Gucci Accidentally Sues Chanel; Gets Restraining Order... Then Apologizes

from the sorry-about-that dept

Fri, Apr 23rd 2010 7:01pm — Mike Masnick

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

Filed Under: lawsuits
Companies: chanel, gucci

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 7:28pm

"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."

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 thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 23 Apr 2010 @ 8:22pm

Make this one soon. please
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.

Just crazy. What first amendment Anonymous Coward?
Our first amendment is just a second thought, or 3rd, 4th, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 9:00pm

Re:
it called avoiding legal whackamole. the judge stopped the defendants from just changing names and doing the same thing again. it wasnt aimed at chanel it was aimed at the previous and current operators of other sites. not really a big deal just proof of how many companies are being attacked by counterfeit goods and are taking actions to stop it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 23 Apr 2010 @ 9:36pm

one word for this guy
DICKHEAD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NAMELESS.ONE, 23 Apr 2010 @ 9:42pm

let me see...counterfeiting
A) a good happens ot be cheaper somehow and of similar enough quality that when they slap someones logo on it it passes for the real deal

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 thread ]
Robert Ring (profile), 23 Apr 2010 @ 9:52pm

Re: Make this one soon. please
Yeah, to me that's the craziest part about this whole ordeal. You can't do that!

...Well, I guess you can, but you're not SUPPOSED to be able to do that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:25pm

Cool Beans !!!
I had a TechDirt thought when I read the title ...

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 thread ]
JeroenW (profile), 23 Apr 2010 @ 11:34pm

american law= entertainment
Ah yes, the american litigation culture. Good for a bunch of giggles anywhere else on the planet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FUTURE ACTA ENFORCER, 24 Apr 2010 @ 12:34am

Re: Re:
They'll all pay. Every single one of you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ITrush, 24 Apr 2010 @ 6:39am

Accident Happens
hmm, accidents really happens, we should be very careful next time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 24 Apr 2010 @ 7:07am

Re: Re:
"it called avoiding legal whackamole"

- 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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2010 @ 7:10am

Re: Re: Re:
it just proves how long it takes a copyright holder to be able to get things in court and handled. the rest of your comments i think are just baiting, and i wont go there, sorry. say hi to mike for me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Justice Tourism, 24 Apr 2010 @ 7:13am

Re: american law= entertainment
Gucci -> Italy
Chanel -> France

Court System -> USA

USA USA USA USA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 24 Apr 2010 @ 7:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought good lawyers were on top of the situation and kept track of any and all changes, making necessary alterations to their case as required. If I were paying large sums of money to a law firm, that is what I would expect. I suppose that is asking too much.

My other comments were not bait. You thinking they are is interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
slander (profile), 24 Apr 2010 @ 8:43am

Re: Cool Beans !!!
Heh, you used "gangsta" and "style" in the same sentence. That's like associating "Britney Spears" and "artist"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2010 @ 9:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Little ac thinks?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2010 @ 10:54am

Oh god, the girls are fighting again. They need a time out, no more lawyers this month.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2010 @ 4:34pm

So if a woman carried a Gucci purse while wearing Chanel perfume, could she be arrested for violating the restraining order?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2010 @ 4:42pm

Re: Re:
So, it's OK in your eyes that a website is shut down based on the mere accusation of wrongdoing? And that this is done without even checking the *identity* of the current website owner?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2010 @ 9:41am

Re: Re: Re:
the time it takes to go from information to lawsuit takes a while. collecting together a bunch of information to get the same operator shut down on multiple websites takes longer. in the interim, chanel got one taken over not even shut down. it happens. it isnt the same as going after a single website owned by a single businessman. nice try but your logic fails.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 25 Apr 2010 @ 11:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"nice try but your logic fails."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2010 @ 11:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yes they could spend all their time checking and rechecking every website, doing extensive work each day to monitor content, ownership, hosting, and 100 other items and then never actually ever get a lawsuit filed. you need to come work in the real world. say hi to mike for me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 25 Apr 2010 @ 12:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, you fail to understand the implications of brushing this aside.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2010 @ 1:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Justice is too much work!" - TAM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2010 @ 2:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
hi mike. dont get out much, do you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2010 @ 4:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"When an anonymous coward has little left in way of an argument, they will turn to conspiracies to bolster their standing in any community."

It is seriously adorable how paranoid you are, little ac.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
filerantings (profile), 26 Apr 2010 @ 12:42am

Gucci - one victim
justice abuse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 2:01am

Why the slow week? There are usually between 78 and 82 new articles a week here, but last week there were only 61!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2010 @ 10:29am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hi TAM, don't get out of your tinfoil hat much, do you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Herve Leger, 4 Sep 2010 @ 2:38am

Herve Leger
Are you always vexed about wearing what kind of dress at a banquet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]