In the realm of luxury goods, secrecy has long been a key strategic asset. Brands such as Rolex guard tightly their production numbers, allocation policies, and sales data – not merely for competitive advantage, but as part of the mystique that supports their value proposition. Yet recent legal developments in Europe are pushing back against indefinite secrecy, especially when it comes to older data in litigation.
In a landmark ruling in May 2025, the Paris Court of Appeal held that Rolex’s internal data on production, sales, and product availability from 2018 onward qualifies as trade secrets and should remain confidential in the context of a dispute with the French Competition Authority.
However, the court refused to extend confidentiality to data from 2017 and earlier holding that Rolex had not proven those older records remained commercially sensitive. In addition, documents prepared in 2024, even if they do not include explicit date markers, were also granted confidentiality because of their recency.
The Paris Court of Appeal partially granted and partially denied this request. The court stated that:
- The data from 2018 to present was to be recognized as confidential and commercially sensitive, affirming that recent internal information could still give competitors an unfair advantage if disclosed.
- The data from 2017 and earlier was not considered confidential, as, according to the court, the company failed to demonstrate how such historical data still retained commercial value or met the legal definition of a “trade secret”.
About the Undated documents created in 2024, the court accepted that this likely contained contemporaneous strategic information and should remain protected.
The French court applied what is increasingly referred to as a “five-year presumption”, meaning that information older than five years is presumed to have lost its confidential nature, unless the company seeking protection can prove that it remains strategically relevant or competitively sensitive. The decision aligns with the EU Trade Secrets Directive (2016/943), which defines a trade secret as information that is: (i) Not generally known or readily accessible; (ii) Has commercial value because of its secrecy; or (iii) Has been subject to reasonable steps to keep it secret.
While the case was decided in France, its reasoning has global relevance, especially for multinational companies navigating cross-border litigation or regulatory investigations.
No More “Blanket Confidentiality”
Courts are becoming more discerning about what qualifies as a trade secret. Companies must now justify the continued sensitivity of data – particularly older data – rather than assume that all internal records are automatically protected. This change will impact how corporations manage disclosures in antitrust cases, IP litigation, and even freedom of information requests.
The Court enforces what is being established as pragmatic balance, with judges and regulators having the possibility to verify the evidence while keeping those materials sealed from competitors. That approach may serve as a model for future competition cases and clear the limits of industrial and commercial secrecy.
The case is Rolex S.A. and Rolex Holding S.A., Paris Court of Appeal, RG n° 24/03052.
—
Advogado(a) autor(a) do comentário: Ana Carolina Gutierrez, Lígia Ferreira Marcondes Rocha e Cesar Peduti Filho, Peduti Advogados
Fonte: Courts Are Rewriting the Rules of Confidentiality for Rolex
—
Se quiser saber mais sobre este tema, contate o autor ou o Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.
If you want to learn more about this topic, contact the author or the managing partner, Dr. Cesar Peduti Filho.
