FRANCE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Karine Disdier-Mikus and Marguerite Senard, Fiducial Legal By Lamy
Celine v Punto Fa and Mango France In a decision dated 10 November 2023, Punto Fa and Mango France were ordered to pay Celine the substantial but justified sum of EUR2 mil - lion in damages. In that case, Celine – special - ised in luxury ready-to-wear and leather goods – sued Mango for selling 24 imitations of its col - lections, including two pairs of earrings, three pairs of glasses, a belt, a handbag, a wallet, and six bags. It was ruled that the repeated reproduction of Celine’s successful products by Punto Fa and Mango France could not be regarded as fortui - tous. They intended to evoke Celine’s products in the minds of their customers, thus exploiting the reputation of Celine’s products to sell their own. The circumstances in which the products bear the Mango brand or have not been com - mercially successful are irrelevant when deter - mining the wrongful acts. Punto Fa and Mango France had, therefore, committed parasitic acts. Chanel v Jonak This interpretation of parasitism caused by dupes was confirmed by the Paris Court of Appeal in another more recent case dated 16 October 2024, opposing Chanel and Jonak related to the famous Chanel two-tone slingback. The Court first considered that the two-tone beige and black Chanel slingback, which was created in 1957 and has been a recurring model in the CHANEL collections since 2005 – both in its low- heel and high-heel version – enjoys a genuine reputation and constitutes an individualised eco - nomic value. Jonak’s intention to follow in Chanel’s footsteps, and in particular, to capitalise on the reputation of its slingbacks, was sufficiently demonstrat - ed in Court. Consequently, Jonak was ordered to pay EUR150,000 in damages for economic
prejudice and EUR30,000 in damages for moral prejudice. Those two cases also underline that, apart from economic damages, such acts of selling dupes cause undeniable moral prejudice. Indeed, they could damage the reputation and image of the original companies, which are often based on luxury and exclusivity. Consequently, the sale (and manufacture) of dupes trivialises their emblematic creations with cheaper options, which, to a certain extent, reduces their attrac - tiveness and dilutes their value. All of these legal bases demonstrate that com - panies are not without recourse when faced with dupes. Influencers and the Rise of Dupes The dupe trend has gone viral on social networks such as TikTok and Instagram, where compara - tive videos highlighting the differences in quality and price between copies and original products are flourishing. Instagram accounts, blog arti - cles, and even websites have become special - ised in finding (and even promoting) dupes. Influencers and social media users who widely compare a brand’s products with counterfeit ver - sions or dupes may expose themselves to legal action for trademark infringement. This type of content, which is shared extensively, promotes the use of dupes while simultaneously providing companies with a valuable way to identify such infringements more easily. This dynamic ena - bles brands to monitor the market actively and quickly pinpoint the producers of these infringing goods, thereby enhancing their efforts against infringement, unfair competition, and parasitic practices. Is this a case of “evil for good”? That is the question.
142 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook