to have our UK claim struck out. The case was heard by Mr. Justice Micheal Green, a High Court Judge who also sits in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

In previous news stories, I have explained the arguments that we intended to bring, and I will not repeat them here. However, I am in no doubt that by the end of the day, Judge Green had a full picture of the consequences for Competition if Cousins action is not allowed to proceed. It was noteworthy that the Competition and Markets Authority sent a member of their Legal Team to observe proceedings from the Public Gallery.

As expected, after more than five hours of evidence and legal argument, Judge Green advised that he would consider the matter further and release a written verdict in due course.

Afterwards, our legal team said that the case had gone as well as it could have done, and better than they had thought likely.

There is no fixed timetable for the verdict, it entirely depends upon the workload Judge Green has, but we hope to be able to advise you of the outcome in a matter of weeks rather than months.

Regards Anthony.

Update 23/02/2024: What to expect from next week’s High Court hearing.

Everything is now ready for next week’s High Court hearing, but I wanted to make sure that our customers know what to expect from it, and when. The hearing is only to decide whether or not the High Court can hear the full claim that Cousins has brought against Swatch. If the decision goes in our favour, then the full case regarding the open supply of parts will proceed some months after.

The Judge basically has three options. Firstly, if they are utterly convinced on the day of what the decision should be, then they can give it immediately. Secondly, they have the option to indicate at the end of the day what they think their decision is going to be, but reserve judgement, consider the matter some more, and release a written judgement later. Thirdly, they can just say that they are reserving judgement, and will produce a written judgement later.

The first two options are fairly uncommon, by far the most used method is a written verdict some time later. That time period depends entirely on the workload that the judge has ongoing, and whilst there is no set limit, it is generally anywhere from a couple of weeks to around three months. Obviously I will let you know what transpires on the day.

I am confident that we have done everything we can to present the strongest possible case to the court, and that our legal team are fully prepared. Can I take this opportunity to thank all those of you who have written in support, it really means a lot to us.

Regards Anthony.

Cousins in High Court Next Week

• Fighting for Parts and Now Fighting for UK Law ALSO!

Since deciding last year to serve our High Court claim on Swatch, Cousins has been very active in explaining to the outside world what the consequences of the Swiss verdict will be if it is recognised here in the UK. Of necessity, we have had to stay silent about this work, but as it has now been included as part of our evidence to the High Court, we can reveal more about it.

At the end of my last news story (see below), I outlined that the Swiss decision affects wholesaling in any industry, but the true extent of its consequences go way beyond that. At the simplest level, the ruling opens the door to manufacturers being the sole source of supply for anything, which in turn gives them the power to control or eliminate wholesalers and other intermediate markets such as retailers or repairers, with potentially devastating consequences for long standing government policies on consumer rights, sustainability, and the right to repair. However, at a higher level are two issues relating to the function and creation of UK law.

The basis of UK and EU Competition Law is the protection of consumers, which in all but the most exceptional of circumstances is achieved by maximising competition in every market, to give consumers the capability to choose the price and service levels that suit their individual requirements. Consideration of the effect on consumers and competition is the core principle of the law itself and has been at the core of every judgement in Competition Law, but the Swiss verdict creates a precedent which eliminates that principle. If that is acceptable in one part of the law, inevitably it will be argued that other parts of the law need not consider the effect on consumers.

Setting of precedents is a normal part of the legal process, but those precedents have to be in line with principles of the law, not acting in reverse of them. The Swiss verdict has raised serious issues about firstly, whether or not the actions of the Swiss courts comply with the treaties that exist between our countries, and secondly whether it is acceptable for a foreign jurisdiction to interfere with the base principles of UK law.

Cousins very quickly brought these issues to the attention of the Department for Business and Trade (DBT), and our Trade Attaché in the British Embassy in Switzerland, both of whom reacted positively and promptly. The issue was extremely pertinent at DBT, because the Minister for Trade was just commencing talks on a new Free Trade Agreement with Switzerland.

Our local MP, Sir John Whittingdale OBE, came to our offices for a full briefing within 48 hours of being notified of the issue, and with his assistance the matter has now been brought to the attention of no less than six government ministers and four departments, including the section within the Ministry of Justice that deals with international treaties.

In addition, Cousins has been very active in engaging with the UK Competition and Markets Authority, who have examined in detail the papers relating to next weeks’ High Court hearing and have taken the highly unusual step of writing to us to indicate their potential interest in the case if the Swiss decision is not recognised. In itself, this might seem to a layman to be a rather ineffectual action, but it has much greater significance in the legal world.

“Global Competition Review” is probably the leading subscription news service for Competition Law professionals in the UK. They are frequently the first source for their readership on the most significant stories in that sector, and with their kind permission reproduced below is an article they published ten days ago. You will be pleased to learn that the article very quickly made its way into their “Top 5 Most Read” list.

• GCR Exclusive: CMA signals interest in refusal to supply claim against Swatch

Janith Aranze

09 February 2024

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority is keeping a close eye on private litigation brought by a watch parts wholesaler against the Swatch Group with a view to potentially intervening in the standalone claim.

In a letter sent to claimant Cousins Material House on 17 January and seen by GCR, the CMA said the case is “potentially of interest” and that it could intervene in the lawsuit given the competition law issues raised in the claim.

Cousins Material House is challenging Swatch’s decision to cease supplying it with spare parts, although the watchmaker has applied to strike out the case on jurisdictional grounds.

The CMA noted in its letter to the claimant that it cannot intervene while that challenge is ongoing.

“If and to the extent the High Court assumes jurisdiction in respect of the proceedings and proceeds in whole or in part to hear it on the merits, the CMA will reconsider intervention at that point in time,” the agency’s litigation director Daniel Barnett wrote, while asking to be kept informed as the case develops.

The jurisdictional hearing is expected to take place before the High Court of England and Wales at the end of February.

The CMA was contacted for comment regarding its interest in the case. To date, it has only intervened in six private litigation cases, although such claims are playing an increasingly pivotal role in its decision-making.

Just last week, the agency advised the Competition Appeal Tribunal that it does not need to apply any “special further caution” to excessive pricing cases after deciding to intervene in Justin Le Patourel’s class action claim against BT.

CMA chief executive Sarah Cardell said last spring that the existence of private litigation is a “relevant factor” when the agency decides whether to take enforcement action. Two years earlier, the agency revealed it planned to increase its intervention in private lawsuits.

The long-running Swatch dispute dates back to 2014 when the largest manufacturer of Swiss-made watches announced it would stop supplying independent wholesalers or repairers worldwide with spare parts come December 2015.

UK wholesaler Cousins subsequently issued Swatch a letter before action, giving it three weeks to continue supplying spare parts or face a High Court lawsuit.

After seeking an extension to respond, Swatch instead filed an action before the Bern Commercial Court in Switzerland, asking it to rule that the watchmaker is not obliged to supply Cousins under EU and UK law.

Under the Lugano Convention, which the UK was part of at the time, the Swiss parallel claim suspended proceedings in the UK until a final ruling.

The Bern court later agreed with Cousins that the case was not admissible under Swiss law. It subsequently ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim against Swatch UK and its subsidiary ETA, which is located outside of Bern.

But the Federal Supreme Court overturned those rulings and allowed Swatch’s conduct to be heard on the merits in Switzerland.

The Swiss court issued its ruling in December 2021, confirming a European Court of Justice judgment that spare parts for each brand of watches are separate markets, making Swatch a monopolist in the supply of spare parts for its brands.

However, the Bern court stated that Swatch’s refusal to supply was part of a reorganisation of its route to market and was objectively justified without the need to consider the effect on consumers or competition in the UK. The Federal Supreme Court subsequently upheld that decision in 2022.

Despite the adverse Swiss rulings, Cousins lodged its High Court claim against Swatch last year.

In challenging the lawsuit, the watchmaker argues that the UK courts lack jurisdiction because the matter has already been decided. Swatch declined to comment.

Switzerland’s Competition Commission has refused to look into the matter and the European Commission has declined to investigate a similar complaint.

However, Cousins argues the Swiss rulings breach the European Convention on Human Rights because the business was denied its right to be heard due to the Swiss courts’ failure to consider the evidence.

It claims that UK law has not been considered in the case because the country’s departure from the EU occurred before the Bern court ruled on the matter – and that UK law can now deviate from EU precedent on antitrust matters.

Anthony Cousins, managing director of the claimant business, told GCR that the Swiss court ruling “runs roughshod” over the very basis of EU and UK competition law and creates a dangerous precedent that could allow dominant entities to control downstream markets.

“We have been jumped all over by a massive conglomerate, and now find ourselves not only fighting to save our business and the businesses of our watch repairer customers, but also having to fight for the existence of wholesaling in any market and the rights of UK consumers,” he said.

The Swiss judgment could be used by a monopoly manufacturer to argue that it can terminate supply contracts with long-standing wholesalers and independent operators without considering the adverse effects on competition and consumers, Cousins added.

He also revealed he has held discussions with the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice.

“The gravity of the situation is brought home to me by the fact that at least six ministers have been told about this case, and all the departments we have contacted have responded quickly and positively,” he said.

Counsel to Cousins, Maitland Walker: Partner Julian Maitland-Walker in Taunton

Counsel to Swatch, Addleshaw Goddard: Partner Paul Chaplin in London

I hope to get one more update out to you before next week’s hearing.

Regards Anthony.

Update: 03/11/23

At Long Last the Fight for Parts Supply is Going to the High Court

Cousins battle with the Swatch Group is now heading to the High Court in London. However, after the ruling in Switzerland, the case in London commences with arguments that you might not be expecting. Anthony Cousins explains the details below:-

It has been more than a year since I last updated you on our legal battle with the Swatch Group to overcome their refusal to openly supply spare parts. Doubtless some of you will think that we have gone quiet because we have given up, but nothing could be further from the truth. When we started this process, I made a commitment to keep fighting until we won the day, or had exhausted every available means. That fight has continued and has now reached a significant milestone.

In December of 2021, the Commercial Court of Bern gave a verdict that ran contrary to the most fundamental principle of British and European Competition Law, which is that no matter can be decided without consideration of the impact upon UK consumers and competition in the UK. We supplied the court with overwhelming evidence to show that watch owners are suffering substantially higher prices for servicing and repair, are waiting significantly longer for their watches to be returned, have an extremely limited selection of locations where they can obtain service, and are frequently obliged to have work done to their watches that is not necessary and that they do not want. We also asked the court to engage independent expert witnesses to advise them on how British Competition Law is applied and decided. The Bern Court refused to consider any of that evidence, declined to employ any expert witnesses, and determined that Swatch was “objectively justified in changing its supply chain. In so doing, the Bern Court did not consider at all any of the evidence we provided on the impact of Swatch’s cessations of supplies on UK consumers and competition in the UK.

As we reported in August of 2022, we appealed against this ruling to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (FSC), pointing out in detail why the interests of consumers and competition are always paramount. Our experience of the FSC has not been good. Twice before the Bern court ruled in our favour, and on both occasions the FSC changed the Swiss Civil Code and found in favour of Swatch. Although our arguments were entirely correct, it came as little surprise when in September of last year, the FSC refused our appeal and found again for Swatch.

It is outrageous that a foreign jurisdiction thinks it can alter the basis of a UK law, without even asking for any opinion on this from this country, and at the same time ignore a wealth of factual evidence that has been placed before it. I have no doubt that the Swiss judicial system is not a suitable forum to give rulings on British and European law, but explaining in detail why is an issue for another day. However, for you as the reader to understand what actions we have taken subsequently, it is necessary that you understand some basic points about why the Swiss had the right to rule on British and European law in the first place.

Brexit had not happened when the case started back in early 2016, and an agreement existed between the EU, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, and Denmark, called the Lugano Convention. This treaty deals with how cross border disputes between parties in the different countries should be managed in the courts, and in simple terms stated that all the signatories to the convention recognised each other’s judicial systems as being equal, and gave each other the right to rule using whichever country’s law was applicable. In our case this meant that a dispute between a British company and a Swiss company about a matter of British (and EU) law could be dealt with by either country’s courts.

When we first wrote to Swatch about taking legal action, we told them that we would be taking them to the High Court in London if they did not resupply us within three weeks. To avoid that, they brought a claim against us in the Bern court without, however, telling us that they were doing this. But this did mean that the proceedings were supposed to be dealt with using British and EU law, not Swiss law. I am not going to detail the whole case again here, but for what follows to make sense, there are four significant points I must explain about how this relates to the Lugano Convention in our case.

Firstly, the UK was (when the case began) bound by the Lugano Convention because it was a member of the EU, but when Brexit happened half way through our case, the UK was no longer part of the convention. The UK government applied to join the convention, and whilst waiting for a decision from the other members, held that any case started under Lugano rules would continue to be bound by them. Over a year later, the EU was still refusing to agree that the UK could join the convention, so the rules applicable in our case became somewhat less clear, and indeed before the final appeal was heard at the FSC, the Swiss courts declared that the convention was no longer applicable, and the final appeal was conducted under different rules.

Secondly, all EU members use the same wording in their competition laws that appears in the EU Treaty, the only minor and required difference is that where the EU Treaty says ‘in the EU’, the UK Competition Act says ‘in the UK’. As part of the Brexit process, although the basics of UK Competition Law stayed the same, Section 60a was added to the Competition Act which allows UK law to deviate from EU law, so the two cannot be considered to be the same.

Thirdly, under the terms of the Lugano Convention, if a matter is decided in one country then all the others are bound by it, and the courts of those other countries cannot review or overrule the decision, or hear the matter again, even if they are certain that the foreign decision is wrong. This is part of a wider legal principle known by the Latin phrase “Res Judicata”, which loosely translates as “This has already been Judged”. The point of this is to prevent a matter being repeatedly litigated, and to avoid conflicting judgements in different countries.

Fourthly, under the terms of the Convention, the only action another member country can realistically take, is to refuse to recognise the foreign decision if it is ‘contrary to public policy’, but this has to be something other than the law applicable to the decision concerned, for example if one of the parties right to a fair trial was breached. As highlighted in the point above, it is not possible to argue that the Swiss courts did not apply Competition Law correctly. That would be ‘reviewing’ the case, which is expressly forbidden.

Keeping these four points in mind, the actions that Cousins have now taken can be understood.

When Swatch wrote to us in 2016 to say that they had lodged their claim with the Bern Court, there was a delay whilst we were waiting for the papers to be served on us. In that time period, we lodged our claim at the High Court in London in the expectation that the proceedings in Switzerland would not be admissible. Normally, a claimant has only three months to serve the papers on the other party, but because of the extraordinary nature of how the Swiss proceedings played out, we applied to the High Court for extensions to that time period, and in the end were granted a very exceptional ten of them. This meant that when the final FSC verdict came in, we still had a live claim that we could use.

After lengthy consultation with our UK legal team, we identified two ways in which we believe the UK courts have valid reason not to recognise the Swiss decision, which in turn would allow us to bring the case again in the High Court, and have a British Judge decide a matter of British law concerning British markets and British consumers.

Firstly, both the UK and Switzerland are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and it is contrary to public policy for the terms of that convention to be ignored. A crucial part of the ECHR is that parties in a legal action ‘have the right to be heard’. For this requirement to be met, it is vital that any evidence offered is considered by the court hearing the case. This did not happen in Bern.

Secondly (as I explained above) after Brexit, UK Competition Law had the right to deviate from that of the EU. The Bern court did acknowledge the addition of Section 60a to UK law, but continued to regard UK law as being the same as that of the EU, and made its judgement on that basis. It is therefore true to say that UK Competition Law has not been applied at all, so it is not correct to claim that the matter has already been judged.

In July this year, we served our High Court claim on Swatch (UK), and had the High Court start the process of serving on Swatch Group and ETA in Switzerland. The process of serving on foreign companies takes a few months, but Swatch UK received the claim within two days, and were required by the rules to enter a defence within six weeks. As we expected, Swatch responded by stating that this matter was already decided, and they applied to the High Court to have the claim struck out.

We objected to the application on the grounds that I have explained above, and after some debate back and forth, it was agreed that there would be a one day hearing before a Judge in the High Court in order to decide whether or not the Bern verdict should be recognised in UK law. In simple terms, if the Bern decision is recognised, then there is little else that we can do. However, if the Bern decision is not recognised, then our current claim will continue and a longer hearing will be timetabled at which the evidence will be considered, and a ruling will be given under British Law. We are very confident as to what that ruling would be. On Monday of this week the administrative team at the High Court processed possible dates for the hearing, and it has been confirmed to us this will be the week commencing 26 February 2024.

Whilst I am sure that there will be much interest within the watch repair world, this case has far greater significance. The Bern decision is not confined to watch parts, but covers wholesaling and other forms of distribution of any product in any market. If that decision is recognised, then small businesses in every sector who can not compete with the buying power of their larger counterparts will find themselves either out of business, or under the direct control of the manufacturers, and the big loser in the end will be the consumer.

I never imagined when all this began that Cousins would end up fighting to uphold the basic principles of UK business law, but if that is what we need to do in order to preserve the right of our customers to continue to offer their services to UK consumers as they have done for Centuries, then that is what we will do.

I will keep you updated as matters progress.

Regards Anthony

Update: 01/02/23

Royal Mail have resumed international deliveries to locations following the recent cyber incident. Royal Mail state these deliveries "may take slightly longer than usual and customers may notice different tracking information as items leave the UK".

Update: 26/01/23

Following the recent cyber incident Royal Mail have begun to resume international deliveries to certain destinations. Royal Mail state these deliveries "may take slightly longer than usual and customers may notice different tracking information as items leave the UK". Tracked services to certain destinations as well as non tracked services are still suspended, Royal Mail state they are aiming to provide further updates on these services in the coming days. Please click here for further information.

Please continue to use the alternative carriers available in your basket.

