Chanel is Suing an Accessories Company Over Jewelry Made from Authentic Logo-Bearing Buttons

Chanel is Suing an Accessories Company Over Jewelry Made from Authentic Logo-Bearing Buttons

Taking Chanel buttons from the brand’s garments and refashioning them into jewelry runs afoul of trademark law. That is what Chanel argues in a newly-filed complaint, in which it accuses accessories company Shriver + Duke of “misappropriating” its “world famous and federally registered” interlocking “C” monogram trademark and its “Chanel” word mark in order to “create and market costume jewelry that draws and relies on the selling power and fame of the Chanel marks.”

According to the complaint that it filed in a New York federal court on February 12, Chanel alleges that Atlanta, Georgia-based Shriver + Duke, which describes itself as a “handcrafted modern sophisticated accessory line,” and its founder, jewelry designer Edith Anne Hunt (the “defendants”) are taking authentic “buttons bearing the CC monogram that are not intended for use other than on Chanel’s authorized clothing” and putting them on chains, earrings, and bracelets, which they then offer up for sale for upwards of $100. In promoting and marketing the jewelry on the shiverandduke.com e-commerce website, alongside jewelry that is made from Louis Vuitton and Gucci hardware, buttons, and canvas, the defendants “refer to the jewelry as ‘designer’ and in some instances, have used the CHANEL mark to identify their CC monogram button jewelry,” Chanel asserts.

“There is no dispute,” Chanel argues, that the defendants’ “use of the CC monogram is intended to trade on the goodwill that Chanel has created in its mark through decades of use and millions of dollars in investments.” At the same time, the famed luxury brand claims that the defendants’ jewelry “does not alter the CC monogram and the jewelry nowhere states that it was created by [the] defendants without the authorization of Chanel.” Instead, the appearance of the CC monogram on the defendants’ jewelry is “no different from the display of the CC monogram on authorized Chanel costume jewelry, and to a consumer there is no distinguishable difference between the appearance of [the] defendants’ unauthorized product and Chanel’s genuine product.”

And in case that is not enough, Chanel – which says that it generated “revenue from sales of costume jewelry sold under and/or bearing the CHANEL marks from 2015 to 2019 [that] exceeded $300 million” – claims that third-party retailers that have purchased Shriver + Duke’s jewelry “have advertised and promoted the products as Chanel costume jewelry” due to the defendants’ “prominent use of the CHANEL marks” on such jewelry.

Upon discovering Shriver + Duke’s offerings, Chanel says that its counsel sent the company a cease and desist letter in September 2020, but in lieu of halting their allegedly infringing activity, Chanel claims that Shriver + Duke has “made minor changes to their products and packaging.” For instance, new product packaging describes that Shriver + Duke’s jewelry as “Reimagined” and “Reworked,” and states that the jewelry is an “original design” of Shriver + Duke that is “made from authentic buttons.”

In terms of the products, themselves, Chanel asserts that Shriver + Duke “have also added SD SHIVER + DUKE markings on the backs of the CC monogram buttons.”

Such modifications “do nothing to prevent consumers from mistakenly believing that the defendants’ jewelry originates from or is authorized by Chanel” because the “packaging still does not state that the jewelry is not authorized by or associated with Chanel, and the jewelry in the post-sale context conveys only that it comes from Chanel when it does not.” Chanel further claims that in response to its objections, Shriver + Duke “have added a small tag displaying the marking ‘SD’ to their button jewelry,” but “such use is not consistent across the product line.” And even when “the tag is used, it does not negate the primary visual focus of the defendant’s jewelry, namely Chanel’s CC monogram,” and such a tag “does nothing to inform the public that the product was repackaged and repurposed by the defendants without the authorization of Chanel.”

“Regardless whether [they] use disclaimers, tags or markings to designate [Shriver + Duke] as the manufacturer of the costume jewelry bearing Chanel’s immediately recognizable CC Monogram, in the post-sale context, the mark most prominently displayed on the defendants’ jewelry belongs to and identifies Chanel as the source of the defendants’ products,” according to Chanel. “Further, the defendants’ use of additional [Shriver + Duke] markings does not change the fact that the main source identifying feature of the costume jewelry is the CC monogram, that the jewelry is similar to Chanel’s actual products bearing the CC monogram, and that the selling power of the defendants’ products is based on the fame of the CC monogram.”

With the foregoing in mind and given the defendants’ allegedly “deliberate intent to ride on the fame and goodwill of Chanel’s trademarks, to profit from the CHANEL marks, and to create a false impression as to the source or sponsorship of the defendants’ goods or to otherwise compete unfairly with Chanel,” Chanel sets out claims of federal and state law trademark infringement and dilution, and unfair competition against Shriver + Duke and Hunt. In addition to potentially causing confusion among consumers as to the source of the allegedly infringing jewelry and “diluting or likely to dilute Chanel’s famous CHANEL marks by harming the reputation of the marks, thereby damaging the good reputation of Chanel and the CHANEL marks,” Chanel argues that the defendants’ “use of the CHANEL marks unfairly and unlawfully wrests from Chanel control over its trademarks and reputation.”

