ARTICLE
18 April 2024

Chanel Seeks Permanent Injunction Against WGACA

KG
K&L Gates

Contributor

At K&L Gates, we foster an inclusive and collaborative environment across our fully integrated global platform that enables us to diligently combine the knowledge and expertise of our lawyers and policy professionals to create teams that provide exceptional client solutions. With offices spanning across five continents, we represent leading global corporations in every major industry, capital markets participants, and ambitious middle-market and emerging growth companies. Our lawyers also serve public sector entities, educational institutions, philanthropic organizations, and individuals. We are leaders in legal issues related to industries critical to the economies of both the developed and developing worlds—including technology, manufacturing, financial services, health care, energy, and more.
The public legal dispute between luxury brand Chanel and luxury reseller What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA) continues with Chanel seeking a permanent...
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The public legal dispute between luxury brand Chanel and luxury reseller What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA) continues with Chanel seeking a permanent injunction that WGACA argues is too broad. As previously reported, a New York jury previously awarded Chanel a US$4 million verdict against WGACA for sales of counterfeit Chanel-branded products Chanel, Inc. v. What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC, et al., 1:18-cv-02253 (SDNY).

Chanel now seeks a permanent injunction to bar WGACA from using Chanel trademarks to advertise Chanel branded products that have not been authorized for sale by Chanel and/or have been materially altered with specific requests to ensure the authenticity and accuracy of advertised vintage Chanel products. Specifically, Chanel seeks an injunction:

  1. Prohibiting WGACA from advertising or selling any CHANEL branded items without permission from Chanel or evidence that the product was first sold by Chanel.
  2. Enjoining WGACA from using the CHANEL marks, Chanel advertisements, "chanel" in discount codes, the CHANEL mark alone in advertisements, the likeness of "Coco" Chanel.
  3. Requiring WGACA to post a photo of the hologram Chanel serial numbers for each CHANEL branded product it offers to sale.
  4. Requiring a disclaimer that WGACA is not authorized to sell Chanel products and the items for sale have not been authenticated by Chanel.
  5. Requiring that all non-genuine CHANEL products sold by WGACA, since the lawsuit began, be recalled and refunded.
  6. Enjoining WGACA from certifying, guaranteeing, or making any representations regarding the genuineness of any CHANEL-branded items sold by WGACA.

WGACA argues that Chanel's injunctive relief request is an improper anti-competitive goal to restrict sales in the secondary market, noting certain requests, such as obtaining original proof of purchase for each item, would chill the second-hand industry. It also argues Chanel acted with "unclean hands" and failed to provide evidence of irreparable harm. Given the continued rise in the resale market, and that some vintage luxury products increase in value over time, brands and resale businesses should keep a close eye on the scope of a final injunction.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More