Update: 13/01/23

Royal Mail have temporarily suspended all international delivery services due to a "cyber incident". Royal Mail teams are working around the clock to resolve this disruption however they state unfortunately they are currently unable to provide a resolution timeframe.

Please use the alternative carriers available in your basket.

Update: 22/12/22 - Thank you for another year

As 2022 comes to a close, we wanted to take a moment to thank you for being a loyal customer throughout the year. We wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and time to relax, as well as health, success and happiness in the new year.

We remain open to take orders throughout the festive period and new year, these will then be processed & despatched in date order of receipt upon our return on Tuesday 3rd January.

Best Regards

Anthony.

December 2022

Unfortunately due to recent strike action, Royal Mail have advised that there will delays in them delivering your parcel. Parcels will also experience delays in being scanned into their system, which means it will look as if they have not received your parcel, even though they have. We have contacted Royal Mail about the incorrect tracking information they are giving, but they have stated they are unable to change their system. Unfortunately this is out of Cousins control. All orders are despatched from Cousins on a same day despatch basis, this includes your order. On Strike days they are despatched the next working day, first thing in the morning.

All parcels have been despatched by Cousins, if your chosen method was a tracked service the parcel tracking number is shown at the bottom of your invoice and in the “my order” section of your dashboard. Please contact your local sorting office for further information.

If your chosen delivery option was untracked unfortunately there is absolutely nothing we can do, hopefully your delivery will arrive soon or it may be returned to us, then we will immediately contact you to advise.

Please allow longer than usual for Royal Mail to deliver your parcel. Click here

RM employees have been striking for weeks, each day of strike action creates a back log, Christmas is even busier for them so processing and clearing back logs is going to be painful for all us customers. RM management do not offer any solution other than state that there is nothing that can do, which includes chasing and claiming.

We can only suggest selecting an alternative courier option. There will be other courier options for you to choose from in your shopping basket other than Royal Mail.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update: 19/09/2022 - As you are aware, Monday 19 September, the date of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s State Funeral, will be a national bank holiday.

We wish to allow our employees time off to pay their respects to Her Majesty and commemorate her reign, and as such our business will close for the day.

Update: 25/08/22 - Taking Back Control

TAKING BACK CONTROL

The Cousins / Swatch case and why the government and the courts should reject participation in the Lugano Convention.

The Lugano Convention 2007 is an international treaty negotiated by the EU on behalf of its Member states with Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. It seeks to clarify (inter alia) which courts have jurisdiction in cross-border civil and commercial disputes.

The UK ceased to be a Member of the Convention on Brexit and its attempt to rejoin the Convention has so far been rejected by the EU largely on political grounds relating to the ongoing dispute with the UK over the Northern Ireland Protocol.

A recent cross-border dispute relating to alleged breaches of UK and EU competition law currently before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (FSC) offers a stark lesson on the shortcomings of the Lugano Convention and suggests that the UK Government and the English Courts should think twice before contemplating rejoining the Lugano Convention, at least while these jurisdictional deficiencies remain.

Cousins Material House Limited (“Cousins”) is a family-owned business acting as a Business to Business wholesaler of parts, consumables and tools for the watch repair and jewellery trades. It employs 60 staff and has a turnover of £11 million. Cousins has in excess of 12 million items across 130,000 product lines in stock and offers a unique one-stop shop supply service across all watch brands to independent repairers across the UK.

Swatch Group is the largest manufacturer of Swiss-branded watches which it sells all over the world owning dozens of major watch brands including Omega, Tissot and Longines. It employs around 35,000 people worldwide and has an annual turnover in the region of £6 billion.

In 2014, Swatch Group announced that with effect from 31 December 2015, it would no longer supply independent wholesalers or independent watch repairers with watch spare parts or movements in the UK. This included Cousins, a long-standing Swatch customer for many years. The supply of Swatch Group watch spare parts represented a significant proportion of Cousins’ turnover and Cousins was the main source of spare parts for independent repairers in the UK. Swatch’s stated objective was to improve the quality of the servicing and repairs of its watches. However, the underlying strategy was clearly to extend its market power in the manufacture and sale of its branded watches downstream into the repair and maintenance of those watches which (self-evidently) could no longer be carried out by independent repairers if they had no access to spare parts for Swatch-branded watches.

https://www.cousinsuk.com/content/external/emails/pdfs/Swatch-Cousins-Lugano-Convention.pdf?mc_cid=097855cde9&mc_eid=f23d7dde30

Update: 02/08/22 - Swatch v Cousins

It has been some time since we updated on our case in the Swiss Courts, but please be assured that we have been as busy as ever fighting for the rights of our customers to have access to the parts they need to conduct their lawful business. The verdict given by the Bern court is now the subject of an appeal that we lodged at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, but to explain how extraordinary the Bern decision was it makes sense to give you a quick reminder of the relevant Competition Law.

Competition Law is all about protecting the end consumer from being improperly manipulated by suppliers. Nothing in Competition Law can be decided without giving consideration to the effect that an action has on consumers. The offence being committed by those manufacturers that restrict or refuse the supply of spare parts is “Abuse of Market Dominance” and is easy to understand. It requires a definition of a Market to begin with, and evidence to show that their share of that market is 30% or more to establish dominance. There are a number of types of abuse, but one of the most serious is for a company to cease supply to long standing customers in order to seize control of downstream markets for themselves.

In the case of watch parts in the British and EU markets, the CEAHR case established that each brand of watch parts is a market by itself because it is not possible to fix one brand of watch with a different brand of parts. It also established that the manufacturers are 100% market dominant because consumers want manufacturers’ parts used in the repair of their watches in order to maintain the originality of their watches. These two aspects were decided by the European Court of Justice and accepted by the EU Commission. Swatch Group openly admits that it ceased to supply long standing wholesalers worldwide, so it seems obvious that this is a clear “Abuse of Market Dominance”.

In the action that Swatch brought against Cousins in the Bern Court, Swatch claimed that the market definition resulting from the CEAHR proceedings was wrong, and that they were not dominant, therefore their action was not abusive. This claim was rather problematic for them as the treaty in force between the EU and Switzerland requires them to abide by the decision of the European court. In addition, the Swiss regulator, COMCO, had also acknowledged that the EU definitions were correct. If the Bern court agreed that these definitions did apply, it seemed impossible to us that it could reach any verdict other than confirming the Abuse.

It normally takes three to four months after all the evidence and arguments have been submitted for a Swiss Court to deliver its decision. In our case this took sixteen months, and we know that Covid was not a factor in this delay because other cases that concluded after ours received their verdicts long before we did. We have not received any viable explanation for this delay, but what we did get was a verdict that runs contrary to both the basis and the letter of the law.

The Bern court accepted that the market and dominance definitions given by the EU were correct. However, instead of following the law as it is written, and considering what is best for consumers, the court ruled that even monopolists have the right to decide who they do business with, and to decide the route to market for their products. If a manufacturer decided that its distribution structure was outdated, it was justified in changing that regardless of the effect on either the downstream market, or indeed on consumers. On this basis, the court declined to give any consideration to the extensive evidence provided by Cousins on the effect on consumers of a dramatic increase in the price of servicing and repairs, coupled with a drop in the locations where they can have their watches worked on.

The whole point of the law is that monopolists do not have the right to decide who they do business with without being able to show that their choices do not disadvantage consumers. In addition, free and open competition is considered to be best for consumers, and is only ever prevented in the most exceptional of circumstances. What the Bern court has done with this decision is go beyond the application of British and EU laws, and attempt to subvert and redefine them.

All of this has been pointed out in detail in our appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, but the nature of the Swiss system leaves them a lot of room to dismiss our appeal on technicalities. The requirement is that Cousins must show the Bern decision to be shockingly contrary to the law, and that the court was frequently arbitrary in the arguments that it used. Unsurprisingly, there is no hard definition as to how many instances of arbitrariness we are required to show, but we believe we have highlighted more than enough.

If the Federal Supreme Court refuses the appeal, then the small matter of the right of watch repairers to openly ply their trade is likely to be the catalyst for a much larger international argument on the rights of foreign powers to interfere with British and EU laws, and as both parties are currently negotiating new trade deals with Switzerland, the watch parts issue could end up having much wider ramifications.

We hope that the result of the appeal will come out in the next few weeks and will keep you updated on progress.

Judgement Given by the Bern Court in the case of Swatch v Cousins

On 28 December 2021, our Swiss lawyers received the long awaited judgement from the Bern Court.

At the moment we do not have a full translation, but whilst the Court confirmed our position that Swatch are 100% market dominant in the supply of spare parts, it does not appear to have followed previous case law relating to companies with such monopolies, and has ruled that Swatch’s refusal to supply Cousins does not breach British and EU Competition Law.

Cousins has until the 1^st of February 2022 to lodge an appeal at the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Our legal teams in Switzerland and the UK will be studying the judgement over the next few days, and we will provide further information and updates as we are able.

Update: 15/12/21 - Swatch v Cousins

Since writing my message below we have heard from the Court that they promised that we would receive the ruling still within this year. Let's hope that this is correct this time.

Firstly we'd like to wish you a joyful festive period and a prosperous New Year from all of us here at Cousins.

Over the past many months my updates have been without much update, pretty much repeating the same narrative of waiting to hear anytime now. Unfortunately this message does not wander far from that narrative either. It is very frustrating to be in limbo with no means of contact or protocols to invoke with the Swiss Court.

The following is a high level status review of the case;

In August 2020 the Judge closed the receiving of further evidence, and here we are still waiting for a judgement as we approach 2022, an action that started in early 2016.

The decision in Switzerland to be decided is simply, Swatch state that they do not have to supply Cousins with spare parts and we say they do, that’s it!

The argument in a nut shell

Comco (Swiss competition authority) confirmed early this year that Swatch are dominate in their markets not only for watches but also for spare parts for their watches (a key point that we already knew).
There are NO legitimate reasons to manipulate the spare parts market, let alone to shut it off.
Dominant manufacturers of spare parts therefore have an obligation to supply wholesalers, in particular if those wholesalers built up the market for spare parts for the manufacturers.

Every day, week, month & year that goes by more and more of the independent watch repair trade dies, so effectively the delay of positive decision or a continuing lack of no decision in this Court case is a decision against the whole independent trade, including the once thriving Swiss independent sector.

A trade consisting of watch repairers, technicians, service centres, retailers, support staff and no doubt many others directly or indirectly connected, I estimate 10,000’s or even 100,000+ jobs have been lost in our industry Worldwide since Swiss Watch House restrictive activities started back in the 1980’s.

Many small and medium independent retailers all over the World, historically relied on the important revenue streams from customers visiting the retail shop with a watch for repair which often was an excellent opportunity for cross sales.

We are in a pandemic, the Berne Court is obviously not excluded from this, the Court have also had to replace key members of the judiciary in this case twice, but despite that they have several times missed their stated deadlines for the overdue decision, this also despite other cases being ruled on that started way after mine.

Best regards and thank you for all your support

Anthony Cousins.

1 Million Orders

As we celebrate reaching the milestone of our millionth order this year, we’d like to take the opportunity to thank you for your continued custom.

Occasions of this nature allow us to take a look back at how far we’ve come. Our business was born from humble beginnings in the 1960’s from a few rooms in the family home on the outskirts of London. Over years of building a reputation based on dependability and efficiency, we’ve grown to employ 40 skilled and motivated staff, including members of the third generation of the Cousins family. Each one an important link in the chain delivering expert and friendly service, each and every day.

We now occupy an immense, purpose-fitted warehouse that provides the best possible working environment for our team, while allowing us to hold more of the stock you require and continue to focus our efforts on providing you with a seamless service.

At Cousins we have always taken the business of serving the jewellery, watch, clock and allied trades very seriously. What was born from skill, craftsmanship and the objective to supply sought-after components, the Cousins name continues to uphold its reputation for being at the forefront of service and value.

We invite you to explore our heritage and are thrilled that you as our customer have become part of our story.

https://www.cousinsuk.com/history

New Feature: IOSS (Import One Stop Shop) for EU Customers

Cousins are happy to announce that we now support the IOSS (Import One Stop Shop) scheme on our website. This scheme ensures faster processing by your local customs authority without incurring any additional customs or carrier processing fees for collecting your local taxes.

Orders Under 150 EURO

For orders under 150 euros (excluding shipping and VAT), Cousins will add VAT according to the VAT rate applicable in your country. Cousins will then pay this to the respective European tax authorities on your behalf.

The EU IOSS system is NOT applicable for customers that have a VAT/EORI number registered on their account.

Having your VAT number logged on our system (and therefore on your invoice) enables your local customs to charge your local VAT and allows you to claim it back for your business. The IOSS scheme does not allow us to send parcels that include VAT/ EORI numbers.

Orders Over 150 EURO

Orders over 150 euros (excluding shipping and VAT), will continue to be delivered “DDU” (customs duties paid by the recipient upon receipt) in line with the European Union IOSS scheme.

Update: 20/10/21 - Swatch v Cousins

The dispute between Cousins Material House Limited and three companies of the Swatch Group before the Commercial Court of the Canton of Berne on the question of whether Swatch can simply stop supplying spare parts to a long-time wholesaler has been pending for five years now. Cousins hoped to be able to speed up the proceedings somewhat by waiving the oral hearing, but unfortunately this was not the case, apparently also because the responsible law clerk of the court has changed. According to an oral information from the court this summer, however, the judgment should be ready around the fall/autumn vacation period, which means that it should be issued shortly.

Update: 23/07/21 - WatchPro Reports Washing Machine Rules Could Help Clean Up Watch Parts Dispute

https://www.watchpro.com/washing-machine-rules-could-help-clean-up-watch-parts-dispute/

Update: 12/07/21 - President Joe Biden’s latest executive order is a huge win for right to repair

https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/9/22570826/president-joe-biden-executive-order-right-to-repair

Update: 01/07/21 - Right to repair rules will extend lifespan of products, government says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57665593

Update: 23/06/21 - Swatch v Cousins

The judgement which was due March/ April has been delayed due to the Swiss Court backlog, unfortunately there is no information offered on advising how long the delay will be.

Update: 10/03/21 - Right to Repair Law

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56340077

https://www.watchpro.com/washing-machine-rules-could-help-clean-up-watch-parts-dispute/

Update: 20/01/21 - Swatch v Cousins

Just before the Christmas Court recess, the lead Judge in our case confirmed his initial view that an oral hearing was not required. He has now formally closed the evidence and witness parts of the proceedings, and the only remaining step is the issuing of the written judgement. There is no set timescale for this, but this stage usually takes two to three months as the decision has to be drafted, commented on by the full panel of three Judges, and then finalized. We hope to have the verdict by around the end of March.

Update: 01/01/21 - No Import Charges or UK VAT Charges

VAT & Import charges for our EU customers

Due to the Brexit trade deal, no import charges are applied to goods sent from the UK to the European Union.

In addition, Cousins no longer charges UK VAT (20%) on goods supplied to our customers in the European Union.

Instead your local VAT rates apply and will be charged by your local tax office.

If you have a valid VAT number, you can claim this back with your local tax office.

Update: 21/12/20 - Thank you for another year

As 2020 comes to a close, we wanted to take a moment to thank you for being a loyal customer throughout the year. Best wishes over the holiday season. We hope it’s safe, restful, and that you come back ready to tackle 2021.

Custom built distribution facility: We are re-locating to our new custom built distribution centre which will allow us to continue to provide our second to none trade experience, combining great products at great prices with our great customer service. The move is happening over the festive period to minimise disruption as much as possible. We remain open throughout the festive period, however please be aware there may be a slight delay in processing your orders.

A preview of the new facility: https://mailchi.mp/cousinsuk/2020-christmas-message

Best Regards

Anthony.

Update: 01/12/20 - Right to repair law could stop restrictive distribution of watch parts

https://www.watchpro.com/right-to-repair-law-could-stop-restrictive-distribution-of-watch-parts/

Update: 27/11/20 - Swatch versus Cousins in the Bern Commercial Court

At the end of June we explained the remaining steps in the Swiss Legal process were informal written comments from both parties, a hearing, and then the written judgement. The informal comments were completed and we have been waiting for the date of the hearing.

It is worth explaining that the Swiss procedure is rather different to that in England. The right to a hearing is part of the Swiss Constitution, and the Judges are responsible for investigating the evidence, not just applying the law. This means that it is only the Judges that ask questions at a hearing. The two parties in the dispute do not cross examine each other. They are allowed to ask questions of witnesses via the Judge, but not directly and only if the Judge thinks the answer is likely to add value. In our case, the facts are not disputed. Swatch openly admit that they ceased to supply us. The dispute centres on whether or not that action was illegal. All the points of law pertinent to that question have been covered in depth in the extensive written submissions.

The Covid restrictions give the Court a range of issues when it comes to holding a hearing. Video links are not normally allowed in Swiss law, but have exceptionally been permitted during the pandemic. However questioning witnesses via video in a foreign country raises all sorts of issues about jurisdiction, and would require a range of permissions from the British Authorities. Because of this, and also because the evidence is clearly laid out in the documentation, the Judge in Bern took the unusual step of asking both parties how they would like to proceed.

We responded by stating that if the Judge did not have any questions for the parties or the witnesses, we would be willing to waive our right to a hearing if Swatch would do the same. The Judge described the proposal as “reasonable” and wrote to Swatch asking if they would agree to the same approach, which they did.

The Judge has been studying the papers in detail for the past four weeks, and has now advised us that his initial view is that a hearing is not required, but that he will make a firm decision on this point within the next three weeks. If a hearing is required, a date has been reserved in March of next year, and we would expect the final judgement two to three months after that. If a hearing is not required, we hope that the judgement will come much earlier than we would otherwise have expected.

We will keep you updated.

Kind regards

Anthony.

Update: 02/11/20 - 2nd Wave Lockdown, Co-Vid 19 Update:

Cousins website is 100% open for business. Our warehouse and distribution remains committed to all orders being dispatched the same day.

