Following a jury trial early this year, Chanel and What Goes Around Comes Around (“WGACA”) are in the midst of phase two, which is seeing them go back forth over equitable remedies. As was previously reported first by TFL, Chanel filed a motion for a permanent injunction in March, in which it is seeking to bar WGACA from continuing to partake in infringing activities, such as “unfairly competing” with Chanel by taking any action that is likely to cause confusion or mistake among consumers; making unauthorized use of Chanel marks “other than to identify the items being offered for sale”; advertising, offering for sale, or selling any CHANEL-branded items that have not been authorized for sale by Chanel; and making any representations regarding the genuineness of any CHANEL-branded items or its ability to make such claims without proper documentation, among other things.
WGACA’s response: WGACA has since responded to Chanel’s motion, arguing that the court should reject Chanel’s proposed motion on the basis that it is “impermissibly overbroad and overreaching,” particularly as “the evidence establishes that WGACA acted in good faith and built its reputation and success by establishing itself as a trustworthy purveyor of authentic luxury items.”
We reported on WGACA’s response at a high level here, including its allegations that Chanel is trying to use the injunction to exert control over (and stifle) the secondary market, but I think a few of WGACA’s arguments are worth flagging. Among these are Chanel’s bid to: (1) require WGACA to obtain permission from Chanel before legally marketing any Chanel items; (2) require WGACA to include a disclaimer; (3) restrict WCAGA’s ability to sell refurbished items; and (4) prohibit WGACA from offering to guarantee the authenticity of its items.
