Gucci Accidentally Sues Chanel; Gets Restraining Order... Then Apologizes
from the sorry-about-that dept
The various luxury brand companies are pretty quick with trademark lawsuits these days -- often going well beyond reason. We've seen it time and time again -- especially when they sue third parties like Google or eBay. So I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that in their rush to sue, they don't always check all the facts... leading to hilarious scenarios like the one brought to our attention where Gucci accidentally sued Chanel and even got a temporary restraining order against the company.The timeline, as far as I can tell, goes like this. Last year, Chanel and LVMH sued some websites that were selling counterfeit goods. One of those websites was called MyPurseWorld.com. In a ruling last June, a federal district court in Florida transferred that domain to Chanel, who began using the website to post the court ruling and to post info about other counterfeiting sites. Fair enough (well, I might argue that, but we'll leave it aside for now).
However, earlier this month, Gucci sued a bunch of sites for trademark infringement -- including MyPurseWorld.com. Apparently whoever put together the lawsuit hadn't checked out the site since last June, or discovered that Chanel now owned it and it was being used by that company to post anti-counterfeiting info. So, basically Gucci sued Chanel, claiming that its MyPurseWorld.com site was selling counterfeit Gucci products. They even had Chanel served as a defendant. On top of that, a district court in Manhattan granted a restraining order against "the website or its owner" barring web hosts or ISPs from working with them. Technically, yes, this could have meant that Chanel couldn't work with webhosts or ISPs. Of course, Chanel protested and Gucci quickly backed down, admitting "a minor bit of confusion."
I'm still a bit confused why the judge would totally bar a site from working with a webhost or ISP, but we'll leave that discussion for another day.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So the owner of the website in question can't have any website at all? Sounds like a blatant violation of the first amendment. Some judges have no sense of justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
- I thought it was called issuing a restraining order. This type of injunction is usually reserved for use in domestic violence or harassment cases, I do not see what the purse maker was fearful of.
"the judge stopped the defendants from just changing names and doing the same thing again"
- I do not see how this stopped the original website owner from doing anything.
"it wasnt aimed at chanel "
- Apparently it was. Intentional or not, the result is the same. It's like saying "I didn't mean to aim that gun at you".
"not really a big deal"
- Oops, sorry about pointing that gun at your head, no big deal 'cause I didn't pull the trigger.
"just proof of how many companies are being attacked by counterfeit goods and are taking actions to stop it"
- No ... what this proves is that companies are quick to accuse with little to no investigation effort knowing that when (not if) they make a mistake it can be easily swept under the rug. They think no harm, no foul. Others think this sort of thing has gone too far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
My other comments were not bait. You thinking they are is interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I know what you're trying to get at here, but the application of a restraining order isn't the issue here. It should be used in appropriate cases, of course. The problem is the way that it was done without even checking that the correct person was being targeted, let alone confirming that a crime had been committed by that person.
"not really a big deal"
Yeah, right. Imagine if it was a small business owner who couldn't afford to lose even a few days business in today's climate. Yeah, this time it was a non-critical site for a large multinational business, but shutting down the web presence of a small or home business can be fatal. "Sorry we shut your site down, cost you some critical orders and destroyed your business. We thought you were someone else". Does that sound like justice for you in cases where no crime is committed?
I'll ask the question here I always ask in the 3 strikes threads - why do you favour the businesses of large corporations over and above ordinary people trying to make a living?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A good law firm would be constantly monitoring the status of the case, including the claims made against the defendant, and update appropriately prior to their court date. Claiming a delay is to blame ignores their responsibility for the resulting problem. There are cases where an apology is insufficient, it appears they got lucky this time.
Nice try, but your excuses fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Possibly the stockholders in the company, or their liability insurance company, would be interested in the apparent irresponsible behavior which resulted in this false accusation.
There are possible ramifications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is seriously adorable how paranoid you are, little ac.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Make this one soon. please
Just crazy. What first amendment Anonymous Coward?
Our first amendment is just a second thought, or 3rd, 4th, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Make this one soon. please
...Well, I guess you can, but you're not SUPPOSED to be able to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one word for this guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
let me see...counterfeiting
B) people that have been engaged in price gouging and ripping people off think they deserve to continue said practices
this is what counterfeiting is about no?
C) Given a choice of a similar or even slightly less quality product thats far cheaper what would people do? PAY more for some item that may only have slightly and i mean slightly better quality at 4-20 times the price.
HRMmmm yup , once people start realizing what counterfeiting does they like it.....
HAHA explain this as i did above and your going to see regular people on a street largely agree with the idea that not all counterfeiting can be bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool Beans !!!
Gucci and Chanel announced today that they would be introducing the licensing of the previous months clothing, perfumes, handbags, hats, pens, automobile editions, and waffles.
Gucci or Chanel Lite -
Gucci or Chanel Ultra Lite -
Gucci or Chanel Gangsta Style -
Even though it would quad their profits, and remove counterfeiting and counterfeit enforcement from the equation. It will never happen it would take away from the brand perception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cool Beans !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
american law= entertainment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: american law= entertainment
Chanel -> France
Court System -> USA
USA USA USA USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accident Happens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gucci - one victim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Herve Leger
[ link to this | view in chronology ]