Cousins’ number one priority remains the safety and wellbeing of our staff and customers, and we are taking active measures to keep them safe.

Royal Mail, UPS & DHL have told us that they are operating as usual. Our daily carrier collections remain unaffected, however there may be some delays in their delivery times. All your parcel tracking information can be found in the “my orders” section of your dashboard. Royal Mail have advised that certain Countries now have restrictions and international deliveries are no longer available until further notice, these services have been removed from the countries effected. For clarity all available delivery services nationally and internationally will be displayed in your shopping basket.

We will continue to closely monitor developments and provide updates to our customers as soon as possible should any of this change.

To read the latest service information from our couriers, please follow the links below.

Royal Mail https://www.royalmail.com/coronavirus

UPS https://www.ups.com/gb/en/about/news/important-updates.page

DHL https://www.logistics.dhl/global-en/home/global-news-alerts/global-messages/coronavirus.html

Update: 24/06/20 - Swatch v Cousins in the Bern Court only slightly delayed due to Covid-19

Our fight with Swatch over the supply of parts has only been slightly delayed by the Covid-19 outbreak. Because the Swiss judicial system mainly relies on written submissions rather than Court appearances, the impact on our case has been less than might have been expected. The deadlines for submission of documents were extended for an extra four weeks by the Swiss Federal authorities, and an extra two weeks extension was granted by the Judge in Bern.

All the formal submissions by both sides have now been completed. The remainder of the process consists of informal comments by both sides (Swatch are due to submit theirs in the next two weeks and we will reply after that), and then a hearing in the Bern Court. We would expect the written verdict from the Judge around two to four months after that.

The date for the hearing has not yet been set. The summer recess for the Courts runs from mid-July to mid-August and we expect it will be some time after that. A lot will depend on travel restrictions and quarantine issues, but hopefully by the Autumn this will not be a factor.

As we said in our last News update, we were happy that our first submission was a very robust defence. As before, we can’t go into detail, but we can say that we think our second submission is even stronger than the first, and are very confident that the judge will reach the right verdict.

We will keep updating you as matters unfold.

Update: 30/05/20 - Co-Vid 19 Update:

Cousins website is 100% open for business. Our warehouse and distribution remains committed to all orders being dispatched the same day.

Cousins’ number one priority remains the safety and wellbeing of our staff and customers, and we are taking active measures to keep them safe.

We will continue to closely monitor developments and provide updates to our customers as soon as possible should any of this change.

To read the latest service information from our couriers, please follow the links below.

Royal Mail https://www.royalmail.com/coronavirus

UPS https://www.ups.com/gb/en/about/news/important-updates.page

DHL https://www.logistics.dhl/global-en/home/global-news-alerts/global-messages/coronavirus.html

Xmas Posting Times - Our phone lines will close from 12 midday Monday 23rd December 2019 until 8.30am Thursday 2nd January 2020. However our website is always available to take your order. Orders placed on our website between 24nd December 2019 and the 1st January 2020 will be prioritised and processed on our return in the New Year.

We wish all of our customers a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new year.

Thank you

Anthony Cousins.

News Update: 09/12/19 - Cousins Fight with Swatch continues as Consumers start waking up to the problem.

The Bern Court is now well into what should be the final stage of the case that Swatch has brought against us. As previously, it is not possible for us to talk in detail about what is going on, but we can say that we have submitted what we believe is a very robust defence, and the judge has called for Swatch’s response to it. That should be in by the end of January, and we will then be asked for our final submission. The Judge may then call for both sides to attend hearings where he can question them, after which he will deliberate and give his decision.

In the meantime, it seems that the worm may be beginning to turn. In a recent report in Watch Pro magazine, comments made in the open forum at Dubai Watch Week by a leading Rolex collector and dealer are a good indicator of the level of disquiet about servicing costs and availability, now appearing at even the wealthiest end of the market. That story was amongst the most read in the on-line edition, and Cousins took the opportunity to widen the debate with its own addition to the discussion that was published by Watch Pro last Friday.

We would encourage all our trade customers to read these articles, and circulate them to as many consumers as possible. There are increasing pressures against repair restrictions in all sorts of markets, and there are distinct signs of movement from some of the most restrictive companies. Reuters reported recently that Apple are now opening up parts supply to independent repairers in North America, with a view to extending that worldwide. In the end, it seems that consumer pressure carries more weight with large corporations than compliance with the law, so now would be a good time for all of us to help bring that conversation to the fore with our end consumers.

Happy Christmas to all our customers

Best Regards

Anthony

News Update: 07/8/19 - The Sleeping Giant Awakes

Back in March of this year, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is the American counterpart to our Competition and Markets Authority, announced that it would be holding a conference in July under the title “Nixing the Fix” (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/nixing-fix-workshop-repair-restrictions).

The event was part of an investigation by the FTC into how some manufacturers are using clauses in product guarantees to prevent consumers from getting their items repaired anywhere other than at the manufacturer, but it quickly became apparent to the FTC that controlling parts supply was an equally dubious practice that was likely to harm consumers. The FTC obviously only deals with the American market, and the laws over there are somewhat different to ours, but if the USA were to rule that parts restrictions were illegal, the knock-on effect for the rest of the repairing world would be significant.

Within three days of the event being announced, Cousins had contacted the relevant individuals at the FTC and supplied them with a summary of events in Europe to date in relation to watch parts restrictions. The Conference was streamed live over the internet and was also recorded. The link above will lead you to the archived video if you would like to review any of it. The FTC is now asking for “empirical evidence” on how restrictions are affecting consumers and markets. Full details on how to submit a contribution are on this link: -

https://www.ftc.gov/nixing-the-fix-call-for-research

If you would like to contribute something, but are not able to meet the presentation requirements of the FTC, you may like to know that the person leading the charge in the USA for the watch repairers is Andre Fleury, who took on Cartier some years ago and has been fighting on ever since. He has put together a web site www.andre-fleury.com where he has gathered together evidence on many brands. He would be very grateful for any contributions to add to his collection. His contact details are on his website.

Cousins will be providing more data about the UK market to the FTC shortly, but we are only one voice. If the FTC receives many more inputs from around the world, it may well recognise the kudos that comes with being the first regulator in the world that actually forces the large corporations to play fair with independent repairers, who create a competitive market that provides a valuable service to consumers, and prevents them from being abused.

News Update: 23/5/19 - Swatch Update: Our Case is Returned to the Bern Court again

Yesterday, along with our Swiss lawyers, we attended the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne to hear the outcome of the appeals by both ourselves and Swatch in relation to where the case will be heard.

The proceedings were conducted by the five Supreme Court Judges in a combination of German and French. The Court did not provide a translator, nor would it allow us to bring one with because, whilst the hearing was open to anyone, only the Judges are allowed to speak. We will need to wait until we have a translation of the written decision to give more detail. All we can say at the moment is that the Judges voted by four to one to overturn the decision of the lower Court in Bern that it only had jurisdiction over one of the three Swatch companies.

The case brought against Cousins will now deal with the issue of whether or not Swatch are required to supply us.

Reuters Reports: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-swatch-ch-court/swatch-wins-ruling-to-have-uk-parts-case-heard-in-swiss-court-idUKKCN1HA196

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 29/4/19 - Swatch Update

I have had a number of feedbacks recently asking for an update on our legal action with Swatch. The short answer is that we are still waiting for the appeal results from the Federal Supreme Court in Switzerland.

The Federal Supreme Court does not give fixed timescales for results, but based on the experience of the last appeal that we had before them, we had been hoping for a result by the end of March.

The Federal Supreme Court operates with a panel of Judges. Each case is allocated to an individual who studies it in depth and produces a draft verdict that is then passed around all the other panel members for their comments and input. If there is general agreement, then the result is published quite quickly, if not the process can take a little longer. We contacted the court office a few days ago and were told that the draft verdict has been produced and is in process of be circulated. There is the possibility that the Easter holidays will delay things a little longer, but hopefully we will get the verdict within the next two months.

The timescale on these cases is subject to a number of variables, not least the workload on the court and the availability of the Judges and Clerks. It is always difficult to be patient, but this is the only option open to us. Be assured that we will bring you the result and the next steps as soon as we have it.

Thank you for your continued interest and support, Anthony Cousins

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 30/1/19 - ROWI Watch Bracelet Company

Unfortunately "ROWI" watch band company ceased to trade on 20th December 2018. Regrettably there will be no more deliveries and existing ranges are now whilst stocks last.

.......................................................................................................................................................................................

Xmas Posting Times - Our phone lines will close from 12 midday Friday 21st December 2018 until 8.30am Wednesday 2nd January 2019. However our website is always available to take your order. Orders placed on our website between 22nd December 2018 and the 1st January 2019 will be prioritised and processed on our return in the New Year.

We wish all of our customers a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new year.

Thank you

Anthony Cousins.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

Customer Feedback: 14/11/18 - The Right to Repair Bill

This past week or so I happened to stumble across a guy on YouTube called Louis Rossmann.

He is an independent repair technician in Manhattan who typically ends up repairing Apple Macs that have been to the Genius bar. They have come to him because they have been told that It cant be repaired, sometimes because it is deemed vintage or It costs more to repair than it is worth.

One repair that made news, a MacBook had a bent contact that needed straightening which caused the screen to be light very dim. Apple’s Genius bar said it needed a new logic board at hideous cost, Louis pretty much fixed it as a favour saving the guy $$$$. What is clear from this is that there are many parallels with us. First party service does not automatically equate to first class service.

I recommend the following links,

https://ifixit.org/right

www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup

(Name Withheld)

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 09/11/18 - Updating You on our Two & Half Year Court Case

I was watching the TV news coverage of the singer Cliff Richard’s lawsuit against the BBC a couple of weeks ago. When the reporter commented that the case had already lasted four years, and the BBC was considering whether it would appeal against the judgement, it highlighted three things to me. Firstly, just how long law suits take, secondly, how much quicker we are working through our case with Swatch, and thirdly, how important it is that our customers understand where we are in the legal process, and why it takes this long.

Sir Cliff’s case had one court action and, in the end, no appeal. Our case has had several more steps as a consequence of Swatch’s attempts to have a matter of British law decided in a Swiss Court. It is worth me taking a couple of moments to explain what those steps are. There are three of them that we are going through, and they are known as “Admissibility”, “Jurisdiction”, and “The Merits”.

“Admissibility” is all about whether or not the case has a proper legal foundation. If you look at the news story we released on the 28th of June last year, you will see that the Bern Commercial Court ruled that the case was not admissible under Swiss rules. Swatch appealed against this decision to the Federal Supreme Court, and in April this year that court ruled that the Bern judges had correctly applied the rules, but that these rules were now out of date when compared with other countries. They changed Swiss case law, allowed Swatch’s appeal, and sent the case back to Bern for the next stage.

*Jurisdiction” is about whether or not the court where the action has been brought has the right to hear such a case. That can be because of the nature of the case (you can’t try a murder case in a Parking Tribunal), or for geographic reasons. Three companies in the Swatch group brought the claim against Cousins. Swatch AG who are the holding company based in the Bern district, ETA who are based in a different Swiss district, and Swatch UK who are registered in London. The Bern judge decided that he does have jurisdiction to hear the case brought by the holding company, but does not have jurisdiction over the other two. Unsurprisingly, both ourselves and Swatch have appealed against the parts of that judgement that we do not agree with.

The current state of play is that both Swatch and Cousins have submitted their appeals, examined each other’s documents, responded to the Federal Supreme Court on them, and are now in the final stages of adding any additional remarks before the appeal judges consider and publish their verdict. We hope this will come in the next few months, and will finally decide whether the final stage known as “The Merits” will be heard in Bern or in London. “The Merits” is when the court hears the arguments about the details of the case and the laws which are alleged to have been broken, and ultimately issues its verdict.

On the face of it, it seems ridiculous to the average person that legal matters take so long to resolve. However, our case has been through two lower court stages and two appeals in the last 30 months, and when compared with four years for Sir Cliff’s single stage, I hope our customers will see that our legal team are pressing on as quickly as possible.

I look forward to updating you again when the result of the latest appeal comes out.

Anthony Cousins

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 08/10/18 - COMCO Open Letter - The Reality behind the COMCO and EU decisions.

One of the problems of being engaged in legal action, especially in other countries, is that it is very difficult to talk publicly about topics and evidence that are likely to form part of your submissions to the Courts. You don’t want to disrespect the legal process by pre-empting the deliberations of the Courts with a public debate.

However, if another entity makes a significant public pronouncement on one of those topics, then the need to respond in kind becomes overwhelming. This is the case with the recent announcement by COMCO, the Swiss Competition Authority, that it would not be conducting a full investigation into the issue of Watch Parts and Independent Repairers.

Last Friday, Cousins sent an Open Letter to COMCO requesting that they rethink this decision. The letter is reproduced (CLICK HERE) for all to see, so I will not detail its contents here. Suffice to say that those who would have the industry believe that the EU has approved the restriction of parts supply by the Swiss watch brands, and declared this practice to be legal, have not properly interpreted the findings from the EU Commission and Courts.

Furthermore, those who then use that same wrong interpretation to justify their own refusal to investigate are only compounding the error.

Once again, I assure all of you in the Independent Repair Trade that Cousins is still in the thick of the fight, still confident of its position, still seeking the most competitive market for the end consumer, and still determined to ensure that the evidence is correctly delivered and evaluated in the most appropriate legal forum.

Your feedback, as always, is welcome.

Kind Regards

Anthony Cousins

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 06/07/18 - The Bern Commercial Court has given its ruling on the issue of jurisdiction on the case Swatch brought against Cousins.

Three companies were complainants against us in the claim filed more than two years ago, namely Swatch Group AG, ETA, and Swatch UK. The Judges in Bern have now ruled that they do have jurisdiction to hear a complaint from Swatch Group against us, but do not have jurisdiction to hear complaints by ETA or Swatch UK. Both ourselves and Swatch now have until the end of August to decide if we wish to appeal against all or any part of that judgement.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

Reuters Reports: https://www.reuters.com/article/swatch-ch-court/swatch-wins-ruling-to-have-uk-parts-case-heard-in-swiss-court-idUSL5N1RG2D3

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 03.04.18 - Swiss Federal Supreme Court returns the Case to the Commercial Court in Bern

On Thursday we were notified that the Swiss Federal Supreme Court had overturned the ruling by the Judge in Bern that the case Swatch brought against us was inadmissible under Swiss law due to a lack of sufficient legitimate interest.

In our previous releases we have explained that, in bringing this action against us, Swiss case law required Swatch to demonstrate that Cousins itself had not intended to bring the matter to court. We are waiting for a full translation of the Judgment before providing a more detailed explanation, but we understand that the Federal Supreme Court has described this case as “exceptional” and has amended the previous Swiss case law by removing this requirement.

The matter has now been sent back to the Bern Commercial Court, which must first decide whether or not it has jurisdiction to hear the case.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 21.02.18 -Cousins are one step closer to the British Courts

In both the investigations conducted by the EU Commission, it declined to give a ruling on the legality of the Swiss parts restrictions, and insisted that this matter should be ruled on at National level in each European member state. CEAHR, the European Confederation of the Watch & Clock Repairer’s Associations, (on which the British Horological Institute is the UK representative) challenged the outcome of both investigations. On the first occasion CEAHR won, successfully demonstrating that the Commission had not assessed the market dominance of the brands properly, however the challenge to the second investigation failed at the end of last year.

CEAHR, having very limited resources, had always taken the position that it was the responsibility of the EU Commission to conduct an investigation when a complaint was received. The view of the Commission was that it was CEAHR’s responsibility to provide the detailed evidence to show where the law was being broken. At the end of last year, the EU General Court agreed with Commission, and dismissed CEAHR’s second challenge. Initially, CEAHR lodged an appeal at the European Court of Justice against the General Court ruling, but the only permissible grounds for appeal would be if the General Court had made some form of procedural or other legal error and having looked deeper into this aspect CEAHR has now withdrawn its appeal.

The effect of all this activity is that the EU Commission decision requiring this matter to be resolved at National level stands, and for Cousins this is vindication of the strategy we have been following in our fight with Swatch. The Swiss Commercial Court has already ruled that Swatch’s attempt to have British and EU law decided in a Swiss court is not admissible, and we confidently expect that this decision will be upheld by a ruling that we expect in the next couple of months from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Once this decision is made, Cousins will be complying with the EU Commission requirements, and bringing its case along with all the evidence it has collected to the British courts.

We remain entirely confident that once the evidence is properly presented, the Courts will easily be able to see where the parts restrictions are breaking the law, and rule against these practices and in favour of open supply.

Best regards

Anthony Cousins

.......................................................................................................................................................................................

Xmas Posting Times - Our phone lines will close from 12 midday Friday 22nd December 2017 until 8.30am Tuesday 2nd January 2018. However our website is always available to take your order. Orders placed on our website between 23rd December 2017 and the 1st January 2018 will be processed on our return in the New Year.

We wish all of our customers a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new year.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 26.10.17 - CEAHR loses EU Court case against the Commission

Earlier this week, the European General Court gave its ruling in the case that CEAHR brought against the EU Commission. The Court ruled that it could not overturn the findings of the second Commission investigation, which was closed on the ground of ‘administrative priorities’. The Commission is under no obligation to investigate every complaint if it believes there is insufficient justification for the costs of an investigation. The Court confirmed the Commission’s assessment, and found that the Commission was within its powers to close the investigation without making a final finding of infringement or non-infringement. This ruling has not changed anything for Cousins in its legal dispute with Swatch, and the English courts remain free to find that that the conduct of the Swiss watch manufacturers is anti-competitive.

The onus was always on CEAHR to demonstrate where the Commission had got its reasoning wrong, and reading through the judgment it becomes clear that CEAHR just did not produce sufficient evidence to support their arguments, refuting the findings of the EU Commission.

