Chanel, Inc. v. The RealReal, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-10626
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Chanel v. The RealReal, Judge Broderick denied without prejudice Chanel’s request to clarify when sampling would justify more counterfeiting discovery.
Chanel and The RealReal. The ruling concerns the scope and timing of Chanel’s requested discovery about potentially counterfeit CHANEL-branded handbags; it does not resolve the parties’ underlying trademark or false-advertising claims.
What happened
In Chanel, Inc. v. The RealReal, Inc., Chanel asked the court to clarify an earlier discovery order involving a three-month sample of records about CHANEL-branded handbags sold or offered for sale through The RealReal’s internal database.
Chanel wanted to know what level of counterfeiting in that sample would justify obtaining additional records and serial numbers. Chanel argued that evidence of even one additional counterfeit item should allow more discovery, while also pointing to the court’s earlier rulings on its trademark and false-advertising claims.
Judge Broderick’s court denied Chanel’s clarification request without prejudice. The order said the parties should first see what the sample shows and try to resolve the issue; the court could address the question later if they could not work it out.
The detailed version
- Chanel, Inc. v. The RealReal, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-10626
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 21, 2020
Background
Chanel sought clarification of an October 6, 2020 oral discovery order concerning a three-month sample of records for CHANEL-branded handbags sold or offered for sale by The RealReal, Inc. The discovery dispute concerned information in The RealReal’s internal database, including Chanel serial numbers and related records.
The parties had proposed different limits on discovery. The RealReal sought to limit discovery to seven handbags identified in Chanel’s amended complaint. Chanel proposed a process under which The RealReal would provide serial numbers and limited information so Chanel could identify potentially counterfeit items. The RealReal instead proposed beginning with a three-month sample.
Chanel’s request
Chanel asked the court to explain what the earlier order meant by “significant counterfeiting.” In particular, Chanel sought clarification of the amount of counterfeiting that would permit additional discovery about Chanel serial numbers and other database information.
Chanel argued that any additional counterfeit item should be enough to justify further discovery. It relied on Judge Broderick’s earlier March 30, 2020 order, which, according to the letter, held that trademark liability does not require infringement in a particular amount or with a particular frequency. Chanel also stated that the earlier order had allowed claims for trademark infringement and counterfeiting, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and unfair competition under New York common law to proceed, while dismissing other claims.
Ruling
The court denied Chanel’s request without prejudice. The order stated: “Let’s see what the sample shows and then we can address this question if the parties can’t work it out.” Thus, the court did not decide what level of counterfeiting would qualify as “significant” for purposes of additional discovery. It left the issue open for possible later consideration after the sample was reviewed or if the parties could not resolve the dispute themselves.
The supplied case metadata identifies Vernon Broderick as the judge, while the opinion text shows the request was directed to Gabriel W. Gorenstein and ends with a signature identifying a United States Magistrate Judge; the signature name is not fully legible in the provided text.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.