Page 16 - The Katten Kattwalk - Summer 2025 - Issue 29
P. 16
ahmad.faizal/Shutterstock.com
Chanel’s Legal Victory Sends a Clear Message:
Authenticity Isn’t Just a Luxury — It’s the Law (continued)
to believe that the owner of the mark made and is that there was no confusion as to whether Chanel
selling the product in order for confusion to arise. endorsed or was affiliated with The RealReal, and the
Any impression by the consumer that the owner of use of the CHANEL mark was descriptive rather than
the mark sponsored or approved the use of the mark suggestive of sponsorship or partnership.
fulfills the confusion requirement. To determine However, Chanel showed that WGACA’s use of the
2
whether there is a likelihood of consumer confusion, CHANEL mark went beyond such lawful use, creating
courts use a set of factors to assess whether there is the appearance of an endorsement. WGACA featured
a likelihood of confusion between two trademarks, CHANEL marks more prominently than its own,
focusing on elements like the strength and similarity sometimes in the WGACA stylized font, and without
of the marks, the relationship between the products, disclaiming any affiliation with Chanel. WGACA also
actual consumer confusion, bad faith adoption and the used CHANEL marks outside of product descriptions
sophistication of the target market. Essentially, they by using the marks in general advertisements and
help determine if the public might mistakenly believe sales, such as “WGACA CHANEL - 100% Authenticity
one product is associated with another.
Guaranteed,” “#WGACACHANEL” and the annual
Chanel alleged that WGACA’s use of Chanel’s marks “Coco Chanel Birthday Sale.” Chanel successfully
and sale of Chanel-branded items created a false argued that this use did more than simply describe
association between the two companies. WGACA products — it implied endorsement or a partnership
3
argued that it used Chanel’s marks merely to identify between the two brands.
the manufacturer of the product that it sells — a Sale of Chanel-Branded Items
lawful use of Chanel’s marks that wouldn’t create any
consumer confusion. Indeed, it has been held that While trademark law does not prohibit the resale of
resellers may lawfully use a trademark to describe genuine goods because such a sale does not inherently
a product, as evidenced by a prior ruling involving a create consumer confusion, Chanel also successfully
similar luxury reseller, The RealReal. In that case, The contested WGACA’s sale of non-genuine Chanel
4
RealReal was not found to have infringed Chanel’s products. Goods are not considered genuine if they
trademarks because it did not advertise the CHANEL do not conform to the mark owner’s quality control
mark more prominently than other marks and disclosed standards, even if they were manufactured by the
that the brands sold on their site are not affiliated with mark holder.
The RealReal in any way. Therefore, it was determined
16 katten.com/fashionlaw
