Summary

On October 16, 2024, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld a decision from the Paris Commercial Court which ruled against JONAK for replicating the distinctive features of CHANEL’s beige/black “slingback” shoes on the ground of parasitism. On appeal, the Court imposed greater financial sanctions (150.000€ for economic damages, and 30.000€ for moral damages) and ordered an injunction and recall measures. This decision highlights how luxury brands can rely on parasitism by third parties as another tool to protect their brands from practices that can dilute their value. 

The lawsuit

CHANEL filed a lawsuit against JONAK before the Paris Commercial Court in December 2020, alleging that six designs of JONAK’s spring/summer 2020 collection copied the distinctive features of CHANEL’s shoes, in particular the beige/black bicoloured “slingback” model (strap shoe, open at the back and closed at the front).  

The Commercial Court awarded CHANEL 17.000€ as economic damages, and ordered recall and injunction measures. CHANEL appealed the decision, and JONAK filed a cross-appeal. 

Parasitism under French law 

Tort law (art. 1240 et seq. of the French civil code) has long been used to prevent “parasitism” or “free riding”, which is when one entity follows in the footsteps of another in order to take undue advantage of the latter's efforts, know-how, reputation or investments.  This decision provides further insight into how French courts will look at parasitism and the factors taken into consideration for the calculation of damages.   

The Court held that, in theory, CHANEL cannot claim a monopoly on beige/black bicolored slingbacks, unless it can establish that this particular model has an “individualized economic value”. To establish this, CHANEL provided numerous exhibits, such as magazines, fashion show and art exhibit pictures, a list of beige/black bicoloured slingback shoes it had created between 1959 and 2023, a large press review, and evidence of specific investments to promote the slingback. 

CHANEL also provided the results of a survey of 500 women, in which the participants were shown two JONAK slingback shoes and asked to identify the origin. “CHANEL” was the most-given answer, with 20% erroneously attributing the shoes to the brand, rising to 31% among participants interested in luxury brands, far ahead of other brands.

In light of the evidence, the Court concluded that an “individualised economic value” could be attributed to the CHANEL beige/black slingback and that, except for a few differences in the fabric or manufacturing quality, the JONAK shoes reproduced the distinguishing features of CHANEL shoes, namely the black tip, the proportions, the opening of the shoe, the square heel and the beige/black combination.

Parasitism and social media 

JONAK’s social media was also analysed by the Court. User comments under posts of JONAK slingbacks were cited, such as “It almost looks like Chanel”, “While waiting for Chanel (maybe one day) I chose the @jonak model”, “Very Chanel and less expensive so yes!”. The Court also found that JONAK’s TikTok and Instagram linked the shoes to the “world of Chanel”. 

Financial damages & injunction 

In parasitism cases, damages can be assessed by taking into account the undue benefit that the author derived from the disputed acts, adjusted in proportion to the parties' respective business volumes affected by these acts. 

In this case, economic damages were calculated by taking into account the number of infringing shoes sold by Jonak in the relevant period, the retail price of each pair of shoes (which was around 100€) and JONAK’s margins (around 60%), which led to a calculation of 150.000€ in economic damages. The Court also found that JONAK’s parasitic behaviour had diluted the attractiveness of CHANEL’s products and ordered JONAK to pay 30.000€ for moral damages. 

The Court injuncted JONAK from advertising and selling the infringing shoes, under a penalty of 1.000€ per day, starting one month after service of the decision. The Court also ordered that the infringing products also be recalled with a similar penalty starting one month after service. The penalties can be accumulated for up to three months. 

Conclusion 

The CHANEL vs. JONAK case serves as a critical reminder of the legal mechanisms available to luxury brands to safeguard their creations. For instance, injunctions based on parasitism are not by definition limited to the life of the IP right – although it should be noted that in this decision, the penalty can only accrue for three months. The decision reinforces the dangers of imitating distinctive features of well-known brands without authorization, which can be targeted in France through tort law, in addition to, or instead of, the usual mechanisms under intellectual property law.