Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants - Page 3

I think the whole matter of resale rights is at issue here. Laws being what they are, they are not always ethically or morally based. It depends on laws of the time and the setting of court precedents.

What if a company lunchroom buys cookies at a food warehouse, then sells them (for small profit) in the lunchroom? (The profits in one such instance went to the company staff picnics.) Can the cookie company sue for reselling the treats at a mark-up? Such things, I guess, must be negotiated at the time of the sale. (I know that some things like snacks are marked: "Not for individual resale.") Can this be enforced in a corporate environment with "snack police" checking out business pantries? This can be very complex. Grade schools in the U.S. do this all the time as student club fundraisers: buying bulk snacks and selling them piecemeal at the lunch break for a small profit.

I can see how silly this is for perfume, with a printed disclaimer on the box that the original buyer must not sell decants, or even without profit, give samples to friends without express permission of the authorised seller of the bottle. Does this mean I can't also spray a family member or friend with some of what I had purchased? And what of hand lotions? If a co-worker asks for a squirt of my hand lotion because his hands are dry, can I be held liable because this prevents him--at that point in time--from buying a full bottle of the lotion?

One would also be free, of course, to dump the perfume or lotion down the drain of the sink...

Unless one is in the professional decant business, this should not be a concern for perfume companies but even viewed as a free service: handing out (at the expense of the perfume connoisseur who bought the bottle) samples to a handful of friends--this might inspire a full-bottle purchase. One gives a small vial of scent (2 ml or so) to a friend or family member with the words, "You MUST try this fabulous scent! You can buy a full bottle at such and such boutique." This has happened countless of times for me with my family and at work. This is FREE ADVERTISING. Ditto for a guest wandering into the home bathroom and taking a spray from the perfume bottle on the sink vanity. Can they also legislate this as "unauthorised tester" on display--even in one's own home? I would think that the attractive Bond No. 9 bottles look very decorative on the vanity--and one can even construe this display as ADVERTISING the brand in one's own home! Could the person charge promotional fees to the company?

This is getting very silly, IMO. The bottom line will be the existing laws on this and the enforceability of those laws.

BTW, I have not seen an SA be very generous with those Bond No. 9 vial bonbons where I have shopped. I saw the attractive black and pink En Rose today and thought...no, I will save my money for a FB of Back to Black...

It is largely about reasale rights, IMO and I think the hole that Bond may be seeking to plug here is to do with the loss of income due to the size of the decants available from TPC. I believe the biggest is 8ml or 10ml?

If a potential customer receives a 2ml sample vial and really likes the scent then he/she MAY well spring for a full bottle.

However if a potential customer can buy, let's say, a 10ml decant - that may be enough. In which case Bond (or any other company) have lost the sale of a full bottle.

It could be argued that TPC are doing what many companies (IMO) SHOULD be doing, that is offering 10 or 15ml bottles (like Hermes do with the Hermessences line) but that's not the point.

Perhaps I'm way off beam with this but I think this could be the issue. TPC pay for one 100ml bottle, then ration that out in 10ml lots (making a bit of a mark-up), with 10 happy customers who have no need to buy a full bottle from Bond. That's a 900% loss in potential income for the actual manufacturer. They sold ONE to TPC, but in their minds they could have sold another NINE to the people who ordered the 10ml decants. (I am not a maths guy but I think that this rationale might hold up for an accountant at Bond).

I believe there is a reason why most perfume companies offer 2ml or relatively small authorised, labelled samples - it is so the customer can try it a couple of times, hopefully go through it quite quickly, and then come back for a full bottle purchase while the experience is fresh. It's the bait on the hook . . .

You have a good point here: the size of the decant vial. I know that Bond No. 9 sell a small spray vial in a slip cover for about $85 USD in the .25 oz. size. Maybe this is at issue here. I am surprised, though, that no other perfume company sold by TPC has hinted at legal action.

Still, the small vials offered By Killian are much better in the luxe mini-spray bottle than the little spray vial in the leather (or leatherette) slipcover. This is worth the $135 USD!

I know Sephora will sell company sprayer minis for about $25 of new scent or in rollerball vials. This can be a tester scent or a nice way to get a pocket spray. (I have done this with the Bulgari line, and ended up buying Jasmin Noir, Rose Essentielle and Voile de Jasmin because of it!) I also know Juicy Couture has done this, too.

I'm not surprised :P As far as I can tell, this is a legal non-issue and Bond doesn't have a leg to stand on. The case covering this kind of trademark issue was decided decades ago in TPC's favor. Bond certainly has financial reasons for trying to pull their product from TPC's lineup but, sadly for them, they also need some sort of case to get an injunction.




