Chanel sues watch retailer Tourneau over breach of contract
Chanel and Cartier watches may both be pretty, but the litigation involving the two sides and a common watch retailer sure is ugly.
December 17, 2013 at 06:37 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Chanel and Cartier watches may both be pretty, but the litigation involving the two sides and a common watch retailer sure is ugly.
Chanel Inc. has sued Tourneau for breach of contract after the retailer shut down a Chanel boutique in its main Manhattan “TimeMachine” location earlier this year. Chanel also named watchmaker Cartier, owned by Switzerland-based Cie. Financiere Richemont SA, as a defendant in the suit.
Chanel claims that the two companies' business dealings directly resulted in the closing of the Chanel boutique just months after it had opened. The company seeks $15 million in damages.
According to Bloomberg, Tourneau had sold Chanel watches in two of its stores since June 2011. In early 2013, the two companies decided to expand their business dealings, and in July, Tourneau opened a Chanel boutique in Manhattan.
However, according to the lawsuit, Tourneau feared a backlash from other retailers for the boutique. When Cartier officials toured Tourneau's stores in August and saw the boutique, CEO Stanislas Chauveau De Quercize reportedly told the retailer to “tear down the Chanel boutique or lose the business of Cartier.”
The lawsuit states that, against the two companies' contract, Tourneau notified Chanel it was dismantling the boutique in September and promptly did so in early December. Now, the lawsuit says, “the former location of the Chanel boutique currently stands empty of any commercial use by Tourneau, and is occupied only by two large Christmas trees and a small model of a reindeer.”
A spokesman for Chanel says that the company is no longer selling watches in Tourneau stores. Tourneau and Cartier both did not respond to Bloomberg requests for comment.
For more on breach of contract litigation, check out these InsideCounsel stories:
Chanel and Cartier watches may both be pretty, but the litigation involving the two sides and a common watch retailer sure is ugly.
Chanel Inc. has sued Tourneau for breach of contract after the retailer shut down a Chanel boutique in its main Manhattan “TimeMachine” location earlier this year. Chanel also named watchmaker Cartier, owned by Switzerland-based Cie. Financiere Richemont SA, as a defendant in the suit.
Chanel claims that the two companies' business dealings directly resulted in the closing of the Chanel boutique just months after it had opened. The company seeks $15 million in damages.
According to Bloomberg, Tourneau had sold Chanel watches in two of its stores since June 2011. In early 2013, the two companies decided to expand their business dealings, and in July, Tourneau opened a Chanel boutique in Manhattan.
However, according to the lawsuit, Tourneau feared a backlash from other retailers for the boutique. When Cartier officials toured Tourneau's stores in August and saw the boutique, CEO Stanislas Chauveau De Quercize reportedly told the retailer to “tear down the Chanel boutique or lose the business of Cartier.”
The lawsuit states that, against the two companies' contract, Tourneau notified Chanel it was dismantling the boutique in September and promptly did so in early December. Now, the lawsuit says, “the former location of the Chanel boutique currently stands empty of any commercial use by Tourneau, and is occupied only by two large Christmas trees and a small model of a reindeer.”
A spokesman for Chanel says that the company is no longer selling watches in Tourneau stores. Tourneau and Cartier both did not respond to Bloomberg requests for comment.
For more on breach of contract litigation, check out these InsideCounsel stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250