*** The writing does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice by any means***
 |
Source: The Molo Complaint
|
Chanel is on the receiving end of a lawsuit in which
Molo Design ("Molo"), a Vancouver-based design and production studio, alleges that Chanel used in its store displays the studio's patent-protected design work.
See Molo Design, Ltd. v. Chanel, Inc., 1:21-cv-01578 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). Stephanie Forsythe and Todd MacAllen, the acclaimed founders of Molo Design, describe their work (pictured below) as "explor[ing] how furniture can heighten the sense of human scale and experience". The architectural duo's work has successfully attracted top-notch luxury brands such as Dior, Louis Vuitton and Hermès. So let's figure out what exactly happened in this case. Last October, Substrate, a full-service fabrication company specializing in window displays and architectural interiors, expressed interest in using Molo's design work for Chanel's soon-to-be-unveiled store displays. However, after a series of exchanges that spanned two months, Substrate unilaterally informed Molo that it "[is] no longer working for the [Chanel display] project". The similar experience happened with InLuce, a visual merchandising agency then in charge of Chanel store displays in Europe. After the projects fell through, Molo, to its dismay, discovered that Chanel had installed store displays that copied Molo's patent-protected work. Molo protests that it never authorized any of Chanel's allegedly infringing use.
 |
Source: The Molo complaint
|
Molo is going after Chanel based on the agency theory. Molo claims that, at all times, Substrate and InLuce were "agents for Chanel and acted within the scope of their agency, or otherwise acted at Chanel's discretion and on Chanel's behalf". Moreover, Molo alleges that Chanel "actively participated in, ratified, and/or adopted each of the [alleged] acts." Taken together, Molo sets out a claim that Chanel acted in full knowledge when it purportedly copied the patent-protected work and subsequently incorporated it into Chanel's store displays throughout Manhattan. The statutory basis for patent infringement is
35 U.S.C. § 271. The statute, in relevant parts, provides that "whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent, infringes the patent." Molo believes that infringing acts in Manttan were made possible because, during its discussions with Substrate, Molo sent out "links to the specifications for the [design]", which are otherwise normally unobtainable.
Based on the patent infringement claim, Molo is seeking compensatory damages "in an amount to be determined at trial". In addition, it is requesting the court to issue a permanent injunction because the infringement, if continued, will make Molo "suffer irreparable loss and injury". Molo characterizes Chanel's behavior as "egregious, willful, wanton, malicious, in bad faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant", which is "characteristic of a pirate". A litany of negative-connotation-carrying adjectives vividly illustrates, in my opinion, Molo's resolute attempt to impute bad faith to Chanel, which can have a bearing on the ultimate amount of compensatory damages. This also nicely goes hand in hand with Molo's definitive statement that it "invests in and ensures the quality and safety of their design", thereby communicating to the court that it has done everything it can do to protect its design work as expected of a responsible patent holder. Molo expresses in the complaint that it was utterly "shocked" to find out about the infringement. Despite the shockingly mesmerizing quality of the display to the general public, it was a literal shock to Molo.
Comments
Post a Comment