Please for a moment forget about territorial pricing, though of course that appears to be behind the dispute at hand.
An arguably legitimate policy perspective behind the position taken by Omega in this dispute is this: If a copyright (or trademark) holder is not able to control parallel importation of its products, it loses the ability to tailor products for particular territories, and to ensure that those products are properly serviced. One example: a manufacturer of a consumer product must meet the consumer product
safety regulations of each country in which it sells. At times those
regulations are at odds with one another. If it cannot ultimately
control the territories in which it sells particular products, how can
it be certain to comply with the regulations of each territory?
Another example: A motion picture studio may determine that the release of one of its
copyrighted films should be edited differently in one country versus
another in respect for divergent social customs, so the versions of the film
on the DVDs it manufactures vary by the regions in which the DVDs are
intended to be sold. If the studio has no ability whatsoever to
prevent parallel importation, it risks offending large groups of
consumers, and potentially loses the goodwill of its brand.
Now back to the case at hand. Yes, it is clearly about price. Might it also be about the perceived value of the brand, and about the warranty? Omega chooses to sell through authorized dealers, like many luxury goods manufacturers. It presumably chooses the retail outlets that it believes properly represent the brand, and are able to assist consumers with service issues. It cleary invests many millions of dollars in building its brand identity (and its watches
). Should it be allowed among the bundle of rights it obtains by virtue of its copyright (and trademark) the ability to prevent a "wolesale club" from reselling watches it manufactured and sold to an authorized dealer (or dealers) in another country?
Food for thought.
Best,
CaliforniaJed