An Atlanta-Based Jewelry Company That Is Being Sued by Chanel Is Fighting Back
An Atlanta-based jewelry company is pushing back against the trademark lawsuit filed against it by Chanel in connection with its sale of costume jewelry made from “upcycled” Chanel buttons. In the motion to dismiss that it filed in a New York federal court on May 14, Shiver + Duke (“S+D”) and its founder Edith Anne Hunt (the “defendants”) claim that the suit is “Chanel’s attempt to negate the First Sale Doctrine by hauling a small company into expensive litigation in a foreign state despite [its] legitimate efforts to ensure that no New York consumer could be confused by its incorporation of recycled Chanel buttons into its original costume jewelry,” and thus, should be tossed out of court.
On the heels of Chanel filing suit in February and accusing S+D 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,” S+D argues that the case should be tossed out because Chanel lacks the necessary personal jurisdiction over it to properly file suit in New York. According to S+D, while it maintains an e-commerce site, where it sells the allegedly infringing jewelry, which is accessible to consumers across the U.S., including New York, and while it has, in fact, sold products to consumers in New York by way of that website, Chanel, nonetheless, chose the wrong forum to file suit.
“All of Defendants’ business activities occur in the State of Georgia,” S+D asserts in its 32-page filing, arguing that its “only perceptible business activity in New York is that its website is accessible from New York,” and even then, its “sales and shipment of the repurposed jewelry giving rise to this matter within the State of New York comprised 0.129% of [its] total sales from 2019-2021.” Despite such a “lack of contacts with New York, [Chanel] is forcing [the defendants] to defend a case 750 miles away, in an unfamiliar Court, and in a jurisdiction with which [they] have no connection,” S+D claims, and asserts that the court should dismiss the case on this basis, or at least, transfer the case to a court in Georgia.
