The business of luxury hinges as much on product as it does on the carefully constructed ecosystem of image-making, exclusivity, and control that underpins how brands operate. Few legal battles have spotlighted this balance more than Chanel v. The RealReal, the closely watched resale case that was filed suit back in 2018. What initially appeared to center on allegations of counterfeiting and false advertising has evolved into a broader reflection of Chanel’s global strategy, one defined by the principle that even genuine products, when sold or marketed under the wrong conditions, can threaten the integrity of a luxury brand.
It is against that backdrop that Chanel is taking on The RealReal. Its claims go beyond the sale of allegedly inauthentic goods, with the luxury giant arguing that The RealReal has engaged in marketing practices that create a false impression of affiliation, including statements about its “authentication experts” and the use of Chanel trademarks in connection with product listings and promotions. According to Chanel, these practices constitute infringement and deception, even when the goods themselves are authentic.
The RealReal has pushed back from the outset, characterizing the suit as a “thinly-veiled effort” to eliminate resale competition and to prevent consumers from accessing Chanel products at lower price points.
Lessons from WGACA
Chanel’s case against The RealReal is part of a larger, ongoing legal campaign. Across cases in the U.S., the U.K., and Europe, Chanel has taken the position that resale of genuine goods, when conducted outside of approved channels or conditions, poses a reputational risk. That argument was recently validated in by Chanel v. What Goes Around Comes Around (“WGACA”), which resulted in a significant win for the brand in 2025.
Following a jury trial and subsequent bench trial on equitable remedies, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a final judgment broadly siding with Chanel. A federal jury found the reseller liable for willful trademark infringement and false advertising after it sold handbags linked to stolen serial numbers and engaged in marketing that suggested affiliation with Chanel. The court ordered WGACA to pay $4 million in statutory damages and more than $500,000 in litigation costs.
Crucially, the court also issued an injunction that bars WGACA from using Chanel’s trademarks – including in hashtags, marketing materials, and visual displays – in any manner that suggests affiliation. It further prohibits the company from making authentication claims about Chanel products unless it possesses independent authentication records to support them.
The court’s opinion reaffirmed a core tenet of Chanel’s legal stance: resale may be legal, but it is not a license to piggyback on another company’s branding and goodwill. “The right to resell a genuine product does not give the reseller the right to use the brand owner’s trademarks and other intellectual property in a way that is likely to lead consumers to believe that the brand owner has endorsed, or is somehow associated with, the reseller,” wrote Judge Louis L. Stanton in his June 2025 opinion.
The outcome in WGACA – paired with Chanel’s litigation activity in other key markets – reflects a legal strategy grounded in the belief that product authenticity alone is not sufficient. Chanel has worked to ensure that its goods are not only genuine but also sold under conditions that adhere to its carefully managed brand identity.
Saks Bankruptcy Delays Mediation
Saks Global’s bankruptcy adds another dimension to Chanel’s broader brand control strategy. In a January 30 letter submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, counsel for Chanel and The RealReal informed the court that they had agreed on a mediation date, but that “scheduling has been complicated by recent developments which have occupied the attention of key decision-makers,” including Chanel’s response to the Saks Global bankruptcy.
While Chanel’s recent filing references Saks’ Chapter 11 proceedings only very briefly, its role in the restructuring process is significant. After all, Chanel is not merely a vendor caught in the fallout but one of Saks’ largest unsecured creditors (owed approximately $136 million) and a key party to the newly-formed Official Committee of Unsecured Saks Creditors. The 10-member committee, which includes other luxury suppliers like LVMH and Kering, real estate stakeholders, and Amazon, is tasked with helping to steer Saks’ $3.4 billion restructuring process.
Chanel’s position on the committee gives it a direct say in how and to what extent Saks continues to operate in a way that aligns with luxury brand expectations. This dual role, as both supplier and creditor, reflects a broader strategy Chanel has pursued across jurisdictions: asserting control over where and how its products are sold, not just through litigation but also through commercial leverage. As wholesale channels face pressure and department stores restructure, Chanel’s distribution strategy now extends beyond the courtroom to include influence in retail bankruptcies like Saks.
As Saks moves forward and reportedly unwinds its e-commerce partnership with Amazon, the split highlights a growing divide between brands and multi-brand retail platforms. Chanel, as a major creditor with a seat on the committee overseeing Saks’ restructuring, will have a say in how the retailer evolves. But it is unclear whether Chanel – or other luxury brands that have been actively scaling back wholesale – still see a long-term future with Saks. As the retailer works to redefine itself, part of the question is whether it can retain its luxury partners. Or put another way, whether those partners still see Saks as the right environment for their brands.
THE BOTTOM LINE: With a landmark judgment already in hand from the WGACA case (and courts in Europe endorsing strict enforcement over the resale of luxury goods), Chanel appears well-positioned to continue shaping the legal boundaries of how its goods are marketed and resold. Whether or not its case against The RealReal is resolved through mediation, the broader message is clear: Chanel is determined to assert control over how its products are sold, even long after they have left the boutique.
Share