From the moment Cousins first considered taking action against Swatch, we knew that evidence was the key to winning. We applied to be an intervener in support of the CEAHR position and the need for an investigation, in the same way LVMH, Rolex, and Swatch intervened to support the closure of the investigation. The EU Court refused our application on the basis that CEAHR represent watch repairers, and as Cousins is a parts supplier not a repairer, we were not directly involved in the European proceedings. The opportunity for Cousins to present its arguments and evidence proving the anti-competitive nature of Swatch’s conduct to the English High Court will come in due course.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 21.09.17 - Swatch Appeal. A Watch Company that Wastes Time?

“Forum Running” is a term that describes an attempt to avoid legal action threatened in one Court, by dragging it to another that has no real reason to deal with it. It is a rather unlawful practice that is sometimes used by big companies to frighten off smaller opponents by wasting their time and money. When the Judge in Bern dismissed Swatch’s claim against Cousins, he made it tolerably clear that Forum Running was not going to be allowed in his Court.

Wasting time and money in the hope Cousins will go away seems to be one of Swatch’s tactics, and the fact that they have now, as we expected, appealed against the Bern Court ruling seems to demonstrate that they still haven’t learned that Cousins will not be frightened off, and will see this through to the end.

What particularly demonstrates the time-wasting nature of the appeal is that the Bern decision was based on a ruling from the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, and it is this very same body that the appeal has been made to. Our Swiss lawyers are currently studying the details of the appeal, which arrived with them recently, however, it seems on first reading that Swatch are trying to argue, amongst other things, that the Supreme Court has it wrong, and needs to change its practice. It’s hard to say what the consequences of that would be for the Swiss legal system. The appeal process is likely to run for less than ten months.

For now, Cousins is still here, still not frightened, and still fighting.

Some companies like to waste time, Cousins likes to save time ….. along with the independent repair industry that keeps it ticking.

Kind regards

Anthony Cousins

........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 10.08.17 - Reuters Publish Story on Spare Parts

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-watches-competition-idUKKBN1AQ1TG

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 08.08.17 - American Watchmakers - Clockmakers Institute website announces their "NEW" Policy on restricting spare parts

First published August 2013. "This new policy replaces the previous spare parts policy which approved of manufacturers restricting parts sales only to “reasonably qualified persons.” Many manufacturers continue to restrict parts, even to “qualified persons” harming the profession and reducing the quality of service available to consumers"....read more...

http://www.awci.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/AWCI_spare-parts-policy-7-11-13.pdf

http://www.awci.com/about-us/ (left hand column, New! AWCI New Spare Parts Policy)

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 25.7.17 - “When Corporatism leads to Corporate Governance Failure - The case of the Swiss watch industry”

Newly listed for sale or free to down load on the Cousins web site is a book titled “When Corporatism leads to Corporate Governance Failure”. Not a phrase you would expect to see amongst the watch parts, tools and consumables, but the story behind the stocking of this book shows what happens when watch repairers learn a bit more about Business Law, and the value of persisting in trying to get that knowledge out to everyone.

Part of my role in the fight for open parts supply, is to make sense of the legal process and describe it in plain English for a non legal audience. Another part is to communicate that information to the trade, and as such I spend quite a bit of time on various on-line forums passing on what we have learned and responding to the inevitable questions. To be honest, sometimes this work is utterly soul destroying. I can spend ages explaining what is going on in a Court case that will ultimately save thousands of jobs and businesses worldwide, and by way of response get hostile abuse because someone’s purchase from Cousins allegedly wasn’t handled properly. But it pays to stick with the communication plan for the nuggets of good stuff that appear, and so it was with this book.

A fellow contributor to one of these forums is someone calling themselves “topcat666”. In the middle of long and detailed debate explaining Competition Law, topcat666 slipped in a two line post that included a link to a web site and Chapter 7 of a book. The title of that chapter is “Market and political power of the Swatch Group”, and it quickly got my attention. A bit more digging and research revealed a book published in 2016 by Dr. Isabelle Schluep Campo and Dr. Philipp Aerni, two senior figures from the Centre for Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability at the University of Zurich. A bit more digging revealed the full publication and contact information for the authors, and I soon found myself in conversation with Dr. Schluep Campo. It seems that there are eminent people in Switzerland who are as unimpressed with Swatch’s behaviour as we are.

There is a small section in the book about the parts supply issue, and it quickly became apparent that the authors were not aware of the full history of this issue, or the current legal activity. The book is a rather damning inditement on how Swiss rules and regulations were effectively ignored in the formation of the Swatch Group, and how the current management have adopted a similar approach. The parts issue seems to be yet another example of this culture.

The point of the book is to demonstrate the importance of large corporations being made to follow the rules, and what happens when those rules are not properly enforced. If you are stll wondering why Cousins is stocking a book on corporate governance, it becomes obvious when you learn that the subtitle is “The case of the Swiss watch industry”. I strongly recommend that everyone in the Watch Repair business should read this book, and if anyone wants to learn more about how Competition Law helps in our efforts to restart supply of spares, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Steven Domb, Consultant to Cousins UK.

Email: [email protected]

https://www.cousinsuk.com/product/when-corporatism-leads-to-corporate-governance-failure-the-case-of-the-swiss-watch-industry

........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 28.6.17 - Swiss Court Rules against Swatch and in favour of Cousins

Late yesterday afternoon, our lawyers in Zurich received the ruling we have been waiting for from the Court in Bern. I am pleased to advise you that the Judge has declared the claim that Swatch brought against us to be inadmissible under Swiss Law, and has dismissed the case.

Cousins had originally given Swatch three weeks to resupply spares, or face legal action to be brought by us in the High Court in London. Their response was to bring a pre-emptive Negative Declaratory Action against us in the Berne Court. What Swatch were asking for, was that a Swiss judge should rule that they had done nothing wrong under British and European law, and that they were not obliged to resupply us.

Clearly, the best place to determine what British law requires is in a British court, so it was immediately apparent to us that the Swatch claim in Bern was a blatant attempt to waste time, and avoid facing the consequences of their unlawful parts embargo on the independent repair trade. As we have explained in previous news releases, it is a requirement of Swiss law that anyone bringing a Negative Declaratory Action must firstly show that there was little prospect of their opponent bringing the matter before the courts in their own right. As the action that triggered Swatch to make this claim was Cousins letter declaring its intention to bring an action in the High Court, this requirement was not met, and it is for this reason that Swatch’s case has been thrown out by the Bern Court.

It is important to understand that the Bern Court has not given any opinion or ruling on whether or not Swatch are obliged to supply us with spares, only that this attempt by Swatch to drag the matter away from the High Court is not valid under Swiss Law.

We are very grateful to the Bern Court for the equitable manner in which they have dealt with this case. We now have to wait until the end of August whilst Swatch decide whether or not to appeal against this decision, and will then be able to explain further how this case will progress.

In the meantime, we urge all who work in the Independent Watch Repair sector to understand that it is possible to beat the industry giants, and to be assured that Cousins is staying in this fight until it is won.

Kind regards

Anthony Cousins

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 27.4.17 - All submissions to the court are in, the Judge has advised that he will deliver his verdict shortly.

Many of you have asked for an update on the progress of the law suit that Swatch have brought against us in the Swiss courts. You will recall that we followed the required legal process of writing a letter advising Swatch that we would be taking the matter to the High Court in London if they refused to resupply us with parts. In response, they have attempted to prevent the English courts from hearing the case by launching pre-emptive action against us in Bern.

Our Swiss lawyers responded to their claim by pointing out to the court several reasons why this case was not admissible, and were successful in arguing (against Swatch’s wishes) that this issue should be decided by the judge before any arguments about the legality of parts restrictions are heard. I can now advise you that all submissions on these points of jurisdiction and admissibility have now been made to the court, and the Judge has advised that he will deliver his verdict shortly. We hope that this will be within the next six to ten weeks.

If the Swiss courts agree that the Swatch claim against us is not admissible, then we will begin the process of asking the High Court in London to hear the matter, and give a binding decision on whether or not Swatch’s refusal to supply spares is an abuse of their dominant market position.

We will update again on this process when the decision comes in from the judge in Bern.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 4.1.17 - Despite Swatch objections, Swiss Judge agrees Cousins request to limit the case

I am once again pleased to give you another positive update on the action brought against Cousins by Swatch in the Bern Court.

When our Swiss lawyers studied the claim Swatch made, they formed an opinion that Swiss law does not allow such a case to be dragged to Switzerland, and that the real reasons Swatch had made the claim were to try and intimidate us, to drain our resources, and to delay things for as long as possible. We are optimistic that the Bern Court will take a very dim view of such legal tactics.

In our response to the Court, we detailed all the arguments that support this opinion, and requested a ruling from the Judge that he suspend hearing the full case until he had decided whether or not the case was admissible at all. Logic dictates that it makes no sense to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on legal fees, and days of court time arguing about EU Competition Law, only to find out afterwards that the whole case was not admissible.

On receipt of our request, the Judge forwarded our arguments to Swatch and asked for their response. Unsurprisingly, Swatch did not agree with our challenge, dismissed it out of hand, and requested that the Judge give us very limited time to present our response to the entire case.

However it seems that our arguments about the legitimacy of Swatch’s actions are well enough founded and need to be considered, because the Judge has now issued an order in line with our request, and against Swatch’s preferred procedure. This order greatly simplifies and speeds up matters. In my opinion, this decision clearly shows that the Bern Court does not hesitate when it comes to ensuring that the rules are followed fairly, and to further ensure that the minnows have a genuine opportunity to defend themselves when attacked by the whales. I am grateful to the Judge for his actions in this regard.

The practical upshot of all this is that we will get a much quicker decision from the Swiss court on where the full case will be held. If our points of procedural law win the day, then ultimately the case will return to the English courts where it will be considerably easier to argue a matter of English and EU law. If the Swiss Court does not agree with our arguments, then we will have the more difficult option of arguing the matter in a foreign language some 600 miles away from home.

What Swatch should by now have learned from all this, is that whatever legal tactics they employ, Cousins resolve remains as strong as ever when it comes to obtaining a ruling that their parts embargo breaches English and EU competition law. We continue to do everything we can to support our trade customers in their efforts to provide the end consumer with quality services at a fair price.

Kind regards

Anthony Cousins

WatchPro Report: http://www.watchpro.com/cousins-claims-minor-victory-as-swiss-court-agrees-to-limit-scope-of-early-skirmish-with-swatch-group/

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 28.10.16 - Watchdog says Swatch must stick to movements deal

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/competition_watchdog-says-swatch-must-stick-to-movements-deal/42549174

The origins of this Comco action are all about the dominant position that ETA has in the Swiss movement manufacture market place. There key rivals in this area are Selita and Soprod, who are minnows in comparison. Comco negotiated with ETA for a reduction in movements sold, the apparent motive being to allow rivals a chance of market share. ETA negotiated the timing of these limits and then unfortunately for ETA, the bottom fell out the Far East market for luxury Swiss watches, and they were left with a massive overstock, so they went cap in hand back to Comco to ask if either the limits could be temporarily raised, or the deadlines extended. No one in the industry is surprised that Comco have said “No”. In the last month, another Swiss movement manufacturer (ISA) has shut down, and whilst they mostly made cheap quartz movements, the result is less competition in the Swiss Movement market, not more, which is what Comco were looking for.

This story is all about ETA selling movements to all sorts of watch manufacturers, both in and out of the Swatch Group. Remember that ETA do not make complete watches, only movements and components. This matter is not about supply of spares to wholesalers like Cousins. Swatch and media reports use the term "watch maker" and everyone needs to be careful not to confuse the term “watch maker” (meaning in this context watch manufacturer) which is who ETA are trying to shift these movements onto, and “watch repairer”, which is relevant to the after sales repair and service market.

Anthony Cousins.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

WatchPro ReportsBREAKING NEWS: Cousins versus Swatch Group dispute gets first hearing in Swiss court

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 14.09.16 - Swatch v Cousins. An Explanation and an Update

I am pleased to be able to give you a positive update on the progress of the Court case in Switzerland regarding the open supply of spare parts for repairers. However, the update will make a great deal more sense if I provide you with a bit of explanation first.

When we released the news two months ago that Swatch had brought an action against us, many people contacted me directly, or asked questions on various on-line forums as to how Cousins could be the defendant and Swatch be claiming against us, when clearly the supply chain was the other way around, and Cousins was claiming to be the injured party because Swatch was refusing to supply us. The answer and the update both come from an explanation of the type of action that Swatch have used. This is known as a “Negative Declaratory Action” or NDA. Like all things legal, an NDA has various clauses and options within it, and because it seems at first to be the reverse of common sense, it takes a bit of thinking about before the logic becomes apparent.

At heart an NDA has one principle purpose, and that is to allow an organisation that finds itself accused of wrongdoing by another, to have a mechanism available where it can force the issue into a court, and have the matter resolved. Imagine a circumstance where your company is being accused by another of breaking the law. You think you have done nothing wrong, but however many letters you write to your accuser telling them to take you to Court to settle things they just won’t do it, and their continued accusations are potentially damaging your business. This is a good example of where an NDA is appropriate. It gives you the right to bring your accuser into court, and make them prove the claims they have made against you, or give you the chance to publicly prove that their accusations are false.

For an NDA claim to be valid, there are various conditions that have to be met, and these can vary from country to country. As the case against us has been brought in a Swiss court, then the conditions applicable are as set out in Swiss law, and one of the most important of these is the principle of ‘Legal Uncertainty’. What this means is that an NDA claim can only be brought by a company if there is reasonable uncertainty that the other party who is accusing them of wrongdoing shows no real intention of bringing its own action in a court. So with this explanation in mind, I am now pleased to give you the following update on our case.

As you will have seen from our last announcement, the thing that triggered Swatch to bring this NDA against Cousins was our “Letter Before Action”. This clearly stated that if Swatch did not re supply us, we would be bringing an action against them in the English High Court. At the end of August, our Swiss lawyers submitted the first stage of our defence to the court in Berne. In it, they argued that there are a number of reasons why this NDA is not a valid action, and have requested that the Judge dismiss the whole case. I cannot go into detail about all of these reasons, but the most obvious one is that there was no legal uncertainty in this matter. Cousins made it quite plain that it would be taking Swatch to court in London if it did not resupply us, and this being the case, a Negative Declaratory Action is not a legitimate claim that the Swiss court needs to consider.

The Swiss judge, having looked at the arguments raised by our lawyers, has agreed that this and other issues need to be examined first, so we are now entering the next stage in which these points of law will be examined before he makes a decision. Depending upon what the Judge decides, the full case will then be heard either in Switzerland, or it will be returned to the English courts where we will ask for an expedited trial.

It may be a few months before we will have the verdict, so we may not be able to update further until then. However please do not take silence on our part as a negative, but be assured that we have assembled an excellent case, and are fighting harder than ever for the future of the Independent Repair Trade.

Kind regards

Anthony Cousins

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 04.07.16 - Reported on Watch Pro website: http://www.watchpro.com/swatch-and-cousins-set-for-court-battle-over-parts-embargo/

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 04.07.16 - Cousins and Swatch Head to the Courts: An announcement from Anthony Cousins, Managing Director

All those involved in the Independent Repair Trade are being seriously threatened by the parts embargo by Swatch. Cousins customers will know that we have been very active in fighting to restore supply. Cousins is currently vigorously engaged in court proceedings against the Swatch group which is trying to challenge Cousins’ allegations of anti-competitive conduct.

The last 18 months have been an incredibly steep learning curve for me. I have had to learn far more about Competition Law than I ever imagined the owner of a small business would need to do. Engaging and working with major international Law Firms, and getting to grips with judicial processes in different jurisdictions has also added to the load.

Initially, Cousins attempted to have this matter examined in the European Courts by requesting permission to become an Intervener in the on-going case between CEAHR and the EU Commission. Unsurprisingly, the Commission objected to this idea, and despite an appeal to a higher court, our application was unsuccessful. At the same time as this process was taking place, I have been very active with the Industry Action Fund, including attending a meeting at the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, which in turn led to a referral to the Competition and Markets Authority.

As our understanding of the Law and how to implement it grew, it became very clear that direct legal action was the necessary way to resolve this matter, and once we had exhausted all opportunities to be an Intervener with CEAHR, our London lawyers sent the required “Letter Before Action” to Swatch Group warning them that unless they restored supply, we would issue proceedings against them in the English Courts.

Swatch decided not to face us in an English Court, but instead launched their own action against Cousins in a Swiss Commercial Court, in an attempt to have that Court declare that they have not broken competition law. Cousins has engaged the services of a highly reputable Swiss Law Firm, and we are now preparing our response to the Court. We hope that the Independent Repair sector will take heart from our efforts, and give their support in gathering the industry and consumer information that will be needed.

Anthony Cousins

WatchPro reports: BREAKING NEWS: Cousins versus Swatch Group dispute gets first hearing in Swiss court

http://www.watchpro.com/cousins-versus-swatch-group-dispute-gets-first-hearing-in-swiss-court/?utm_source=Sign-Up.to&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=37473-170563-WatchPro+DNA+-+14%2F09%2F2016

...................................................................................................................................

.....................................................News Update: 01.03.16 - Message from the Industry Action Fund

As you will be aware, we have been in contact with both the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, and the Competition and Markets Authority over the spare parts issue. Both organisations went to great lengths to recommend that we obtain proper legal advice, and this is a message that we took very seriously. Since the last update that we released, our efforts have benefitted from a continual dialogue with some of the UK’s best lawyers in the EU Competition Law sector, and a very great deal of progress has been made. However, the downside of discussing legal matters is that the rules on Confidentiality come into play, and frustratingly I am unable to give details at this time.

The 31st of December 2015 has come and gone, and the supply of spares from Swatch and ETA has ceased. Many in the industry are doubtless wondering how long the remaining stocks will last, and are having to consider making drastic decisions about the future of their businesses. I am not in any position to promise anything, nor for the reasons given above am I able to disclose what I know. However, what I can say is this. If you are intending to make any major and irrevocable decisions about the future of your enterprise in the next few weeks, can I suggest that you would be well advised to hold off for a just a few weeks more, and see what transpires.

If you think that the reason the British Watch and Clock Maker’s Guild IAF Project has been silent for the last couple of months is because it has given up the fight and gone away, please accept my assurance that you could not be more wrong.

Kind Regards

Steven Domb, Project Development, Industry Action Fund

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

Xmas Posting Times - Our phone lines will close at 4pm on Wednesday 23^rd December 2015 until 10 am Monday 4^th January 2016. However our website is always available to take your order. Orders placed on our website between 24^th December 2015 and the 3^rd January 2016 will be processed on our return in the New Year.

We wish all of our customers a very happy Christmas and a prosperous new year.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 03.12.15 - Industry Action Fund meets with government over spare parts supply

WatchPro magazine reports that the IAF on meeting with the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills took place in November

http://www.watchpro.com/industry-action-fund-meets-with-government-over-spare-parts-supply/

If you have not already given your financial support to the industry action fund, please email [email protected] with the amount you would like to contribute and they will send you full details.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 18.11.15 - The British Watch & Clock Makers' Guild Industry Action Fund Progress Report

from Steve Domb, project manager, BWCMG Industry Action Fund

Our Industry is faced with anti-competitive practices, and it is very difficult to be entirely open about the actions we are taking to combat these, without potentially handing an advantage to those who are intent on enforcing them by whatever means at their disposal. For this reason, you will have to forgive us for leaving out some of the details, but we have been working hard over the last few months, and are now in a position to report back.

From the Guild‘s perspective, the best solution would be for the Swiss to come to the realisation for themselves that they have made a monumentally bad business decision in refusing to openly supply spare parts, and of their own volition reverse this policy before they do any more damage to their Brands. The issue is, therefore, how to demonstrate to them what this damage is.

A couple of months ago, at the request of the IAF, Christian Dannemann wrote a very telling piece on his internet blog ( http://watchguy.co.uk/swatch-group-parts-policy/ ), in which he suggested consumers should avoid buying Swatch Group watches in future, and invited his readers to write directly to Swatch telling them so. The response of his readers was immediate, and the effect was very interesting. Within a few days, Christian was contacted by Swatch, and invited to Switzerland to “discuss” matters. A couple of weeks later, Christian was on a plane to Bienne, and whilst nothing new came from the discussions, at least a line of communications was opened.

When he came back, Christian decided to set up a Customer survey to get the views of enthusiasts and collectors (http://watchguy.co.uk/watchguy-survey-swiss-watch-industry/ ), with the intention of sending the results to the Swiss in order to reinforce just how much they are damaging themselves. The results made for very interesting reading (http://watchguy.co.uk/swiss-watch-customer-survey-the-results/ ) with the Independent Service Sector consistently outperforming the Manufacturers, and with over 98% of respondents wanting open supply of spare parts. Christian has duly forwarded the results to the Swiss Federation, and is waiting for their response. The survey was also reported in the trade press (http://www.watchpro.com/18458-watch-guy-seeks-answers-to-spare-parts-stoppage/ ), which will not have gone unnoticed. But what can we do if the Swiss are foolish enough to ignore the requirements of their customers? Like all situations where a change of approach is required of someone, there are two choices. Either they change their approach for themselves, or they are made to change.

A fight is best avoided, but sometimes avoidance isn’t possible, and it is always best to be prepared. The Guild believes that by refusing open supply of spares, the Swiss companies are in breach of a range of Laws and trade agreements. The IAF team have been looking closely at the options available, and the processes needed to have the Law enforced. Once again, it would be indiscrete to be public with too much detail, but we are pleased to release the following announcement:-

“A delegation from the Industry Action Fund (IAF) of the British Watch and Clock Makers’ Guild, met at the beginning of November with Senior Officials from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to discuss the Anti-Competitive practices being imposed by the Swiss Watch Industry, and how these are impacting both the Consumer, and the Independent Repair Trade.

Before the meeting, IAF Project Manager, Steve Domb, had provided BIS with a briefing paper on the background to the situation, and the issues that urgently need addressing. This was supported at the meeting with a more comprehensive information pack.

Steve reports: “When we arrived for the meeting, it was clear that the officials had studied the briefing and were well prepared. We knew within the first minute of the meeting starting that we had a sympathetic and knowledgeable audience, because one of our hosts opened proceedings by removing from his wrist a vintage Swiss watch. He then told us about his recent experience of getting an exorbitant quote for service from the manufacturer, and subsequently having the work done at an Independent Watchmaker for about one eighth of the price.”

The meeting worked methodically through all the issues relating to parts supply, barriers to entry created by the manufacturers requirements for specific tooling for each brand, and by product specific training requirements. The IAF highlighted the impact on consumers, and presented the results of Christian Dannemann’s recent survey. The IAF team also went to great lengths to highlight the true size of the market for watches in the UK (over £1 billion annually), the current actions in the EU Court, and the worldwide nature of the parts embargo being imposed.

The team from BIS provided the IAF with very helpful advice on the next steps needed, and have put us in contact with the Competitions and Markets Authority so that we can discuss the matter with them. The IAF will report again on progress in due course.”

There are those amongst us who have little faith in Politicians, or that anyone who has the power to enforce the Law has any interest in doing so on our behalf. However, if you want Laws enacted to support the consumer, and existing Laws enforced to ensure our trade can best serve their customers, then these are the people and organisations you must engage with. The fact of the matter is that Politicians can only provide support to a cause when they have the issues efficiently laid out before them, and a timely opportunity to raise them. The enforcers of the Law have carefully established processes which the aggrieved must follow if the Law is to be applied.

There is evidence to be gathered, documentation to be prepared, and meetings to be held. Please believe that we are working hard on all of these. Keep supporting the IAF, and encourage others to do so. Please also make an effort to work with everyone else in the Industry to present a united front.

I will report again soon.

Steve Domb

Project Manager, BWCMG Industry Action Fund

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

News item: 06.11.15 - All future payments made using a debit card will be free of the banks processing charges.

But due to the high charges imposed by the banks for payment by credit card unfortunately we now need to pass these charges on.

We understand this will not be popular with our customers and ask for their understanding that only the charges imposed on us by the bank for credit cards are being charged.

For clarification there will be no fees for paying by debit card.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Item: 31.10.15 - Today is the last day ETA Switzerland (Swatch Group) accept orders for spare parts and movements, despite the deadline they have stated being January 2016.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................

New Items: 20.10.15 - ETA (Swatch Group) new watch movement calibres available to purchase, E61series, E63series, E64series, G10.962 & G15.562 and many more all currently available and in stock.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update: 24.09.15 - Cousins application to apply as an intervener for CEAHR is currently being processed by the European High Court in Luxembourg.

..........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update 29.07.15: Will Your Business "Survive" or "Thrive"

from Steve Domb, project manager, BWCMG Industry Action Fund

When monies for the Industry Action Fund arrive ( http://bwcmg.org/iaf.html ), they are often accompanied by statements from Contributors about the damage the Swiss policy on spare parts has already done to their business, and the devastating effect that the ETA embargo is likely to have. We get feedback from Companies that signed up long ago to become accredited Service Centres, who are worried by the restrictions on the calibres that they are allowed parts for, and some long standing and highly qualified Service Centres are finding themselves cut off altogether. The common question is “How will my Business Survive?”, but should you really ask “How can I make my Business Thrive?”

All businesses are at the mercy of external factors over which they have little or no control. What marks out the ones that “Thrive” from those that just “Survive” is the effort they put into preparing for potential issues, and responding effectively if they occur. But Small Businesses and One-Man-Bands just don’t have the resources and time to do an effective job, so what should they do? The answer is that they need to band together, and commit a small but sensible amount of resources to an effective collective effort, and that is exactly what the British Watch and Clock Makers’ Guild, and the Industry Action Fund (IAF) are all about.

There are resources out there that can help us overcome those external factors that threaten us, and can also help us to take advantage of the factors that can benefit us. But to get at those resources, we need to make a solid case, and that starts with having clear information on the size of our industry, the number of people who work in it, its economic value, and what its views and requirements are. The first task of the IAF is to conduct a comprehensive survey of the industry, and then use those findings to get the support we need to fight off anti-competitive practices, and obtain a proper share of the education resources for training and apprenticeships. To do this type of work properly, we need to raise £70,000. That is too much to ask any single entity to fund entirely, but is it too much to ask 700 One-Man-Bands to put in £100 each, or 70 mid-size firms to put in £1,000 each, or even 7 large organisations to put in £10,000 each?

Take a moment to think about how much time you waste, trying to track down parts for timepieces you are eminently qualified to repair, but are refused access to by some faceless manufacturer who won’t even talk to you. Or the work you have had to turn away from long standing customers for the same reason. If you are trying to expand your business, where is the training for the next generation of Watchmakers coming from so you can get the staff? And if you are looking to retire, shouldn’t there be a new generation wanting to buy your business for a sensible price, rather than you just shutting down and selling off your tools?

Since its’ launch, the Industry Action Fund has had contributions ranging from a few pounds to many thousands, and it is the volume of contributions that is as important as the amounts. It demonstrates an industry committed to a vibrant future and strengthens our case even more. If you have already made a contribution, many thanks for doing so. If you intended to contribute, but didn’t get around to it, please take a moment to email [email protected] with your contact details and the amount you would like to pledge. If you think your few pounds wouldn’t make any difference, then please think again and email us also. We need to add your voice to the collective effort.

Life is a lot easier when you can stop worrying about how to “Survive”, and instead move your efforts into thinking about how to “Thrive”. If you want to reach that point, please work with those who think like you, and support the Industry Action Fund.

...........................................................................................................................................................................................

News Update 29.05.15: Industry Action Fund seeks to Raise £70,000

The British Watch and Clock Maker’s Guild has set up of an Industry Action Fund and is looking to raise an initial £70,000. The recent Guild Conference to discuss a future strategy for the UK Watch and Clock Industry proved to be an excellent start point. In addition to the topics discussed, the Conference has resulted in a significant increase in discussions between the industry bodies, and clearly demonstrated a willingness within the industry for a coordinated approach, and also showed what can be achieved in a short time scale when the proper resourcing is applied. The money raised will be used to implement action plans and activity on the most pressing issues identified.

After his work in devising and implementing the Guild Conference, Steven Domb has been tasked with taking forward this next stage of development.

Steve comments:-

“The Conference unsurprisingly showed a wide range of opinions on the topics discussed, however, a common stumbling block to progress on all the issues was a lack of basic data on the economic value of the industry to the UK economy, the number of people employed, their requirements, and their opinions on the key issues. Without this fundamental information, it is impossible to obtain support from Central Government and many other organisations on issues such as Restrictive and Anti-Competitive practices, and Training and Apprenticeships.

A credible set of data along with a competent analysis is the key starting point for any strategic plan, so the first project for the Industry Action Fund will be to build a database of all individuals and organisations involved in the industry, and to conduct an active survey of their needs and views. The next stage will be to take the results to the relevant authorities as part of an overall plan to maintain consumer choice, raise the profile of the Trade, and obtain a proper share of the support resources available.

The Guild has been offered a number of sources of data on industry names and contacts on a confidential basis, and initial research by one of them has revealed over 6,000 individuals and organisations who describe themselves as part of the Trade. This would suggest that there could be as many as 10,000 people who earn all or part of their income from watch and clock making in the UK. We were originally estimating that the survey would cover around 4,000 individuals and companies, but we may have to increase that number.”

The Guild needs to raise an initial £70,000 to pay for this important work. All monies given to the fund will be kept apart from the Guild’s regular income, will be accounted for separately, and will only be used for actions in line with the aims of the Fund. All contributions will be receipted.

Everyone involved in UK horology can obtain a direct benefit from the results that this project will produce. It is essential for any industry to have clear and current information on its make up, and even more so when it is seeking meaningful dialogue with resource providers. The Guild are asking all individuals and organisations to support to whatever level they can.

If you would like contribute to the Industry Action Fund, please send an email with your contact details and the amount you are offering to [email protected] . The Guild will respond with instructions on how money can be paid in.

...........................................................................................................................................................................................

Breaking News: 27/05/15...We all must Contribute to the Future of the Industry: - An open letter from Anthony Cousins

The British Watch and Clock Makers Guild has set up an Industry Action Fund, and I am asking all of Cousins customers to contribute whatever they can to it.

The fund is to initially be used to pay for a data gathering and research project on the current size of the UK industry, and its views and requirements on critical issues such as the forthcoming ETA Parts Embargo, along with Training and Apprenticeships. Once the research is complete, the fund will then be used to approach relevant bodies to obtain Government support for our industry’s needs.

The recent Guild Conference (Report) demonstrated a strong desire to grow the UK industry, and a willingness to work together in a manner that has not been seen for many years. However it also revealed how the lack of basic data is preventing us from putting a credible case before the relevant bodies for the support we need in developing the next generation of Watch and Clock Makers, and from effectively tackling the anti-competitive practices that the Swiss are now imposing. The Conference was an event for talk, and it was a valuable first stepping stone in developing proper cross industry communication, but if it is not followed up with some serious action, then it will have been for nothing.

Gathering that information is the vital first step, but equally important is the ability to demonstrate that those of us who work in the industry believe in a vibrant future. That is why it is so important for all of us to contribute something. If you are a self-employed out worker, I am sure you could afford to contribute £50, and if you are a large Corporate it should be many times more than that.

We must all remember that it is the end consumer who ultimately pays our wages, and they are already suffering. The practices being imposed by the Swiss on the watch servicing market are drastically reducing customer choice, and pushing up prices to artificially high levels. The shortage of trained staff is resulting in unacceptably long repair times, with the resulting frustration that this delivers.

It is the people who work in the Industry that are the Industry, and if we individually take the attitude that contributing to the future is someone else’s responsibility, then there is no future to be had. If it isn’t our collective responsibility to tackle these issues, then whose is it?

We all take great pride in delivering high quality service and value for money to our customers, but are we really doing the best for them if, by our collective inactivity, we fail to counter the threats that we face, or ensure that there is a new generation of trained professionals to carry on our craft?

Please take two minutes out of your day to send an email to [email protected] enclosing your contact details and how much you would like to donate, and the Guild will respond with how to pay in and obtain a receipt.

Thank you in advance for your support.

Kind Regards

Anthony Cousins

..............................................................................................................................

Feedback: 1/05/15 Name Supplied

I’ve been following the argument of part restrictions with interest whilst at the same time trying to see the argument from both sides. Not wanting to rock the boat with any companies I am authorised to work for i’ll keep individual brands out of this. My point is quite simple, I would say at least 95% of watch repairers are able to service (for Example) ETA 2824/2892/7750 and ETA derivatives of them to chronometer specification, and certainly 955.112 to a manufacturers standard. The company I am authorised to work for fully appreciates the above statement. If company ‘A’ authorises me to repair a 2892 chronometer spec movement, why can’t companies BCDEF etc?

I suppose my point here is, most will agree that a watchmaker should only service a watch that they are capable of, and materials should be universally available for persons that have sat an exam for the basic calibres and unless you’ve sat an exam for say an omega 9300 you cant have parts for it. And to that end, the right watch repairer, repairs the right watch and no having to deal with ‘a friend of someone I know’ to get me a part for a watch that i’m very capable of servicing. I suppose to the extreme, we could have a world and industry wide database of watch repairers that contains information as to what calibres a person is authorised to service and who gave authorisation for it. furthermore, i’m sure a company like cousins could have their system automatically query that database before releasing parts.

Response: My idea I proposed to Swatch around the table in Switzerland 3 years ago was for us to develop a portal for customers to be registered to access spare parts, even at the different levels they specified, with the one prerequisite that it would be available to all, along with the ability for all to access training courses on the more complex watches. They verbally agreed and I chased them for a further 2 years to implement this, when out the blue their positioned completely changed which coincidently was 2 weeks after EU Commission preliminary ruled in their favour in Jan 2014. March that year I got the letters stating parts to cease Dec 2015.

This is about consumer choice and a free market. The Swiss are working towards a vertical distribution system and it will not be long before their in house capability can do without authorised repairers as well. Once in house they can change their repair processes to conveyer belt or swap out processes rather than traditional repairing without fear of losing prestige. That is a bit cynical of me, but there goal as laid out with EU Commission is to state that the primary and secondary markets are the same, stating that the secondary market (aftersales, repairs etc.) is insignificant, despite the fact there is a global independent supply network which has traditionally always been in place, a fact that CEAHR has I believe dropped the ball in their argument. I have applied to intervene in the Luxemburg court appeal hearing which I am still waiting permission from the court.

Training and education is the way forward not restrictive practises (which by the way is against the law), this Swiss argument that a few botched repairs is damaging the brand is totally untrue, it is more about arrogance and greed that they can totally control the global market from Swiss based companies. Swiss brands are already starting to put unrealistic demands on independent authorised repairers through unnecessary over expensive specific branded tooling and equipment, having multiple tools for different watch brands doing the same job. Even to the extent that next they will be insisting that you buy the equipment through them, at an inflated price no doubt...Anthony.

Trade News: 30/04/15 Conference Report by WatchPro Magazine: Report

Trade News: 07/04/15 Conference Report by Paul Roberson – Chairman, The British Watch & Clock Makers’ Guild

For many years, members of The Guild have expressed their concerns regarding the spare parts issue for watches which has become more worrying this year with a letter from ETA to all their suppliers which is printed in the latest issue of Timepiece. There is also a feeling within the trade that training is no longer adequate to ensure its future and that we may be reaching a stage where if something is not put into place soon then the trade as we know it may cease to exist.

