CHANEL v. WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND: THE AUTHENTICATION PROVISION THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION
Introduction
On September 21, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral arguments in Chanel’s case against luxury reseller What Goes Around Comes Around, known as WGACA. I listened to the hearing through a link provided by benchlight.org. The arguments included whether the jury had been properly instructed on what constitutes a counterfeit under federal trademark law and whether the $4 million statutory damages award was justified.
The hearing prompted me to revisit a different aspect of the case: the authentication provision in the February 26, 2025 judgment. That provision, rather than the issues discussed at the September appeal hearing, is the focus of this post.
Chanel has publicly maintained that the knowledge needed to authenticate its products resides within Chanel. Yet, after Chanel prevailed in its lawsuit against WGACA, the court’s injunction referred to records of the reseller’s “own authentication.” The judgment did not require WGACA to stop authenticating Chanel branded items or obtain Chanel’s approval before making an authenticity claim. That is the outcome I find striking.
The Judgment Against WGACA
Chanel filed its lawsuit against WGACA in March 2018. The dispute involved the reseller’s sale of certain Chanel branded products, its authenticity claims, and its use of Chanel’s name and trademarks. Chanel alleged that WGACA’s marketing suggested an affiliation between the companies.
In February 2024, a federal jury found WGACA liable on claims including trademark infringement, false association, unfair competition, and false advertising. The jury awarded Chanel $4 million in statutory damages in connection with handbags bearing counterfeit trademarks. WGACA disputed the allegations and has maintained that it has a rigorous authentication process.
On February 26, 2025, Judge Louis Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered final judgment. The judgment included the $4 million jury award and ordered the defendants to disgorge an additional $12,739 in profits. It also imposed a permanent injunction addressing certain sales and marketing practices involving Chanel branded goods.
The Words That Caught My Attention
Paragraph 3(g) of the injunction prohibits WGACA from certifying, guaranteeing, or otherwise claiming that a Chanel branded item it advertises or sells is genuine when WGACA has “no records of its own authentication” to support the claim. The provision
did not require WGACA to stop authenticating Chanel branded items. It also did not require Chanel to examine each item or approve WGACA’s conclusion before the reseller could make an authenticity claim.
WGACA remains able to make claims supported by records of its own authentication, subject to the injunction’s other restrictions.
Having records does not automatically establish that an item is genuine. Nor do I read the provision as a court certification of WGACA’s process or a guarantee that every conclusion it reaches will be correct. What stands out is that the injunction expressly refers to WGACA conducting its own authentication.
Chanel's Position on Authentication
Chanel has publicly maintained that the knowledge needed to authenticate its products resides within the company. In a March 22, 2024 The Wall Street Journal article, a Chanel spokesperson stated "... and knowledge regarding authentication of genuine Chanel branded goods could only reside within Chanel and only Chanel skilled staff can know what genuine Chanel is.”
That position is what makes the injunction so striking to me. Chanel challenged WGACA’s sale and marketing of Chanel branded goods, including its authenticity claims. Yet the final judgment allows WGACA to continue authenticating those goods and making supported claims based on its own assessments.
Before the judgment, Chanel had asked the court to restrict WGACA from making representations about the genuineness of Chanel branded items, or its ability to make those claims, without proper documentation. The final injunction refers specifically to records of WGACA’s own authentication.
What Does This Mean for Shoppers and Consignors?
For shoppers, the distinction is that WGACA’s authenticity claim is its own assessment. The judgment also requires WGACA to disclose that it is not affiliated with Chanel and has not been authorized by Chanel to sell the item. That disclaimer addresses the reseller’s relationship with Chanel; it does not mean Chanel has examined the item.
Consignors have a stake in the process too. Someone who purchased a handbag believing it was genuine may later offer it for consignment, only to learn that the reseller cannot authenticate it or has reached a different conclusion. An inability to authenticate an item does not automatically mean it is counterfeit, but it can leave the owner with questions about the bag and its resale options.
Why This Matters to Resale Businesses
For luxury resale businesses, the ability to assess products and make authenticity claims is central to selling pre-owned goods. Some rely on in-house specialists, others use independent authentication services or technology, and some use a combination of these approaches.
The judgment against WGACA did not require the reseller to stop authenticating Chanel branded items. It did, however, prohibit the authenticity claims addressed in paragraph 3(g) when WGACA lacks records of its own authentication to support them. For a business, that puts attention on both the assessment and the records behind the claim made to customers.
The injunction applies to WGACA, so I would not present it as a ruling that establishes the same requirements for every reseller. Still, the wording caught my attention because it refers to a reseller’s own authentication even as Chanel maintains that the knowledge needed to authenticate its products resides within Chanel.
What Still Seems Contradictory
Chanel has publicly maintained that the knowledge needed to authenticate its products resides within Chanel. Yet the judgment against WGACA leaves the reseller able to continue authenticating Chanel branded goods and making claims supported by records of its own authentication.
Given Chanel’s position and the issues raised in its lawsuit, I find that outcome difficult to reconcile. The brand prevailed, but the judgment did not require WGACA to give up the very activity that Chanel says requires knowledge residing within Chanel.
Chanel v. WGACA: Key Dates
Date | Development |
March 14, 2018 | Chanel filed its lawsuit against WGACA. |
February 6, 2024 | A federal jury found WGACA liable and awarded Chanel $4 million in statutory damages. |
February 26, 2025 | Judge Louis Stanton entered final judgment, including the $4 million award, $12,739 in disgorged profits, and a permanent injunction. |
March 28, 2025 | WGACA filed its notice of appeal. |
June 26, 2025 | The district court denied WGACA’s post-trial requests to overturn the verdict, obtain a new trial, or reduce the statutory damages award. |
September 21, 2026 | The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral arguments in WGACA’s appeal. |
October 28, 2026 | Benchlight lists the appeal as “Argued — awaiting decision.” |
Sources
Benchlight: September 21, 2026 oral argument recording and appeal status. I listened to the recording.
Disclosure: This post reflects my personal opinions and observations about the cited court documents and publicly available reporting. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or other professional advice, or replace advice from a qualified professional. The discussion reflects information available as of October 28, 2026; subsequent developments may affect it. I have no professional relationship with Chanel or What Goes Around (WGACA), and I have not purchased from either company. I did not
receive any compensation for writing this post. The images were created using Perplexity’s AI tools and are illustrative, not photographs of actual people, stores, products, or court proceedings.
Comments