Chanel is seeking monetary damages, as well as injunctive relief to immediately and permanently bar the defendants from making, marketing, and selling the jewelry – or more broadly, using the Chanel trademark “or any simulation, reproduction, copy, colorable imitation or confusingly similar variation of the CHANEL marks.”

The case is the latest in a string of legal actions initiated by luxury brands that have sought to prevent the sale of modified but otherwise authentic goods bearing their trademarks (the Rolex v. La Californienne case, for example, comes to mind) – or here, trademark-bearing parts derived from authentic goods – on the basis that such unauthorized use is both likely to mislead consumers and to cause damage to the brand.

These cases raise some interesting questions about the burgeoning resale market, as well as the role of the First Sale Doctrine, a trademark tenet that generally holds that once a trademark owner, such as Chanel, releases its goods into the market, it cannot prevent the subsequent re-sale of those goods by their purchasers, thereby, enabling the purchaser of a trademark-bearing product to resell that product (and potentially parts of it?) without giving rise to trademark infringement liability.

This assumes, however, that the subsequently-resold product is not “materially different” from the original, which is, of course, a particularly relevant aspect in cases like this one. (As Seton Hall Law’s David Barnes previously noted in an article on the doctrine, “When a trademarked article that has been modified by its buyer is in some way marketed to third parties, however, there is potential for consumer confusion about the source of the good and the article’s qualities and characteristics,” which seems relevant in the case at hand. “This creates a conflict between the first sale rule, which encourages competition between new and used or modified products, and trademark law’s goal of preventing consumers from being misled.”)

If this case sounds familiar, it may be because Chanel was embroiled in a similar suit back in 2013, albeit instead of filing suit, the alleged infringer beat Chanel to court. A company called Button Jewelry by Val Colbert, faced with threats of litigation from Chanel over its button jewelry, initiated a declaratory judgment action, asking the court to declare that it was not running afoul of federal trademark law by taking authentic Chanel buttons and turning them into accessories. The case quietly settled within a matter of weeks of it being filed, with the parties seemingly coming to a confidential settlement behind the scenes, and Colbert scraping her site of all Chanel-branded goods.

*The case is Chanel, Inc. v. Shiver and Duke, LLC, et al., 1:21-cv-01277 (SDNY).

Watch Spotting Dave Chappelle Wearing The Apple Watch Black Unity Limited Edition

According to Apple, that strap is inspired by the Pan-African flag and made from a high-performance material called fluoroelastomer. The pin-and-tuck closure is laser-etched “Truth. Power. Solidarity.” The aluminum case is fashioned from 100 percent recycled aerospace-grade alloy. Even the caseback gets the laser engraved treatment, reading “Black Unity.” There is also a Black Unity watch face available to everyone with the latest watchOS – even if you don’t have the special Black Unity hardware.

手錶、腕錶，是生活的出口！為何執行長喜歡收藏？

「玩錶，能讓我暫時拋開公事，得到休息和調劑」6 年前，麥肯廣告公司執行長張志浩接受《經理人》專訪。愛好收藏錶的他，從一支支的腕錶，學到了許多事 »

現在回想起來，其實我小時候就滿喜歡錶。我還記得國小六年級時，我父親送我一支鐵達時的機械錶，這是我生平第一支錶，我覺得手錶很有趣，想知道錶為什麼會自動運轉，就把錶拆開來看內部的構造，結果把錶弄壞了，我還偷偷拿去錶店修理。但我對錶的興趣，大概那時候就開始種下了。

不過，以前我買錶並沒有想太多，通常覺得好看、好戴就好。一直到了十幾年前，我開始想買好一點的機械錶，但當時我喜歡的萬國錶公司 IWC（International Watch Co）馬克系列手錶，我捨不得買。後來我太太知道了，剛好我公司有一個案子，抽獎贈品就是 IWC 的錶，公司就訂了十幾支，我太太就偷偷打電話給我下面的承辦人，請他下訂單的時候多買一支。等到我生日那天，拿出來做我的生日禮物，讓我覺得很驚喜。

IWC IWC 馬克系列手錶

玩錶的人都知道，有了第一支後，就會踏上不歸路。因為太太送的這支錶，我逐漸發現錶的有趣之處，開始想買第二支、第三支……，隨著了解愈來愈深入，就這樣一步步踏入手錶的世界。

拆錶、爬資料，對錶的欣賞從「外在」轉為「內在」

後來我才知道，機械錶的原理，其實在 200 年前就已經發展出來。像錶迷熟知的陀飛輪、萬年曆、計時碼錶等複雜功能，都是百年前就已經有了。我就覺得機械錶實在很厲害，只用一個發條輪，就產生這麼大的力量，去推動複雜的齒輪結構，並且準確的計時，就會很想知道其中的原理。

我喜歡自己去吸收、去了解手錶的相關知識。我開始玩錶後，就訂了很多雜誌來看，也買了一些鐘錶拍賣公司的目錄來研究。平常我也很喜歡上網搜尋錶的資訊，所以我電腦裡頭網路瀏覽器的「我的最愛」，幾乎都是有關錶的網站。

我也買了一些拆修錶的工具，以前玩錶的時候，我會把便宜的錶拆開來研究。但現在買的錶比較貴，我就不敢拆了，不過我還是會自己清理保養手錶，或是換換錶帶，讓錶看起來有不同的風貌。

平常有空時，我就會用放大鏡來看我的手錶，欣賞這些錶的設計和結構。像我有一支古董錶，每次看到它的指針，我就覺得那個年代的工藝真是沒話說，連指針都是用手工一步步地做出每一個細節，真的非常漂亮。

我以前買錶，喜歡買有複雜功能的錶，因為這樣看起來比較炫。但後來我漸漸「返璞歸真」，更重視錶的內在。例如勞力士（Rolex）的設計 5、60 年都不變，但錶的內部功能則是一直在改進。所以有些人覺得勞力士很「俗」，但其實勞力士每支錶的設計都非常經典，令人百看不膩。

ROLEX ROLEX 手錶工藝與設計

以前我的錶常在轉手，但後來我覺得有些錶雖然有名，但並不符合我個人的需求和興趣，現在我就只鎖定幾個比較喜歡的品牌來研究。

了解每支錶的故事，深挖歷史、發掘興趣

除了去錶店看錶之外，以前我還常在網路上買賣錶，如果有人有興趣，就約在某個地點，然後兩個人交貨、看貨，再去提款機領錢付錢，我常開玩笑說，整個過程好像是在販毒一樣。我還曾跟別人約在桃園交流道交易，不過，後來我覺得網路交易有點麻煩，有時也怕買到狀況不好的錶，後來就很少在網路上買賣錶了。

雖然以前買賣手錶的頻率還滿高的，但現在我要賣錶就愈來愈難決定，因為留下來的錶都已經有感情了，尤其如果是二手錶或古董錶，有的錶就算去找、去等，也不見得買得到，所以每一支買到的錶，其實都是一種緣分。

像我有支勞力士的 Daytona 錶，就是在一個難得的機會下到手的。Daytona 是全世界最搶手的錶，有錢也不一定買得到，但有一天我去逛錶店，正好看到有人進來賣了一支給老闆，等那個人離開錶店，我馬上跟老闆說：「老闆，這支給我，我要了。」我後面的人還大呼可惜，說怎麼給你搶走了。像這樣的錶，我就捨不得賣，因為我會覺得和這支錶有緣，這真的是強求不來。

ROLEX ROLEX Daytona 系列手錶

我想，像我們這種愛錶的人，買錶不是因為多有錢，我們是在能力允許的範圍內，去買自己喜歡的錶，而不是只追逐名貴的手錶。當我買了一支錶之後，我就會去看它的機型是什麼，研究這支錶好在哪裡、演進的歷史是什麼？所以我的每個錶都有它的故事，都有它的趣味在裡頭。

手錶，是生活的出口、一種休息與調劑

我覺得錶是拿來戴的，不是像某些有錢人是買來擺好看的，所以我的手錶現在都維持在 11 支，1 支戴在手上，其他的就收在錶盒裡。每天我都會打開錶盒，想一想明天會是什麼心情、明天會有什麼場合，然後選一支適合明天氣氛的錶來戴。

對我來說，手錶就好像是一個生活的出口。我唯一可以讓腦袋不去想公事的時候，就是把自己丟到錶的世界裡頭，無論是看雜誌、上網站，或是欣賞錶、把玩錶，都可以讓我暫時拋開繁瑣的公事，在精神上得到休息和調劑。

在收藏手錶的過程中，我也體會到一件事，就是凡事無須強求。以前我如果看到中意的錶但沒買到，就會捶胸頓足好一陣子，但後來經歷愈來愈豐富，我就不會再因為這樣的事而煩惱、沮喪，因為該來的就會出現，該你的就是你的。

後來我發現，在工作上我也變得比較豁達。比如我們在比稿、搶案子、或是做決策，事前必須全神貫注，投入最大的努力。但如果案子最後沒有拿到，我也會坦然地面對，下一次有機會再努力。如果可以這樣想，就不會讓得失心一直影響自己。

攝影 / 侯俊偉 麥肯廣告公司執行長、前奧美互動行銷公司董事總經理張志浩

你也想瞭解手錶嗎？張志浩的私房推薦

專業手錶資訊網站，首頁有手錶的最新報導，並有討論區可提問和回答有關手錶的問題。網站內還有手錶品牌、手錶相關術語等介紹。

台灣知名古董鐘錶店「王永昌鐘錶」的網站。網站上有店內古董鐘錶或二手錶商品的詳細資訊，也有鐘錶知識的專題介紹。

全球最大鐘錶拍賣公司安帝古倫（Antiquorum）的網站。網站內可查詢古董錶或二手名錶的拍賣資訊、行情、收藏歷史，並可進行線上拍賣。

（口述 / 張志浩，撰文 / 鄭君仲）