Chanel defends its slingbacks against Jonak imitations
On 16 October, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Chanel in a dispute with the French footwear brand Jonak, thus settling a case that began in 2020.
The dispute arose in December of that year, when Chanel sued Jonak for parasitism before the Paris Commercial Court. Chanel claimed that Jonak ignored a cease and desist letter sent in May 2020 and continued to sell two-tone beige and black slingbacks and sandals that imitated Chanel's original designs, which caused confusion among consumers and allowed Jonak to unfairly profit from the luxury brand's reputation. The design in question is Chanel's iconic 'slingback', created in 1957 and characterised by its beige leather base, black toe cap, moderate block heel and straps that wrap around the sides and back of the foot.
Chanel supported its argument with a survey showing that a significant proportion of respondents identified Jonak's products as inspired by, or even owned by, Chanel. Although the Commercial Court dismissed some of the claims, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the luxury brand.
The Paris Court of Appeal concluded that these practices were an attempt to exploit Chanel's reputation for commercial gain. It ordered Jonak to pay €150,000 in economic damages and an additional €30,000 in moral damages. Jonak was also ordered to cease the production, distribution and sale of the infringing models within 30 days, to remove any promotional content suggesting an association with Chanel and to destroy the remaining stock. Otherwise, Jonak will be fined €1,000 per day.
EU trade mark dispute: Ukraine slogan war
On 13 November, in case T-82/24, the General Court of the European Union rejected the application for registration of the EU trade mark N. 018672791, "RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF".
In 2022, the Administration of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine applied to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for registration of the phrase "RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF" as an EU figurative mark, which covers goods and services falling within various classes of the Nice Classification, including Class 9 (navigational instruments and services), including Class 9 (navigational instruments and apparatus), Class 14 (precious metals and jewellery), Class 16 (paper and paperboard products), Class 18 (leather and leather goods), Class 25 (clothing and footwear), Class 28 (sports equipment and toys) and Class 41 (education and entertainment services).
Both the examiner and the EUIPO Board of Appeal rejected the application under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the grounds that the mark was devoid of any distinctive character. They considered that the sign would be perceived as a political slogan rather than as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods and services.
The applicant appealed the decision to the General Court of the European Union, which had to determine whether the mark applied for had sufficient distinctive character to be registered or whether it was merely a political message lacking such character.
Both the examiner and the EUIPO Board of Appeal rejected the application under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the grounds that the mark was devoid of any distinctive character. They considered that the sign would be perceived as a political slogan rather than as an indication of the commercial origin of the goods and services. The applicant appealed the decision to the General Court of the European Union, which had to determine whether the mark applied for had sufficient distinctive character to be registered or whether it was merely a political message lacking such character.
The General Court upheld the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal. Although the phrase had become emblematic and widely recognised in the context of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, it did not fulfil the requirements of distinctiveness necessary to be registered as a trade mark. The Court confirmed that the relevant public, in this case the general public, would not associate the phrase with the commercial origin of the goods or services, but would rather perceive it as a political slogan linked to a military conflict.
The appellant argued that the identity of the applicant should be taken into account when assessing the distinctiveness of the mark, as the phrase is closely associated with a Ukrainian border guard. However, the General Court clarified that the identity of the applicant does not influence the public's perception of the mark. Therefore, the Board of Appeal was correct to disregard that argument as a relevant factor. As a result, the General Court rejected the appeal in its entirety and confirmed that the mark "RUSSIAN WARSHIP, GO F**K YOURSELF" did not satisfy the requirements of distinctiveness.
Details
- Publication date
- 21 November 2024
- Author
- European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency