File opened. Subject: a Swiss-owned watch brand with American roots, a two-man startup in Colorado, and 58 wristwatches.

Swatch vs Vortic, formally Hamilton International Ltd. v. Vortic LLC, was a US trademark lawsuit in which Swatch Group’s Hamilton brand sued a Colorado company for turning old Hamilton pocket watches into wristwatches, and lost at trial in 2020 and on appeal in 2021.

That is the summary. The file is more interesting, because both sides had a reasonable story and only one could win. Below: the parties, the facts, the rulings and, more usefully for anyone running a brand, what each side should take away.

The parties

Hamilton. Founded in 1892 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Hamilton made its name with pocket watches sold as the “Watch of Railroad Accuracy”, and railways bought a great deal of its output. During the Second World War it stopped making consumer watches and supplied the military.

In 1969 the Lancaster factory closed and production moved to Switzerland. The brand was sold to the Swiss group SSIH in the 1970s, and SSIH merged with ASUAG in 1984 to form what became The Swatch Group. Today Hamilton is run from Bienne and trades heavily on its American past, from railway timekeeping to the watches it supplies for films such as Interstellar.

Hamilton’s own telling of its railroad pocket-watch past, the heritage at the heart of the case.

Note that last point. Hamilton’s heritage is a commercial asset, and it is precisely the asset this case was about.

Vortic. Founded in 2013 in Fort Collins, Colorado, by R.T. Custer and Tyler Wolfe, who met as students at Penn State. It restores pre-war American pocket watches, the kind otherwise scrapped for their metal cases, and rehouses their dials and movements in wristwatch cases of its own manufacture.

It launched its first collection on Kickstarter in 2014. Small operation: by 2021 it had eight employees and made about 400 watches a year. Hamilton movements made up roughly 15 per cent of the business.

The facts

The product at issue was a Vortic model called the Lancaster, named after Hamilton’s old home town. Each one kept the original Hamilton dial, hands and movement, restored. Vortic made the case and minor parts and assembled the result.

The markings matter, so record them carefully. The ring of the case was engraved with “Vortic”, “The Lancaster” and a serial number. The Hamilton name remained visible on the antique dial and on one part of the movement, seen through a glass caseback. The watch was not stamped “used” or “repaired”.

Buyers received a booklet explaining the restoration and an authentication card signed by the watchmaker. Vortic’s website called the Lancaster part of its own flagship line and explained that the components began life in a railway-era Hamilton pocket watch.

Volume: 58 watches sold or given away between 2014 and 2018.

The dispute started early. Vortic received a cease-and-desist letter before it had shipped a single watch, and the two sides argued for around two years before Hamilton filed suit in the Southern District of New York in 2017. The claims were trademark infringement and counterfeiting, with state dilution added. Custer was named personally.

What was the legal question?

Strip away the procedure and the question was this: if you sell a genuine branded product that you have substantially modified, and the original trademark is still on it, are you infringing?

The answer turns on an old Supreme Court case about spark plugs. In Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders (1947), a dealer collected used Champion plugs, reconditioned them and resold them with the Champion name still stamped on.

The Court did not order the trademark removed. It required the plugs to be marked “Repaired” or “Used” and the packaging to say who had done the work. Full disclosure, the Court reasoned, gives a manufacturer all the protection it is entitled to.

So the second-hand trade can use a brand’s name, and even benefit from its reputation, provided the buyer knows exactly what they are getting. Underneath sits the usual test for US trademark infringement: is the use likely to confuse buyers about who made the product, or whether the trademark owner stands behind it?

Hamilton’s argument was that the Lancaster went far beyond reconditioning. New case, new parts, new name: effectively a new Hamilton watch that Hamilton had never made, never checked and never approved. Not a frivolous point. A brand owner has a real interest in what carries its name.

Vortic’s argument was simpler. Everyone buying a Lancaster knew it was a Vortic built around a century-old Hamilton movement, because the company told them so at every turn.

The trial and the ruling

Judge Alison Nathan denied Hamilton’s request for summary judgment, finding the facts genuinely disputed, and refused to reconsider. The case went to a one-day bench trial, with no jury, on 19 February 2020.

On 11 September 2020 the court found for Vortic on every claim. The reasoning is worth reading in sequence.

• Disclosure carried strong weight. Following Champion, the court treated full disclosure as central. The engraving, booklet, card and website copy, taken together, were adequate even without a “used” stamp.
• Actual confusion was thin. Hamilton’s evidence was one 2015 email from a Canadian brand manager about a friend looking for a vintage Hamilton. It did not show anyone was confused about who made the Lancaster. There was no consumer survey.
• Good faith was clear. The court accepted that Vortic was trying to preserve American history, not pass itself off as Hamilton.
• Buyers were sophisticated. These were expensive watches bought by people who read the details.

Without likely confusion, the counterfeiting claim fell with the infringement claim. The dilution claim followed.

Why did Swatch keep going?

Swatch appealed to the Second Circuit. Its brief argued that the lower court had erred on all its rulings and that a substantial number of customers had bought Vortic watches believing Hamilton was behind them, whatever the disclaimers said.

From outside, persisting looks odd. Fifty-eight watches is a rounding error for a group of Swatch’s size. Custer later said Vortic had spent six figures on legal fees and estimated Swatch had spent more than seven.

But be fair to the brand owner. Trademark owners are expected to police their marks, and a principle that lets anyone modify your product and sell it under your name, with a disclaimer, is one a large brand would naturally want tested higher up. The appeal was about precedent, not 58 watches.

On 14 September 2021 the Second Circuit affirmed. Champion applied even to extensively modified goods. The burden of proving likely confusion sat with Hamilton; Vortic did not have to prove its disclosures worked. And a court need not run through the confusion factors in any fixed order, so long as it considers the relevant ones.

In early January 2022, Swatch confirmed it would take no further action and would not petition the Supreme Court. Case closed.

Did Vortic actually win anything?

Legally, yes. It was free to keep selling Hamilton-based watches, and it did. When a Hamilton-based Lancaster went back on sale after the appeal, priced at US$2,495, it sold out on the first day.

Commercially, the picture is more mixed. The litigation absorbed years of founder time and hundreds of working hours. But it also gave Vortic something small brands rarely get: a story.

A tiny American workshop rescuing old American watches, sued by a Swiss conglomerate that owned the American name. The company leaned in. By its own account, a military-themed edition launched during the dispute brought in about US$250,000 in 24 hours, and it has since published its version of the saga as a serialised story.

Vortic’s own film on a military-themed commemorative piece, the kind of story-led edition the dispute helped sell.

That is the paradox of the file. Hamilton sued to protect its heritage and ended up making a competitor famous for respecting it.

The wider pattern: upcycling and luxury marks

Vortic was not an isolated case. In the same period, several large brands went after businesses that remake genuine branded goods.

In February 2021 Chanel sued Shiver + Duke, an Atlanta company making jewellery from authentic Chanel buttons bearing the interlocking-C logo. The parties reached a settlement in principle in November 2022, and the Chanel pieces disappeared from the company’s website.

Louis Vuitton settled a similar suit against Sandra Ling Designs, which had said each upcycled item carried a disclosure that it was not a Louis Vuitton product. Rolex’s suit against the customiser La Californienne also ended in settlement.

Few of these cases reach a verdict. Hamilton v. Vortic did, which is why it is cited so often.

Does the Vortic ruling travel outside America?

Not reliably. In France and across the EU, a brand owner generally cannot block resale of genuine goods it has put on the market, but it can object for a legitimate reason, notably where the goods’ condition has been altered. Upcycling is alteration by definition.

Thai trademark law, by contrast, does not expressly recognise this kind of exhaustion at all, which leaves upcyclers there with little certainty. Anyone building an upcycling brand across Southeast Asia should assume the American result stays in America.

Japan offers a useful counterpoint about where the line sits. A Tokyo company, then called MariCar, ran street go-kart tours for tourists in Mario-style costumes, trading on the look of Nintendo’s game without any genuine Nintendo product involved. Nintendo won, and in January 2020 the IP High Court raised the damages to 50 million yen.

The company rebranded as Street Kart, switched to superhero costumes and added a sign saying it was unrelated to Nintendo. The contrast is instructive. Vortic’s Hamilton parts were real. MariCar borrowed the brand’s world wholesale.

Lessons for small brands built on someone else’s heritage

Over-disclose. Vortic won on paperwork. Its own name was everywhere; the original maker’s name appeared only where it was historically true.

Make your brand the hero, not the borrowed one. The Lancaster was sold as a Vortic. Had the marketing led with Hamilton, the result could easily have been different.

Keep evidence of good faith. The finding that Vortic was preserving history, not trading on confusion, rested on how the company had talked about itself for years.

Budget for the fight, or plan not to have one. Being right cost Vortic six figures. Many small firms would have folded at the first letter, which is exactly what most large brands expect.

Lessons for heritage brands

Decide what you are actually protecting. Suing a company that celebrates your history puts the brand on the wrong side of its own story.

Bring evidence, not assumptions. One email and no survey was never going to prove confusion.

Consider tone before litigation. In 2012 Jack Daniel’s sent a famously polite letter to an author whose book cover imitated its label, offering to help pay for a redesign. It protected the mark and won goodwill. Not every dispute allows that. Many do.

Think about licensing. A heritage brand facing a respectful restorer has a third option between suing and ignoring: an official programme. Partnership is cheaper than appeal.

Closing questions

Who won Swatch vs Vortic?
Vortic won. A New York federal court ruled in its favour in September 2020, the Second Circuit affirmed in September 2021, and Swatch confirmed in January 2022 that it would not take the case further.

Why didn’t Vortic infringe Hamilton’s trademark?
The courts found buyers were unlikely to be confused, because Vortic clearly disclosed that each watch was its own restoration of a genuine antique Hamilton movement. Under the 1947 Champion Spark Plug precedent, full disclosure protects sellers of reconditioned genuine goods.

Can you legally sell upcycled branded products?
In the US you may, if the goods are genuine and you clearly disclose the modification and your own identity, though brands may still sue. Rules differ elsewhere, so take local advice before selling across markets.

If your brand stands on someone else’s heritage, or your heritage keeps turning up in other people’s products, it is worth working out your position before the letter arrives. That is a conversation we have often in our brand consulting work.