Whilst the Board were considering the way forward, we were approached by Steve Domb, who is well known to the Board from our association with Epping Forest Horology Centre, who have been providing training at the entry level into horology for a number of years and are an exam centre for the BHI Distance Learning Course. Steve spent eight years with EFHC, two years as Chairman. During his time as Chairman, he concentrated on raising the profile of the Centre and helping to steer them through their conversion into a Registered Charity.

The initial meeting was with myself, the Vice-chairman and the Secretary followed by discussions with the whole Board, prior to which a Situation Report written by Steve had been circulated to ourselves and a small number of other individuals he had been talking to on the matter. It was felt that the way forward would be to hold a Conference.

Having read the Report, long time Guild member and industry stalwart, Anthony Cousins kindly offered to fund the Conference, as he felt that after a lifetime spent in the trade now was the time “to put something back”. Anthony told me that he had been following the parts situation with increasing concern for a number of years and had said many times that cutting supply to the independent trade, was, in his view, only the first stage in a Swiss plan to take everything in house. He felt it was only a matter of time until they also cut supply to those companies who had signed up to Agency Agreements.

As all Board members are still working and have little spare time, it was agreed Steve would, on behalf of the Guild, set up the Conference to which representatives from all areas of the trade would be invited.

Titled “Developing a co-ordinated action plan to support the growth of British Horology”, on the 11^th March over 70 senior figures from our trade – some having travelled a considerable distance - met at The Elton John Suite at Watford Football Club and spent a most interesting and exciting day in discussion on a number of topics, the most urgent being the spare parts issue, which as mentioned above, which will cause vast problems to independent watchmakers at the end of 2015.

The Conference commenced with a short presentation by myself on “The Conference and its’ Objectives”. I explained how the Conference came about and emphasised how essential it was for us all to learn from past mistakes and not to waste any time or energy on ascribing blame or picking over old wounds from past disputes. The two objectives for the day were to start the process of developing a strategy and looking for areas where we could all work together without giving up our individual competitive advantages, and the second was to try to ensure that everyone had an opportunity to give their view without fear of being criticised for it, and more importantly, leave knowing that their views had been listened to and noted.

The tone for the day was very much discussion rather than lecture, and to achieve this we employed a technique called “Listening Panels”. For each of the topics we covered there was a small panel of relevant individuals on the platform, along with myself as Chair and Steve Domb as Moderator. We wanted to ensure that we stayed on topic and to bring up any points or questions that had been raised in advance of the event. Paul Cradock ended up being the scribe for the day and he summarised the points that delegates made, which were read out at the end of each session and corrected if necessary.

“A Strategists point of View” was the next presentation by Steve on fundamental business strategy issues and applying them to the current situation in the watch marketplace. He pointed out the need for our industry to grow in size in order to justify the necessary investment in education and reskilling, and to leave us less vulnerable to outside attack. He proposed that we set, as a long term objective statement for the strategy we wish to develop, the wording : “To return British Horology to its’ historic position of pre-eminence in world markets for innovation, design and manufacture of quality timepieces” and the Conference was happy to accept this as a starting position for our efforts.

Our first panel session was titled “What does the Industry need from its’ Trade Organisation?” The panel consisted of myself, my Vice-Chairman, Chris Papworth, the Guild Secretary, Paul Cradock and the Guild Treasurer, Lionel Blowes. With over 200 years experience in Horology between us, I feel that this is one of the strengths of the Guild, that all our members are professional horologists or work in the allied trades. I then introduced Chris Papworth who stands to be elected as The Guilds’ new Chairman at the AGM in a few weeks’ time and he spoke about the background of The Guild and what our objectives are. There then followed several questions.

Obviously, the biggest section of the day was reserved for the discussion on the parts situation and our next speaker was David Perry. David was a solicitor for 25 years, working on international Mergers and Acquisitions, Competition Law and Intellectual Property. Eight years ago he decided on a career change and now works as a restorer of mainly military watches and marine chronometers. David provided the source material for Steve Domb’s Report and he gave us an update on the current situation along with some of the legal options that might be available to us. There then followed a good selection of questions from delegates.

A tea break followed and it was interesting to note that many people stayed in their seats having in depth conversations with their neighbours.

After the break it was our second Panel Session entitled “Parts Supply, Other Options and Approaches” with Anthony Cousins from Cousins Material House, Luke Gleave from Gleave & Co and David Perry, our previous presenter. As you can imagine, there were a wide variety of opinions expressed during this part of the day. The history of the supply of Rolex material was raised and how this had created a demand for generic Rolex material. It was suggested that the restriction of parts supply may be part of a ‘planned obsolescence’ strategy by the Swiss intended to drive customers to buy replacements watches instead of having them repaired, and it was pointed out that many consumers are buying these watches unaware of servicing costs, or that in maybe five years’ time they will be unable to have their watch repaired.

You will understand how in depth this session was when I tell you that it lasted almost an hour and a half and discussion continued all during lunch with many ideas being exchanged as peopled became more relaxed about expressing themselves in such a forum.

The first session after lunch was “Education – What does the Industry need? How should it be provided?” and we began with a presentation from Lewis Jones a PhD Research Student at Loughborough University. He gave us a fascinating insight into a project being developed at Loughborough to help Design and Technology teachers. Research has shown that the vast majority of D & T teachers come from an Arts background rather than from Engineering, and that they have had little instruction in the use of the tools and equipment available to them. They almost exclusively focus on design, which enables them to meet the needs of the D & T syllabus. Most schools are now equipped with laser cutting machines, vacuum forming and some have 3D printing, however, many D & T teachers are not confident in using this equipment. Loughborough has tackled the problem by providing a ready prepared CAD/CAM drawing which allows children to make a simple working clock from MDF by using a laser cutting machine. They have supported this with a Teacher Training service to make teachers more confident in using the equipment, and hopefully this will restore the engineering content of the D & T qualification. They are looking to provide courses to around 1,000 teachers every year, and as a consequence, they hope there will be almost 100,000 young secondary school pupils making a working mechanical clock every year. The importance of this was not lost on delegates. It is a golden opportunity to get young children interested in Horology and could lead to a steady supply of apprenticeship candidates within a very few years. The Guild will certainly be following up with Lewis to see how we can support this work further.

The discussion panel of Lewis, Jeremy Hobbins (Head of Horology at Birmingham City University) and Dudley Giles (Chief Executive Officer at the BHI) looked at the wider education issue. There is clearly a wide range of skills needed by the industry and it appears that there is a shortage of available places to deliver the training, however there also appears to be a distinct demand for the reintroduction of apprenticeships.

This proved to be a lively and very interactive session, and after our final break we reconvened with our last panel entitled “The Issues Surrounding Products Branded as Brand British”. We welcomed Robert Loomes from Robert Loomes and Co to the platform and he gave us a fascinating presentation explaining how difficult the law is to interpret. How in some cases it is possible to import a watch, take it apart, make some very minor improvements, re-assemble it and then being able to call it “Made In Britain”. Robert has made a study of many case histories on this subject and spoke knowledgeably on the issue. It was clear from the questions which followed, that the issue is mostly about clarity to the consumer. One suggestion was to try to devise a Voluntary Code of Conduct on how a product is described and labelled. This could allow the more responsible vendors to demonstrate transparency to the consumer and enhance their reputation.

The day concluded with Chris Papworth and myself summarising the day and speaking about our possible next steps. It is clearly important that we keep the momentum going and continue to work on improving communication. One of the biggest issues that emerged, particularly when looking at the Parts Supply and Education issues, is the lack of any comprehensive up to date listing of all the professionals involved in the industry or any current survey data on their attitudes and requirements. This is an issue that The Guild is looking into urgently.

We are still working our way through all the feedback forms and it will take us some time to collate all the information that was gathered on the day. All the comments so far have been extremely encouraging. All delegates appreciated the fact that we had managed to get so many people from the trade in one place at the same time. We were told that a discussion forum like the Conference was long overdue and asked when the next one would be held.

The overwhelming verdict is that the Conference was a great success and we will continue to keep Guild members up to date with progress.

Trade News: 03/03/2015

A groundbreaking meeting of British horologists is due to take place in Watford next week as the British Watch and Clock Makers’ Guild (BWCMG) looks to set the agenda for the future of British horology.

The Industry Strategy Conference on March 11 is titled ‘Developing a Co-ordinated Action Plan to Support the Growth of British Horology’ and will see the big names in British watchmaking meet at Watford Football Club to discuss the possibility of co-ordinated British strategy for the future.

Topics of conversation will include ‘Uniting the Industry’, which aims to draw a line under ‘past divisions’ and seek a cooperative future; ‘Parts Supply’ which seeks to combat restrictive practices through legal and political means; ‘Education and Recruitment’ to address the limited number of students available to the UK industry and ‘Brand Britain’ which looks to defend British horologic heritage from ‘foreign abuse’.

Around 90 of the most prominent figures currently working in British horology have confirmed their attendance.

The invitation from the BWCMG reads: “The last ten years have seen a remarkable resurgence of interest in British Horology, and a significant increase in sales of mechanical timepieces. There is new investment in education, and a number of companies bringing back manufacturing facilities and increased employment opportunities.

“However, at the same time there is a serious increase in anti-competitive practices from major foreign watch houses, and an equally worrying trend for historic British brands to be used to sell inferior foreign product to unsuspecting consumers.”

The invitation continues: “Unity, openness, common interests and future thinking are the key themes of this conference. Our interest in the past is limited to what we can learn from it, so delegates can be assured that absolutely no time will be wasted looking backwards, all constructive ideas for the future will be welcome, and no debate will be constrained by past methodologies.”

Attendance is by invitation only but WatchPro will be there to cover the conference in full as well as take part in what promises to be an historic discussion.

The BWCMG is a trade association representing 800 individuals and organisations involved in British horology.

Trade News: 02/12/2014

Announced in the trade press this last week is that Swatch Group brand Tissot opened its first ever UK boutique on London's Oxford St. The new flagship boutique is on the site of the former Omega Boutique next to Bond St station.

Comment: It’s ironic that the trade press seem to take great satisfaction in publicizing this sort of expansion on behalf of these brands thinking that their own kudos is increased, when in fact most independent retailers (the majority who distribute their watches) see this as a stab in the back from the brand. I bet the bosses at Watches of Switzerland who have recently invested and opened up Europe’s largest showroom in Regents St are not too impressed!!

Feedback: 21/11/14 Anglesey

Given the recent Swatch Group announcement, I thought you might be interested in an example of what restricting parts supply to authorised repairers can do for the customer. A couple of weeks ago I was sent a vintage IWC automatic for an estimate to service, fit a centre seconds hand, and an original crown if available. The problem was that someone in the past had removed the c/secs pinion and friction spring. Friction spring was no problem but the pinion and crown are both restricted. Still, i managed to hunt them down with about an hour of googling and duly quoted. Total parts price will be about £100, I've spent an hour so far and will need the time it takes to service (it's running ok so shouldn't be a headache job). So I quoted on that basis, the jeweller put his margin on, and the customer jumped at the total quote of around £500. The only other price he'd managed to get was from an "authorised repairer", with easy access to the parts needed, of £1300 "because the parts aren't generally available, Sir". That's an extra £800 for the same parts (probably cheaper and certainly easier to source) and more or less the same work to complete! How long until all those Swatch Group owners out there find themselves in the same situation?

Response: Sooner rather than later hopefully, especially with the news that Omega are set to open yet another boutique this weekend in Oxford St, one of London's busiest shopping districts.

http://www.watchpro.com/17141-omega-to-open-new-oxford-st-boutique-this-weekend/

Feedback: 13/11/14 Don

As a customer of Cousins of some 10 years, I appreciate your attitude towards the spectre coming soon of the restrictive practices by the Swiss manufacturers(ref your comments on the HJ). Very soon it will be well nigh impossible to obtain spare parts for many Swiss watches. However, I feel that the Swiss are shooting themselves in the foot. I think that with this embargo pending, the Chinese will jump on the bandwagon and extend the range of generic parts which they now have available to the West. We have already seen creditable copies of ETA 2824 and 2892 movements now for sale. If the Swiss persist in this illegal practice then they will suffer the consequences.

Response: You are completely right, the Swiss have always been arrogant in this respect, even when in a business partnership it’s been more like dictator & subordinate. Also the news story for the media is that as a consumer purchasing a Swiss watch you are inadvertently tying yourself up for a life time of charges and expense and are at the mercy of the watch brand you purchased it from.

Interest: 13/11/14 The Story of the Most Complicated Watch in the World

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-30002096

News Update: 11/11/2014 - On Going Action

We all need to start to correspond with our MEP whilst we wait for further action from the European court. In the meantime I have asked the President of CEAHR on the possibility for a specific detailed template letter to “collaborate” the complaint and the appeal which we can all use.

News Update: 17/10/2014 - CEAHR Appeal Delivered

CEAHR having now submitted their appeal await the Court to come back with possible further questions or to fix a date for the hearing, unfortunately this can take up to at least 2 years.

News Update: 08/10/2014 - CEAHR Appeal Delivered

Following the EU Commissions final decision rejecting the CEAHR complaint (29.7.14), CEAHR have now submitted (yesterday) the appeal against the decision before the General Court of Justice.

Feedback: 2/10/14 Mart

I guess there is One more route to take, suggest all watch repairers using your Company contact the CMA explaining how the Swiss watch part restrictions effect their business and their customers. I will be printing a bundle of the contact forms for Customers to Bombard the CMA until they take notice. Regards Mart

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-anti-competitive-or-market-issues-to-the-cma

News Update: 30/09/2014 - ETA writes to Cousins Material House to Confirm Parts Restriction

ETA Customer Support supplies movement spare parts to enable watchmaking brands to repair defective ETA movements via their own customer services. In order to further improve this service, in the future we will be focusing on watch brands which produce their watches using ETA movements.

We will therefore not be supplying you with any further spare parts from 1st January 2016. We are informing you now to enable you to adapt to the new situation.

To allow all open orders to be processed, we will accept spare part orders from you up until 31st October 2015.

Our service level will be maintained until this date. This means that we will continue to supply you with your previous standard quantities of spare parts for 2014 and 2015.

Best regards

ETA SA Manufacture Horlogere Suisse

Pierre-Andre Buhler - President

Jean-Claude Eggen - Vice President

News Update: 25/09/2014 - A letter to our American Allies

The AWCI set up sounds similar to the BHI where Rolex specifically also has it's claws into them, however at this year's BHI AGM (which I attended part of) the board members recognised the massive conflict of interest, plus if spare parts are restricted and all watch houses continue to be allowed to progressively service & repair in house they (the BHI) become increasingly redundant as there will be a diminishing need for independent service centres and repairers.

I have had some positive news from the European members of CEAHR, which is, the majority have voted in favour of going to back to Court and the lawyers have until 9th October to lodge the appeal.

The situation in the USA is exactly the same as Europe and the rest of the world, which is that the Swiss structure they are imposing restricts consumer choice. The EU Commission has voted in favour of the Swiss Federation because the original arguments and scope of investigation that the EU Commission applied did not take into consideration two fundamental points.

1, the scale of the aftermarket (the established network of the independent supply chain)

2, restricting consumer choice.

The first stepping stone is the Commissions lack of understanding of the problem for the consumer. The court of appeal needs to understand that the EU Commissions priority settings, scope and the inclusion of such attribute values like prestige & luxury have totally misrepresented and distorted the subsequent investigations.

The priorities and principal categories are:

1, Consumer Impact

2, Trade Structure

3, History

4, Precedents (car parts industry)

Also the scope of accepting Swiss watches as luxury & prestige and only watches worth over a 1000 euros were worth repairing had also a fundamental impact on the mis-understanding of how the worldwide trade works.

So rather than luxury & prestige they should be just called Swiss Made, and the value is totally irrelevant, consumers choose to get there watches repaired for the 4 following primary reasons:

Factors that determine if a repair is done:

a, consumers current financial position

b, consumers sentimental value (a gift from a loved one, inherited or passed down a family line all of which do not have a monetary value)

c, consumers convenience and ease of available service outlets

d, consumers just liking the watch they have

Hopefully the appeal will deal with these fundamental issues and common sense and the truth will prevail.

News Update: 11/09/2014 - Smartwatch, some interesting facts in this article including:

“An industry source acknowledged that watches priced between 500 euros and 1,500 euros ($646-1,940) could feel the pinch. Investors have singled out diversified industry heavyweight Swatch Group, which makes 20 percent of its sales in the low- and mid-priced ranges, as most at risk.”

So much for Luxury & Prestige, more like “JUST” Swiss made

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/swiss-watch-industry-denies-nokia-182710226.html

News Update: 1/09/2014 Horological Journal's most important editorial report in a generation

The official journal of the British Horological Institute, The Horological Journal, publishes in this month’s September edition two articles under the title “What next on spare parts supply”.

In the first the Institute's CEO Dudley Giles explains the history of the dispute and the actions of the Swiss watch brands, the European Commission and the CEAHR and the current state of play.

In a second article, Anthony Cousins explains the position of the Material Houses and why they should join forces fighting these restrictive practices. Printed is the full schematic which demonstrates the strategy of the brands to create a single revenue stream that they control.

News Update: 27/08/2014 CEAHR to vote this week

A formal vote to approve the decision for going to Court and appeal the Commission decision is to take place later this week.

Feedback: Anthony Cousins:

I strongly believe that a major contributing factor of the Commission two rejections was based on the flawed understanding of the trade structure. My big concern is that this omission is the central issue that has not been explained or exposed to the Commission and if not explained in great detail to the court, the court itself will deliberate on selective distribution as a justifiable alternative to a non-restrictive supply.

From the Commission point of view the complaint was Swiss brands not supplying watch repairers, when in fact the structure is Swiss brand supplying Wholesalers supplying watch repairer. This is key to demonstrate consumer welfare, the importance of the independent distribution chain in providing unfettered supply provides opportunity for new entrants to the market and growth to existing watch repairers, anything less than this damages consumer choice.

