The legal war between Pandora and Chamilia—the squabbling charm manufacturers whose court battles date back over a decade—is now back on.
On May 2, Columbia, Md.-based Pandora Jewelry filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for Maryland, charging that Minneapolis-based Chamilia had failed to live up to the terms of a 2009 settlement agreement.
According to Pandora, as part of a pact that ended several years’ worth of lawsuits, Chamilia agreed to only manufacture what were termed “Type B” products—“interchangeable strand jewelry products which have not permanently affixed bands and used keepers of locks which irremovably attach to the strand”— exclusively using the name Chamilia.
In June 2011, Swarovski purchased a minority interest in Chamilia. At that point, the companies began advertising what the legal papers term “Type B” products co-branded with Swarovski. When Pandora executives complained, according to the papers, Chamilia said they believed the new products were not in breach of the agreement.
Pandora’s suit charges breach of contract, and seeks an injunction against the disputed products.
Chamilia did not respond to a request for comment at press time. However, in a response filed May 29, it denied the allegations, and called Pandora’s characterizations “inconsistent with the settlement agreement.” Another response argues the agreement doesn’t cover co-branding. The company has filed a motion to dismiss one of the counts, arguing it is inconsistent with Maryland law.Follow JCK on Instagram: @jckmagazine
Follow JCK on Twitter: @jckmagazine
Follow JCK on Facebook: @jckmagazine