The Chanel v. Jonak case left a mark on the luxury industry and on business law more broadly. It exemplifies how parasitism can serve as a legal shield to protect the investments and creative identity of a luxury house against unfair appropriation.
The judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal dated 16 October 2024 (Pôle 5, 1st Chamber, No. 22/19513) brought this dispute to a close, providing clear guidance on the limits of commercial freedom when it comes to preserving individualized economic value.
The Chanel Group, through Chanel SAS and Chanel Coordination SAS, has built a worldwide reputation on creations that have become fashion icons, notably the two-tone beige-and-black “slingback” shoe, first launched in 1957 and successfully reintroduced from 2015 onwards, as well as the leather-woven metal chain, a distinctive feature of the 2.55 handbag, now extended to other accessories including sandals.
From 2020, the companies KARINE and KILMA JONAK, operating under the Jonak brand and through its online sales platform, marketed several models — in particular DHAPOU, DHAPOP, and the IVANA sandal — that reproduced key elements of Chanel’s creations:
Despite formal cease-and-desist letters sent as early as May 2020, the products remained on the market, prompting Chanel to file a lawsuit before the Paris Commercial Court on 17 December 2020.
Chanel based its action on Article 1240 of the French Civil Code, accusing Jonak of having “deliberately placed itself in Chanel’s wake” in order to profit unduly from its reputation and investments.
Jonak raised several defences:
The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, holding that the action concerned specific models marketed from 2020 onwards, thereby excluding any limitation defence, and that each of the two Chanel entities had standing, given their respective roles in creation, promotion, and production.
The Court reiterated that parasitism involves “unduly taking advantage of another’s efforts, know-how, reputation, and investments,” while also upholding the principle of freedom of commerce, which allows the reproduction of products that are no longer protected by intellectual property rights, provided such reproduction is not accompanied by unfair parasitic conduct.
The Court found that the beige-and-black slingback, “created in 1957 and become a recurring model in Chanel’s collections,” and the leather-woven metal chain, described in the fashion press as the “mythical Chanel chain,” constituted individualized economic values worthy of protection against parasitic appropriation.
The judges noted the striking visual proximity between Chanel’s slingbacks and Jonak’s models:
“Apart from differences in materials due to the luxury positioning, the overall visual impression of the two shoes is very similar.”
As for the IVANA sandal, the Court highlighted that its leather-woven chain strap reproduced “a recurring and distinctive feature of the Chanel House.”
The Court further held that Jonak’s intent to position itself in Chanel’s wake was evidenced by consumer reactions on social media, many of which explicitly linked the disputed products to Chanel, for example:
“Couldn’t afford the Chanel ones… so I went for this model instead” or “So Chanel, don’t you think?”
To remedy the harm, the Court ordered Jonak to pay Chanel:
The Court also imposed:
This decision underscores the role of the doctrine of parasitism in protecting, beyond intellectual property rights, the signature codes and creative and marketing investments of luxury brands.
It also highlights the importance for rights holders of documenting the notoriety and the investments underpinning their creations: in this case, historical archives, catalogues, film references, press coverage, and consumer surveys all played a decisive role.
More broadly, parasitism reflects the idea that law is not merely a technical framework: it embodies an ethical requirement in business life.
It penalizes the unjustified appropriation of another’s work and reputation and aligns with the growing demand for fairness and integrity across many areas of contemporary law, from competition and consumer protection to the governance of emerging technologies.
It affirms the fundamental principle that economic success must result from one’s own efforts, not from free-riding on the achievements of others.
Conclusion
One year after the Chanel v. Jonak judgment, the case stands as a key precedent confirming that parasitism is not merely a legal tool to protect the creative heritage of luxury brands but also an expression of an ethical imperative in business.
By safeguarding the value of creative effort and investment, the law upholds a healthy competitive balance and preserves the prestige of iconic creations.