News Update: 21/08/2014 EU Commission Final Ruling - Announced 29 July 2014

CEAHR can now appeal against the decision before the General Court of Justice. They have an 8 week deadline in which to do this.

News Update: 31/07/2014 EU Commission Final Ruling - Announced 29 July 2014

Commission closes its investigation into the refusal by several manufacturers of prestige/luxury
watches to supply spare parts to independent repairers.

The European Commission has closed its antitrust investigation in the sectors of the supply of spare
parts and the provision of repair and maintenance services for luxury/prestige watches in several
member states (notably France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK).

The investigation concerned watches which are typically worth repairing and maintaining (in that
regard, the Commission focused on watches sold above a certain retail price). The Commission
investigated, further to a complaint by the European Confederation of Watch and Clock Repairers'
Association ("CEAHR"), whether the discontinuance of the supplies of spare parts by prestige watch
manufacturers to independent watch repairers (i.e. repairers that do not belong to their respective
official networks for repair and maintenance services) may constitute an infringement of EU
competition rules on restrictive agreements and abuse of a dominant position (Articles 101 and 102 of
the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, respectively). Following a comprehensive investigation, the
Commission has concluded that there is limited likelihood of finding such an infringement in the
present case.

The Commission has accordingly decided to close its antitrust probe.

Background

In 2004, the European Confederation of Watch and Clock Repairers' Association ("CEAHR") lodged a
complaint, alleging that manufacturers of prestige/luxury watches infringed EU competition law.
According to the complainant, since 2002, watch manufacturers engaged into anticompetitive practices
that threatened to foreclose independent repairers.
On 10 July 2008, the Commission decided to reject this complaint for lack of community interest. The
Commission considered that it concerned a sector of limited economic importance, that national
authorities and Courts were well placed to investigate the case and that the likelihood of finding an
infringement of the EU antitrust rules appeared limited.
In December 2010, the General Court annulled the Commission's decision to reject CEAHR's
complaint, ruling that the Commission had committed errors of assessment and insufficiently
motivated some of its conclusions.
On 1 August 2011, the Commission decided to open formal antitrust proceedings in order to further
investigate the allegations and take account of the General Court's judgment (see IP/11/952). The
Commission has fully taken into account this judgment during its new investigation of the complaint.

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39097/39097_3089_3.pdf

Anthony Writes:

This is all about consumer choice and we know that the EU Commission has found in favour of the Swiss Federation of Watchmakers incorrectly for the following reasons:

The Swiss have been able to convince the Commission that “ALL” Swiss watches are categorized as luxury and prestige.
The existing established worldwide after-market supply chain that has existed since WW2 is ignored

By way of example of my first bullet point above, the certain retail price is 1000 euro’s (referred to in this link and the whole argument), however Tissot Swiss Brand (owned by Swatch) has an entry level of 200/300 euros and will be restricted.

Categorizing watches as luxury & prestige and over 1000 euros is the commission first mistake (which is what the Swiss have been able to achieve) as all decision subsequent are based on this false premise.

Whilst the brand might be Prestige/luxury the watches that have complicated workings can generally be categorized in the price bracket costing over 40,000 euros. 80% of all Swiss watches produced from all brands together have a basic/simple movement in which is not complex which independent repairers have been repairing for decades (since WW2).

The Swiss have been able to convince the Commission right at the start of three points which are NOT correct:

1, that all the watches are luxury/prestige

2, only watches over 1000 euros are worth repairing

3, that there is no independent after-market & supply chain

INFO Update: 24/07/14

Below shows a small selection of brands and the history of gradual restriction of parts that AF Switzerland and thus Cousins and all other wholesalers in the world have been subjected to.

Sample examples:

Brand – Date the Brand Restricted Parts – Date the Brand started Supplying Parts

Rolex (stopped supplying September 27^th 1984) - Supplied since original agreement September 1^st. 1960
Jaeger-LeCoultre (stopped supplying March 14^th 1996) - Supplied since early 1970s
Omega (Restriction Announced for Dec. 2015) - Supplied since original agreement January 20^th 1960
Tissot (Restriction Announced for Dec. 2015) - Supplied since original agreement June 1st 1961
Certina (Restriction Announced for Dec. 2015) - Supplied since original agreement October 1960
Longines (Restriction Announced for Dec. 2015) - Supplied since original agreement November 1960
Blancpain (No date announced Suspect Dec. 2015) – Supplied since April 1^st 1975
Calvin Klein - (Restriction Announced for Dec. 2015) –Supplied more than 3 years
Frederic Piguet (Termination announced for 2015) – Supplied since more than 20 years .
ETA, formerly Ebauches SA – (Circuits completely about 3 years ago, restricted supply of other parts since approx. 2 years) – Supplied more than 60 years
Vacheron Constantin (Stopped Supplying 2004 Approx.) – Supplied more than 30 years
Girard-Perregaux (Stopped supplying 2006 approx.) – Supplied more than 20 years
IWC (Stopped supplying 2011 approx.) – Supplied more than 30 years
Lemania (Stopped supplying except for two calibres) – Supplied more than 40 years
Zenith (Parts still supplied – no termination date “Yet” announced) – Supplied since original agreement January 1960

From 1945 to 1976 and in parallel to the supply with the Swiss independent distributors the company Herni Picard & Frere Ltd (Est. 1857) which was based in London, Switzerland & France (my father worked in the London warehouse in 1950’s – 1960’s) supplied watch & clock spare parts to the independent trade in Europe and the commonwealth - Anthony Cousins

News Update: 14/7/14 ETA Switzerland

Anthony Cousins asked ETA to specifically clarify if Swatch Group’s selective distribution programme is going to include no longer supplying Cousins with “ETA” spare parts beyond December 2015?

ETA's Roland Oesterling (Key Account Business Unit) states "so far we have no instruction from the head quarter to stop selling ETA spare parts" (beyond December 2015).

Feedback - 8/7/14 Anthony

I have just come back from the London Watch Show where there was an awful lot of interest and the seminar debate was well attended and very positive towards the independent argument. The press editor is very interested in the situation.

Feedback: 2/7/14 Geoff

Reading with horror what is happening. I think it is fair to say that on comparison watch servicing costs are not small to in comparison to the price paid, in fact many Swiss watches could be purchased again for the cost of two or three services and the companies are overcharging the owners and often offering bad advice.

Response: Yes, I think your correct on all points. How Swatch group UK are going to handle the demand when every Tissot and all their other mass selling brands need spares from them (one central, controlling source) I don't know, it's difficult getting through to them now, sometimes it takes a day or two for them to pick up the phone. Thanks Anthony

News Update: 1/7/14 EU Commission

Panel Discussion - "Join the argument, have your say" Next Sunday (6th July) at 3pm at the London Watch Show 2014, Anthony Cousins

Article 101: Prohibits Cartels and other agreements that could disrupt free competition.

Article 102: Is aimed at undertakings who hold a dominant position in a market from abusing that position.

Prohibited examples across both articles include:

fix or unfair purchasing or selling prices
limiting or controlling production in a market
Prevention of shared markets or sources of supply
applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with trading parties, competitive disadvantage
making the conclusion of contracts subject to other non-connected obligations
other unfair trading conditions

Block Exemption Regulation (BER):

Allows a business to prevent activities which may create competition. The EU Commission admit that the Swiss manufacturers don’t qualify for this.

(the new 2002 BER, which came into effect in 2003, specifically focused on the automobile industry).

EU Commissions Rejects Complaint:

The very successful marketing strategies of the Swiss brand image is central to the core misrepresentation that the Swiss have successfully delivered to the EU Commission in that they categorise all their watches as luxury/prestige and therefore not informed them of the realities of their products. 80% of production are in fact simple, common, traditional movements, nothing sophisticated or complex that does not qualify (in my opinion) for a selective distribution system as the volumes of units are far too great. It is these watches that are now 10, 20, 30 & 40 years old that the independent repairers are being asked by the consumer to repair and specifically the Swiss have interrupted the delivery of the appropriate spare parts.

Examples of misrepresentation within The EU Commission Rejection Report:

for the purposes of this investigation watches over 1000 euros are hereinafter luxury/prestige
there is an increase in complexity of mechanical watches (Tourbillion, minute repeater, perpetual calendar etc.)
there is a decrease of qualified watch repairers following the quartz revolution in the 1980’s
this decrease has resulted in selective repair & maintenance systems
the fact that watch manufacturers used to supply and now have generally stopped is unlikely to be sufficient for finding an abuse
any such findings must still be based on the existence of exceptional circumstances for interruption to constitute an abuse
Swiss are motivated by reasons relating to quality of repair and preventing counterfeiting
the investigation has shown no anti-competitive incentives to significantly limit the number of authorised repairers
there is no indication that manufacturers want to capture the profits of the repair market
they instead opt to deal with contracted partners outside their own groups
entry into the market for the supply of parts would require substantial investment and therefore no other company is likely to become an alternative source of spare parts.

The above examples are easily answered if the Commission were to correctly understand the history of the supply chain (which was mainly independent) dating back to just after WW2. The historical role of the spare parts wholesaler in supplying the independent watch repairer guaranteed consumer choice and value for money, only when Swiss brands started introducing restrictive (selective) supply in the 1980’s the decline of the independent watch repairer started.

The quartz revolution boosted watch repairing for a while in the late 1980’s & 1990’s whilst at the same time underlying attitudes of watch repairers was one of resignation as more and more Swiss brands pull back parts supply.

The consumers choice of where they take their watch for a service or repair will now be determined by the Swiss brand which decides (under contract) where an independent service centre will be, who becomes one and where (not two in close proximity I bet) and with no wholesalers holding vintage parts (todays models are tomorrows vintage) the premature stopping or limiting of supply of parts along with who and where, all now comes from one central outlet, the Swiss brands national company, which by the way is taking its direction and instruction from the Swiss mother company.

Car industry Parallel:

According to the UK Department of business, education & skills the empowerment created by the new 2002 BER provides competition in the automobile industry as vehicle owners now have the freedom of having their servicing and repairs done at their chosen workshop and not at the main dealers reducing the amount of spend thereby providing Customers with more choice and better value for money.

The EU Commissions disagrees with the parallel drawn with the watch industry, stating that the motor vehicle sector has been subject to sector specific legislation since the 1980’s and the characteristics of the watch sector differ significantly from the car sector.

For example:

1, authorised watch repairers do not sell parts to end consumers (as car repairers do, customers do not buy parts to repair their watches)

2, the after sales in watches does not constitute the high profit-making segment (the primary market is)

3, over the lifetime of a watch the servicing charges are small by comparison to the cost of the actual watch, whereas with cars it’s the opposite.

4, it is not important to have repairers close by for watches as they can easily be transported, e.g. by post, unlike cars

5, cars need repairs and maintenance more frequently than watches

The above reasons are a total misnomer by the Commission, remember they have categorised “all” Swiss watches as luxury/prestige so how can they be compared to all cars. A fair comparison would be Luxury/prestige watches to luxury/prestige cars (Rolls Royce handmade/hand finished parts can be through selective distribution but not all general car parts so how are general Swiss watch parts, it’s just because the Swiss label them luxury/prestige).

Our industry has not had the advantage of large independent companies like the “AA” or “RAC” in the automotive trade to fight restrictive practices and just because the watch part restrictive supply was not challenged back in the 1980’s does not constitute that consumer choice and value for money in today’s world is not severely effected and compromised, which it most certainly is.

News Update: 25/06/14 EU Commission (2nd updated)

2014 (June 30th) - Monday CEAHR A.G.M. (UK Representative attending Dudley Giles C.E.O. of the B.H.I)

2014 (March) - EU Commission inform CEAHR they will issue shortly (within 2 months) a negative final decision to their complaint.

2014 (Jan) - EU Commission Director informed CEAHR that despite their long answer to the preliminary decision in October 2013, they (the Commission) considered that CEAHR did not bring new elements to convince them any differently to the preliminary decision they made last September.

2013 (Oct) - CEAHR respond with submitted observations (which is their right under section 4.1)

2013 (Sept) - EU Commission announces letter of intent to reject complaint

Previously Reported:

2011 – EU Commission announces, it will now further investigate

2010 – EU General Court annul the EU Commissions decision

2008 – EU Commission rejects CEAHR complaint

2004 – CEAHR files an abuse of dominance against the Swiss

Feedback: 22/06/14 Joe

I've been watching the growing storm amongst indie repairers with interest. It seems that the industry is pretty well unanimous that this is a Bad Thing but we're effectively powerless to prevent it as long as the people who do have the power (ie: the EU) seem to be happy for it to go ahead. Their initial decision of "no community interest" made it pretty clear what the final outcome will be - they may have been forced into investigating, but they can't be forced into making the right decision!

The people who do have the power to change this are the customers - the potential buyers of new watches from the affected brands, who will suffer two likely effects. Obviously they'll have their choice of servicing options removed but they're also likely to see a reduction in the medium term to resale values as people start to realise that a 10 year old Omega will have to be sent back for sevicing at factory prices. Currently a lot of my customers are owners of watches around this age who, like used car owners, don't want to pay "main stealer" prices for repairs.

I'm actively warning my customers of this change, partly to prepare them for the time when I may have to refuse their jobs and partly to warn them off the brands concerned for future purchases if they don't want to take the hit on service prices. If I could afford the costs I'd be tempted to take out a glossy advert or two in the Sunday mags (preferably placed opposite appropriate watch adverts) as a public service but I can't quite stretch that far.

Perhaps if all repairers made a point of "spreading the word" amongst their customers the 18 months or so remaining would be long enough for people to start asking about this in dealers at the point of sale?

Response: The sad reality is the longer this goes on the stronger the Swiss become due to there being less & less repairers. The Swiss categorize their watches as luxury or prestige citing the need for “special” aftercare, when in fact, 80% of these watches have simply, non-complex movements in them. This is the core misrepresentation that the Swiss have delivered to the EU Commission, which has resulted in the Commissions recent incorrect analysis and findings.

It is very insulting to the independent repairers, considering for decades the Swiss did not want to know about after sales markets (spares & repairs/maintenance), but now all of a sudden despite studying for years at Horological school plus years of experience working independents are now not deemed worthy enough - Thanks Anthony.

News Update: 18/06/14 Panel Discussion

The London Watch Show 2014 is next month (July 6 & 7^th) and there is talk of a panel discussion which I have been asked and have agreed to take part in.

To register to attend: http://www.londonwatchshow.com

We have purchased a stand (A04) at the 2 day show and I look forward to meeting all that attend.

Thanks Anthony.

P.S. I did invite Swatch to the London Show, but they declined.

Feedback: 18/06/14 Clive

Q: Do you think the generic parts manufactures are going to try to fill the parts market?

Response: I am sure there will be an increase of generic parts, however like the Rolex generic it will not be all encompassing. For example out of the 50,000 different parts available for Omega there could only be 500 generic parts eventually made, that's the sort of ratio with Rolex - Thanks Anthony.

Info update: 17/06/14 - Cousins Home page link "about us"

Ted was a watchmaker who also began to supply the occasional parts to other local repairers. Our company is now run by Ted’s son, our current M.D. Anthony along with his son Sam and employs 40 staff serving the horological & jewellery trade with jewellery, watch & clock tools, equipment, consumables, jewellery findings and millions of component parts for watches and clocks.

The Cousins management team firmly believe that the combination of our global collaboration with the biggest and best manufacturing names, plus some significant acquisitions along the way and highly motivated staff have been the bed rock for progress and has positioned Cousins at the forefront for service and value.

Our Microsoft Software computer stock control, make a reality of our pledge to our customers of “same day mail order dispatch, from stock at highly competitive prices”. From large machinery or a tiny wheel, the pledge still stands.

News Update: 14/06/14 - Why is it different for watches?

Anti parts restriction law in car industry, EU

Block Exemption Regulation is an exemption in a business line or industry, which debars organizations in the industry from some business activities in order to create competition. The regulation is highly known in the automobile industry due to the effect caused by the BER regulations from the European Commission.^[1]^[2] BER has changed the automobile industry in the last decade.^[3] Prior to 2003 automobile owners in the EU region risk nullifying their vehicle warranty when the vehicles were serviced or repaired in workshops not belonging to the vehicle manufacturer or its dealers. This barrier was broken in October 2003, when the European Commission (EC) passed a law allowing vehicle owners the freedom of having their servicing and repairs done at their chosen workshop.^[4]

According to the UK Department of Business Education & Skills, the empowerment created by this law provides competition in the automobile industry as vehicle owners now have the opportunity to repair and service their vehicle at alternative workshops to the automobile manufacturers. BER provides automobile users the flexibility and benefit to reduce the amount spent on servicing, thereby providing consumers more choice and better value for money....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_Exemption_Regulation_(EU)

News Update: 14.06.14

Interesting reading Omega’s recent response on selective distribution, (WatchPro Website 6th June - link below), I think their response demonstrates exactly the restrictive nature of what they are doing, basically they are explaining that with a contracted outlet they dictate the level of service and no doubt the cost a consumer has to accept.

I assume the 800 + agreements they say have been issued are not new accounts but already existing outlets that have had to sign up to a “new” selective distribution parts contract to receive spare parts like watch straps and other Swatch basic level 1 items, so that retailers can continue to provide basic services like shorten a watch bracelet or fit a watch strap, I pretty confident that there are not all of a sudden 800+ watch repairers out there receiving Swatch level 2 or 3 items which includes actual inside watch movement parts for complicated repairs & servicing - Anthony.

http://www.watchpro.com/16554-omega-responds-to-selective-spare-parts-policy/

News Update: 13.06.14

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT 15 December 2010 - Link below

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d0f130de90e64a736799483285c99d06069a68b0.e34KaxiLc3eQc40LaxqMbN4OaNqSe0?text=&docid=83249&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=697172

News Update: Omega Respond 06/06/14

Response from Omega that WatchPro magazine have published on their website.

http://www.watchpro.com/16554-omega-responds-to-selective-spare-parts-policy/

NEWS SUMMARY: EU Summary 03/06/14

2004 – CEAHR files an abuse of dominance against the Swiss

2008 – EU Commission rejects CEAHR complaint

2010 – EU General Court annul the EU Commissions decision

2011 – EU Commission announces, it will now further investigate

At the same time EU Commission announce:

There is no legal dead line to complete inquiries
National Courts must avoid giving decisions whilst it’s on going

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-952_en.htm?locale=en

Surely if there is a dispute in progress or pending the status quo should remain, so Swatch Group announcing this restrictive policy now in 2014 makes you wonder if they know something we don’t.

I have contacted our CEAHR UK representative for clarification.

NEWS UPDATE - 02/06/14 - Linton Feedback

The news regarding supply of parts is pretty grim for independent watchmakers worldwide. Wondered if you could respond to these:

Could you and others challenge this collectively? The restrictive practices will have a huge effect on the industry. Just imagine if car parts were restricted in the same way - I can't see that ever being allowed.
Could you comment on what will happen to the availability of vintage parts? Will parts for vintage movements by Tissot, Omega etc be restricted? What about the old brands like FHF, ST etc?

There is always a law of unintended consequences and only time will tell what these will be. Bergeon certainly won't be selling so much equipment for one. Could the big material houses work together and link up with a Chinese manufacturer to produce very high quality generic parts?

Response:

There is the “Confédération Européenne des Associations d'Horlogers Réparateurs” (CEAHR) which consists of nine members from nine different European countries, the British Horological Institute (BHI) being a founder member and our UK representative.

CEAHR was set up in order to combat, what they considered, the “abuse of a dominant position” of the Swiss trying to take advantage of their monopoly position. CEAHR lodged a complaint in 2004 against the Swiss to the European Commission which the Commission failed to treat properly.

On 10 july 2008 the Commission decided to reject this complaint for lack of community interest. In December 2010, the General Court annulled the Commission's decision to reject CEAHR's complaint, mainly because the Commission did not sufficiently motivate why it concluded that there was a not enough Community interest to pursue the investigation. The Commission will now further investigate the allegations, in order to take account of the General Court ruling.

That was back on 05/08/2011.

Whilst Commissions investigations are on-going, the national courts must avoid giving decisions which would conflict with a decision contemplated by the Commission in proceedings that it has initiated, so currently it looks like my/our immediate options are limited. I am currently pursuing this to see if there has been any update or news as to when an announcement may be made. (EU link below)

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-11-952_en.htm?locale=en

On the subject of vintage part availability, like current models, all parts old & new, once the independent suppliers no longer have stocks, the customers who own the watches will have no choice other than to take it to an official contracted jeweller and be subjected the T&C’s of the watch brand. If the Jewellers cannot service it because they are not deemed at the correct service level or the brand has decided certain parts are not available (like a circuit) they will be told to send it back, then send it back they must or return it to the customer undone (no doubt in the hope they will upgrade to a new one).

The generic market will no doubt take off, but like the Rolex parts they have not fully comprehensively covered the entire range.

Thanks - Anthony.

NEWS UPDATE - Swatch Contact Details 30/05/14

Swatch advises Cousins that people sending requests about spare parts should contact James Avery

The email address is: [email protected]

Otherwise they can write to him at: FAO: James Avery (Head of Customer Services) The Swatch Group (UK) Limited, Charter Court, Third Avenue, Southampton, SO15 0JA

NEWS UPDATE - Swatch Confirms 24/05/14

Swatch confirms to Cousins that the change in distribution strategy does not only apply to Omega, but to all Swatch Group brands worldwide.

NEWS: Postal Charges Reduced!

Postal Charges Feedback: Chris 23/05/14

Feedback: I am writing to you to register my concern over your postal charges. I received a parcel from you containing a £3.90 watch glass with a £4.17 postage and packaging charge. The glass arrived in a jiffy bag with first class postage. I estimate this to have cost you about £1.

Responce: Thanks for your feedback. I have reviewed our carriage charges and adjusted them down. We reduced the percentage margin set aside for the cost of packing materials like the padded envelopes, packing crisps, bubble wrap, tape etc. & also labour.

The £4.17 charge will now be £2.95, the cost the Royal Mail charge to us for deliveries weighing 1g to 999gms is £2.61 (small parcel rate, letter rates do not apply and the Royal Mail are very strict on this). Below are the published charges from RM today, as you can see the personal charge is £3.20 for the same service. (£2.61 is our business rate due to volume) - Thanks Anthony.

Personal customers

Key prices

Letters and Large Letters

1st and 2nd Class mail

1st Class Letter will cost 62p

1st Class Large Letter (up to 100g) will cost 93p
2nd Class Letter will cost 53p
2nd Class Large Letter (up to 100g) will cost 73p

Royal Mail Signed For^TM

Royal Mail Signed For^TM 1st Class letter will cost £1.72

Royal Mail Signed For^TM 1st Class Large Letter (up to 100g) will cost £2.03
Royal Mail Signed For^TM 2nd Class letter will cost £1.63
Royal Mail Signed For^TM 2nd Large Letter (up to 100g) will cost £1.83

Royal Mail Special Delivery Guaranteed®

Our Guaranteed service offers next day delivery great value features, generous compensation and market-leading quality of service. Prices start from £6.40 for 1pm delivery and £18.18 for 9am delivery.

Parcels

Small and Medium parcels

1st Class Small Parcels prices start from £3.20
2nd Class Small Parcels prices start from £2.80
1st Class Medium Parcels prices start from £5.65
2nd Class Medium Parcels prices start from £5.20

Royal Mail Signed For^TM

1st Class Signed For Small Parcels prices start from £4.30

2nd Class Signed For Small Parcels prices start from £3.90
1st Class Signed For Medium Parcels prices start from £6.75
2nd Class Signed For Medium Parcels prices start from £6.30

NEWS UPDATE - Recent Experience: 23/05/14 - Terry Feedback

FB: I received a couple last month who were visibly shocked.

They presented me with a two and a half year old Rolex. Wanting to get the gents Datejust serviced on two years he offered it to a Newcastle Rolex Jewellers, They quoted him £230.00 for a service, this seemed expensive so decided to take the watch away and think about it. A week later they went back to the shop to get the watch serviced, the price had risen to £430.00 pounds, they had a chat amongst themselves and well it is a Rolex OK. The watch was sent to Rolex. The couple showed me the quote from Rolex HQ, £1,096.00 !! We serviced the watch which looked well cared for, for £260.00 refurbished, pressure tested and returned to the customer in 14 days. The customer is delighted. The restrictive practices are detrimental to the owners, They have the right to say I will accept a lightly scratched glass and a faded dial. Restricting genuine spare parts, service tools and manuals, and training LEADS to botched repairing not lessens it.

Response: You sum it all up in a nut shell. The consumer will have no choice, having multiple authorised service centres (contracted by Swatch) does not constitute freedom of choice. To sign a Swatch contract & also meet the “qualitative criteria” is still a selective process that Swatch only control and is oppressive to the trade as they only will choose where they are located and how many are authorised, and therefore controlling:

Part availability (including starving the market or prematurely ending a supply)
Who becomes an authorised service centre
Service centre locations
Amount of service centres in a location

These specific levels of control are felonious when the brand, or the companies authorised by the brand, is itself the only controlling central point of distribution which then excludes independent distributors like our self who supply independent watch repairers, thus giving the consumer no choice other than to be subjected to the service demands & financial charging demands that retail jewellers or Omega boutiques that are all under a contract controlled by Swatch. This is the case with many brands already (Rolex, Cartier etc.) however I was hoping that Swatch was going to do the right & lawful thing of setting up selective distribution incorporating the independent distributors which would of set the bench mark for success across our industry, shaming or educating the non-participants brands into action - Thanks Anthony.

Latest News: 21/05/14 - Watch Pro News

Cousins addresses components crisis at LWS 2014

http://www.watchpro.com/16505-cousins-addresses-components-crisis-at-lws-2014/

21/05/14 - Andy Feedback

Feedback: I have been repairing watches for 40 years and love doing so. I can remember when if I had a Rolex in for repair I ordered the part from Beech & Son and the part arrived within a couple of days…..but now I absolutely despair the fact that most of the top brands will not provide spares. I own an Audi and do all my own servicing and when I go to my local Audi garage they happily supply the genuine parts so what is different with watch spares !! Sadly I have stopped my membership with the Horological Institute ( not a full member) because they do not seem to care about us and the problems we independents are facing. How on earth are we going to attract young people to take up Horology when this situation continues! I wish I had a lot of money to take this problem to an International Court and challenge this restrictive practise!

Responce: unfortunately your views on the BHI has been a view that the majority of professional repairers I have spoken to over the years do share and not without foundation. Over the two / three years i have been working (i thought closely) with Omega Switzerland in preparing a selective parts distribution programme, which unlike Rolex was going to be open to all (which was a key agreed principal) only to find a month ago out of the blue i get notification of a complete U - turn. Basically Omega have stabbed us in the back and come December 2015 they are going to cut our throats.

As I have said below the real law breaking issue is that customers (watch owners) have no other choice, surely this can be challenge at a national level all these brands have UK based companies. My understanding is that Brussels ruled in favour of the consumer, however implementation of the decision is just not happening, I am unsure why? - Thanks Anthony

Current Repair Waiting Times: 20/05/14 - Name Supplied

Below is the average waiting time that a Retail Jeweller is experiencing when they have to send the watch back to the Brand, because the brand will not supply the parts required.

Rolex 6 weeks
Jaeger 12 weeks
Omega 8 weeks
Breitling 10 weeks
Cartier 8 weeks
Iwc 8 weeks
Panerai 8 weeks
Tag Heuer 8 weeks

The real law breaking issue is that customers have no other choice, and that they have to pay the top Swiss brands demanded price which often includes a commitment to work that has not been requested or required.

If you are undergoing simular problems then email Anthony Cousins direct with your experience.

Recent Experience: 17/05/14 - Julie Feedback

A Breitling agent advised on a 14 week wait and 4 weeks to get a estimate for a battery replacement.

Latest News:

Swatch Group advises Cousins that the global supply of watch parts is to totally cease after December 2015, this will affect all Omega parts (however, we are seeking confirmation on other brands like Tissot, Certina, Rado, CK and Longines, now confirmed, it does include this brands).

I think Swatch Group are grossly under-estimating the level of service the independent wholesalers and repairers provide in support of their brands - Anthony Cousins

15/05/14 - Paul Feedback

Feedback: I specialize in the repair, restoration and servicing of early electric and electronic watches and a very significant percentage of this involved the Omega f300 tuning fork watches from the 1970s. I'm currently working on 5-6 of these per week and from many countries.

While many of the crucial movement parts (index wheels, coils, etc) have been obsolete for many years and are not stocked by Cousins, I have managed to source those from other places. But I rely 100% on Cousins for all Omega case parts i.e. crystals, crowns, case screws, bezels etc. Generic Sternkreuz crystals are not really up to the task for the f300 models, so I have always bought genuine Omega. Chrono models like the Omega f300 Speedsonic have unique crystals with their integral tachy / tension rings, so I'm totally dependent on Cousins / Omega / Swatch for this item.

So a few questions if you don't mind:

1) I assume I will no longer be able to buy Omega crystals once your stock runs out after Dec 2015?

2) Probably impossible to answer, but how long after Dec 2015 would Cousins continue to be able to supply items like Omega crystals? As an example, PZ5106 is one I often use.

3) Are Swatch likely to reverse their decision?

This is bad news for the many Omega f300 watch owners out there. For financial reasons, many owners will not want to send their watches to companies appointed by Omega. Despite the initial outlay, I'm seriously considering building my own stock of the more common Omega f300 related items that I buy from Cousins. Do you have any objections or reasons why I should not do this?

Responce: Unfortunately no matter how much stocking up anyone does at some point in the future you will run out and usually the first part to run out is the most popular and if you have a job that requires two parts and one is the popular part you can no longer get therein lies the problem, including the value of the stock you get left with.

I have purchased customers surplus Omega & Rolex parts and the same principal applies, the most popular items are always the smallest quantities on the list (if at all) so I have to be careful, there is no point in having a thousand centre wheels in stock for a specific calibre when we only sell 10 a year. Like you I would purchase a 1000 index wheels & coils for the F300 if only they were available, but they are never offered up for sale.

There are already restrictions on quantities that we can purchase and so we need to reflect that. If Swatch does change their decision I suspect that it will be due to a consistent deluge of customers complaints on the time it takes them to repair the watch when their own department in inundated with jobs and they are giving out a 6 month turnaround time, only then the realisation of negative feedback (brand damage) from their customers will becomes a priority, alternatively they may continue to keep their head firmly in the sand where I think it is at the moment - Thanks Anthony.

14/05/14 - Dave Feedback

Feedback: Can you confirm whether Swatch are ceasing the supply of spare parts in the U.K. completely or to Cousins or worldwide?

Responce: Unfortunately they advise us that this is a global policy to no longer supply watch parts to independent wholesalers beyond December 2015 - Thanks Anthony.

13/05/14 - Paul Feedback

Feedback: If parts are no longer being manufactured, or existing stocks have dried up, I can accept the fact that they can't be obtained. The fact that they are being made unavailable owing to a policy decision by Swatch Group is fr less acceptable, it seems crazy. If you feel there is any point in trying to challenge this decision I would readily lend support in any way I can. I`m sure there are many independent repairers who feel the same.

Responce: It is very frustrating that decisions Swatch group have made, have been made with no communication or correspondence with the wider trade, they have corresponded with me but only in a dictating way, I have given them every opportunity to implement successful automatic auditing on us (which seem to be a requirement moving forward) only to “out of the blue” receive a phone call saying that I am to receive official notification (which I did) stating the supply to independent wholesalers globally is all stopping come December 2015. There is every reason to challenge such a crucial decision, this should have been the case when previous brands restricted parts, if only we had a trade body that realised this - Thanks Anthony.

12/05/14 - Christian Feedback

Feedback: Pretty bad news for all of us. I do mainly vintage Omega watches, so that is going to hit me pretty hard. I guess a sizeable chunk of your turnover is Swatch parts as well, so you will have to make some adjustments, too. Are there any generic parts out there? You already stock some generic Rolex parts, and I was wondering if any manufacturer would be interested in taking up the slack that Swatch Group is creating.

Responce: There is no hiding it, Omega, Tissot etc. are important brands to us, as it is to many watch repairers also. We already stock a selection of generic Omega parts, which 2 years ago in a meeting with the Swatch top brass in Switzerland they pulled me to one side and suggested I stop selling them. I said that CousinsUK did not create the demand for generic parts they did by putting the price up so much they made it profitable for others to make. I am confident that there will be many Omega generic parts additionally made just in the same way the Rolex generics parts have increased, a point I was at pains to make to them which clearly made no impact - Thanks Anthony.

11/05/14 - Ian Feedbaclk

Feedback: What absolute snobbery on the part of Swatch. How are they hoping to cope with all the repairs this move will create ? Surely they must realise that any watchmaker who is any good will be an independent. They will be employing the dross. I will be displaying this news in my shop under the headline "REASONS NOT TO BUY" I will certainly advise all my loyal customers on this matter who may be considering buying OMEGA,TISSOT, CERTINA etc. of this outrageous move by Swatch to do a "ROLEX" on them.

Responce: They have specifically explained (over the phone) that they are fed up receiving botched repairs back at HQ from so called watch repairers (their words) where the public blame the brand causing brand damage. As I am an independent supplier, I try not to take that too personally, however I did propose an auditing process for us and our independent watch repairer customers via a web portal, but their decision stands.

08/05/14 - Russ Feedback

Feedback: Hi Anthony just read the news regarding omega parts not being supplied after dec 2015, but does that include ETA movements and parts aswell.

Responce: No it does not, well not for now, ETA are already restricting us completely on circuits and limiting the quantity on a lot of general parts, but as of yet we have not experience too many problems of being without the correct levels of stock. This is terrible news for all independents - Thanks Anthony

News - April 2014:

CousinsUK Launch Safe & Secure – Shop with Confidence, Verified by VISA & MasterCard SecureCode

Card issuers are offering more protection for customers shopping online, 3D Secure allows customers to verify transactions by entering a secret password of their choice as an additional layer of security. Think of 3D Secure as the online version of Chip & PIN.

MasterCard® SecureCode and Verified by Visa are a part of the 3D Secure scheme which is the generic term for the software used by card issuers enrolled in a scheme. 3D Secure pages are controlled by your card issuing bank. This is why all navigational links are removed from these pages.

At Cousins we take the security of your data extremely seriously and want our customers to feel as safe and secure as possible when shopping with us. Registering is quick and a one-off process. Your card issuer recognises whether you've registered previously or not. If you haven't already registered for 3D Secure with your card issuer, you will see a secured registration page during the checkout process.

You'll be prompted to create your secret password and verify yourself by entering some of your card information such as the CVN number (the last 3 digits from the rear of the card on the signature strip). Once you've completed this stage you are registered. The next time you shop online using your card, you'll be prompted to enter your secret password during the checkout process via a secured screen.

Our Customer Service team are not able to advise you on what to enter on the 3D Secure page. The information is confidential that only you should know. Don't worry, clear instructions are on the 3D Secure page to tell you what to enter and where. If you have any issues we suggest contacting your card issuer.

NEWS - Jan 2014:

2kg super heavyweight (over 1000 pages) Cousins Brand New 2014 complete catalogue is available “FREE” to request your copy simply click on the feedback button at the top of this page, fill out your address details and ask for your "free of charge" copy.

Past News:

Royal Mail now consider Lithium Batteries as dangerous goods and will no longer carry them, they will destroy any packages containing them without warning.

Alternate carriers are automatically available to you at the checkout stage of your order.

Royal Mail are destroying parcels without warning or compensation.

Is My Item In Stock?