Fake Van Cleef Alhambra Necklace – Decide Upon All These Appealing Fake Fine Jewelry Gifts Confidently on the Internet.

Jeweller has found that Australian-based websites are openly selling counterfeit watches and jewellery from well-known brands under the guise of “replicas”.

Investigations by Jeweller established a local website – SwissReplicaWatches – sells exact copies of popular brands including Tag Heuer, Breitling, Omega and Van Cleef & Arpels jewelry replica.

The internet site is registered to your company called Brantley Pty Ltd and Australian Securities and Investments Commission records show the company as having two, Sri Lankan-born, directors; Kristiaan Martenstyn and Peduru Jayalath.

The registered address of Melbourne-based Brantley Pty Ltd is Unit 1508, 18 Waterview Walk, Docklands and the website lists a telephone number as 61 414 015 405 and definitely makes the following claims; “We are Australia’s #1 Replica Watch Retailer, 1 Year FULL Replacement Warranty, 7 Day Risk-Free Money-Back Guarantee.”

Last week Jeweller contacted Martenstyn, who confirmed that this company was operating for two years but claimed his actions did not breach any Australian or international laws. He went in terms of describing his business as operating within a necessary industry because consumers demand the product.

“I wouldn’t refer to it as counterfeiting,” Martenstyn said, adding that his products were “high-end replicas” made in Geneva, Switzerland. Interestingly SwissReplicaWatches.com.au states, “We refuse to dodgy ‘fakes’ from Asia.”

Based on intellectual property expert Lisa Egan, a senior associate at law practice Middletons, assessing whether item is counterfeit is very straight-forward.

“If an organization is using brand names without having authority [make up the brand owner] then it’s likely to be a trademark infringement,” she said, adding that selling exact copies is also a “design infringement”.

Egan confirmed that the term “replica” was incorrect – copies carrying a brand’s logo are classified as “counterfeit” goods.

Martenstyn justified his operation by claiming the web site “helps” the watch brands.

“People who order from us, they will not buy the original, so it doesn’t directly affect the trademark owners. Actually, it can help them,” he was quoted saying.

Egan said the only real reason the internet site could remain online was if not one of the affected brands had taken action.

“It’s around the those who own the brands for taking action against it and get that content removed,” she said.

Martenstyn claimed he had never been contacted by any one of the brands featured on his website.

“We’ve never actually had any issues whatsoever. When we were to have any type of issues with the trademark holders we have been delighted to work to meet a resolution,” he said.

The blatant nature of such operations raises queries about why the websites are allowed to remain online in Australia, given the potential damage caused to the brands’ reputation and integrity.

Interestingly, Rolex managing director Richard De Leyser said he was aware of the internet site.

He refused to discuss the matter any longer, but said: “We take any infringement in our copyright very seriously.”

Martenstyn said he would continue operating the site provided that his business was profitable.

wish to purchase such goods, that’s whenever we wouldn’t supply them any more.”

Rather than having a low-key approach, further investigations reveal the company looks to be ramping up its operations, having recently advertised for two customer care representatives.

“We are searching for two new members to sign up with our dedicated and friendly team that specialises in supplying high-end luxury goods like jewellery, timepieces and paintings,” the internet advertisement reads.

Egan said there is a number of steps companies may take to protect their intellectual property from online counterfeiters.

“The first port of call would be to send a letter towards the operator from the website,” she said, adding that Google can be contacted to possess a website excluded from search engine results.

“I think brands must be really vigilant in monitoring these web sites. It’s really in regards to the brands getting a proactive stance and ensuring they’ve got their brand appropriately protected,” she said.

Martenstyn stressed which he had not been contacted by some of the brand owners about his website and added, in an interesting twist of logic, which he believes that his business activity is legal because no person had contacted him to state it wasn’t.

He added that his legal counsel is that he or she is not in breach in the law.

In addition, a disclaimer on SwissReplicaWatches.com.au states the brands “cannot prosecute any individual(s) connected to this website”, citing code 431.322.12 in the Internet Privacy Act.

A lot more online shops display similar disclaimers, all citing code 431.322.12 of your Internet Privacy Act.

Another Australian website, that offers van cleef & arpels clover necklace outlet labelled jewellery cites the same code, stating: “Any person representing or formally employed by any of the brands offered cannot enter this site. … Should you enter this web site and you should not consent to these terms you will be in violation of code 431.322.12 of dexipky14 Internet Privacy Act.”

In addition to the reality that an extensive disclaimer like that would not be accepted with a court, Jeweller’s research may find no proof the presence of the, so-called, Internet Privacy Act. It appears to be a disclaimer used by lots of counterfeit websites so as to deter court action.

Jeweller emailed Martenstyn asking, “The Terms & Conditions area of your web site refers back to the “Internet Privacy Act”. We could find no such Act, could you direct us on it?”

Martenstyn have also been asked whether he agreed that the product his business sold was counterfeit considering the fact that it carries the logos of well known brands.