On May 2nd, a branch of Pandora Jewelry claimed that a Minneapolis-based Chamilia broke the terms of the settlement agreement they had originally made years earlier. In this agreement, Chamilia agreed to only produce “Type B” products, where are “interchangeable strand jewelry products which have not permanently affixed bands and used keepers of locks which irremovably attach to the strand.” These products would exclusively be under the name Chamilia.
In June 2011, Swarovski, a company that produces a range of precisely-cut crystal glass and related luxury products, purchased a small interest in Chamilia. Both companies then began to advertise the “Type B” products that were co-branded with Swarovski. Soon, Pandora executives claimed that these new products were in breach of the agreement they originally made.
Pandora is now suing for breach of contract and is seeking an injunction against the products being disputed. Chamilia has denied the allegations; they believe that Pandora’s accusations are not consistent with the settlement agreement, saying that the agreement does not cover co-branding. Chamilia filed a motion to dismiss one of the counts due to its inconsistency.
Readers, what do you think of this legal squabble between Chamilia and Pandora? Which company do you agree with?