An Atlanta-based jewelry company opposed Chanel's trademark lawsuit against it involving its sales. Upgrade? Clothing accessories made of Chanel buttons. When dismissing the motion filed by the Federal Court of New York on May 65438, 2004, Trembling Duke and its founder Edith Anne Hunt (the defendant) claimed that the lawsuit was Chanel's attempt to deny it. Although it tried to ensure that consumers in new york would not be confused by incorporating recycled Chanel buttons into their original clothing jewelry, it dragged a small company to a foreign country for expensive litigation, which violated the principle of first sale, so it should be driven out of court.

After Chanel filed a lawsuit in February and accused S+D? Steal it? World famous and registered with the Federation? Interlock? c？ Alphabetic combination trademark and its? Chanel? After the word mark, use? Create and sell attractive clothing and jewelry? . And rely on the sales ability and reputation of Chanel brand. S+D thinks the case should be dismissed because Chanel lacks the necessary personal jurisdiction to file a lawsuit in New York State. According to S+D, although it maintains an e-commerce website, which sells jewelry suspected of infringement and can be accessed by consumers all over the United States, including new york, it has actually sold products to consumers in new york. Nevertheless, Chanel chose the wrong forum to file a lawsuit through this website.

All the defendant's business activities took place in Georgia. S+D asserts in its 32-page document that it? The only detectable commercial activity in new york is that its website can be accessed from new york? , even so, its? The sales and transportation of redesigned jewelry that caused this problem in new york accounted for 0. 129% of its total sales from 20 19 to 20021year. ? Although it exists? Due to the lack of contact with New York State, Chanel forced the defendant to defend the case in a strange court 750 miles away and a jurisdiction they had never touched. It is believed that the court should reject the case on this basis, or at least transfer the case to the court in Georgia.

S+D also claimed that Chanel? It did not claim that it suffered any damage in new york, but claimed that the defendant had stolen its trademark and used it for its own business and commercial interests. Therefore, this famous fashion company does not meet the jurisdiction standard of new york law for non-resident defendants. According to S+D, Chanel failed to file a lawsuit for damages, partly because it was protected by the principle of first sale, which stipulates? Once the trademark goods are officially put on the market, the trademark rights are exhausted? .