I'm curious to see his source on that :P I'd be wary of anything short of a gas chromatography analysis when it comes to perfume ingredients; the houses are under no obligation to tell the truth about their products (witness the host of PR releases that boast of containing entirely fictional ingredients). Creed might use a higher proportion of natural ingredients as they claim or they might not. They don't seem to have any qualms with reformulating their allegedly decades old fragrances to contain newly invented synthetics.

I love how Bond no 9 made a fool out of themselves - VERY PUBLICLY. What *were* they thinking?


I would encourage you to tweet as much @ Bond, and demand compensation. If enough people do so, who knows? That claim has just about as much legal backing as theirs.

Thanks for that I will buy !

So..similarly, restaurants and bars could be sued for selling wines, beers, liquors and brand foods by the glass etc and not by the full purchased unit?(i.e. Chateau Margeaux or Kobe Steak)? Wait..Perrier by the glass soon to be illegal? No more Collector Ads from newspapers and magazines being traded/sold? Oh! Don't you dare sell that 1977 Ford Mustang bumper online you criminal!

I would LOVE to see this one tested in the courts but..I think that will not happen, as the manufacturers probably know they will LOSE the case and therefore will not be able to FRIGHTEN small businesses like The Perfumed Court ever again from selling smaller, less expensive but totally legitimate smaller units of whatever due to the threat of an expensive suit they will have to defend.

You put forward a very apt analogy! It is JUST like that. (and even moreso after your edit.)

Great points!

You bring up an interesting point, especially because I am going to school for accounting at the moment. But I'd counter with the theory that, perhaps those 10 customers who purchased the 10ml decants, had never heard of Bond no. 9 before, and had been tuned into their existance by TPC. What Bond needs to realize is A) they don't do any traditional marketing, and their existing clientale is, most likely, too small to exponentially grow a customer base by word of mouth alone, and B) that TPC is a guarenteed revenue source. Like I said, those 10 customers, may or may not, have known about Bond previously, but the bottle was still purchased by TPC, so that's one guaranteed sale, that they can count on. Now, the best case scenario would be all 10 customers who purchased decants, loved what they bought and returned to purchase full bottles, going on to tell all of their friends/family members about Bond. And the worst case scenario, would be they sold one more bottle than they would have if TPC didn't exist. This isn't a product being sold at Macy's, or a mass-produced, highly marketed good, it's a niche good with an exclusive market, and, IMO, any exposure is good exposure.

Just saw Marc's vid and found this thread. LOL, how greedy can Bond be. Perfumed Court has done nothing illegal, and can continue selling any decants they choose. What's next, Saks and Bond to pull every fragrance from their house selling on websites and ebay? Sad, here's another reason I don't bother with many niche houses, they're so damn greedy.

What's even more sad is that sites that offer decants, and fellow basenoters who give us the opportunity to try before we buy are what influences our decision to buy full sized bottles of such Bond's, Creed's etc.

^^^^ Hey now, The_Cologneist, most niche houses exemplify the polar opposite of the behavior represented by Bond. In fact, your far more likely to find an artistic approach to business vs. a financially profitable approach from a niche company than from a designer company.

Maybe this has been already quoted here, but the interesting thing, this is not the first time they seem to be making fools out of themselves:

http://thenonblonde.blogspot.com/200...bond-no-9.html

(note the date of the post)

Is this arrogance or just plain stupidity?

Copying a song from a legitimate source and selling that copy without license from the legal owner(s) is a totally different thing in my opinion. It is creating an identical clone of the item and selling it for profit. This is not what decanting and selling is doing at all. Decanting and selling is not creating more of the product but actually selling the manufacturer's item itself in segments rather than as a whole.



Has Procter and Gamble already tried? And if so did they win in an actual court decision or by wearing the defendant out monetarily?

Using a prominent TIDE labeling or facsimile TIDE logo that would lead the buyer into thinking Procter and Gamble actually produced the repackaging of the item, well..that's another story entirely and in that case legally Procter and Gamble might stop such sales. But I am of the opinion selling repackaged TIDE in a parallel manor to how The Perfumed Court repackages and sells brand name perfumes would not violate existing use laws or be trademark infringement in either case.

Oh, Procter and Gamble might take legal action just to force an individual or small company to financially break with the costs of defense and scare off those others doing or considering doing anything similar. But Procter and Gamble actually wiinning such a suit in the US? Hmmm.

I've come across few. Creed offers samples but you have to buy them. I've emailed Bond, By Killian and many others and had not only poor results, but rude csr's. The only extremely generous ones were Tom Ford and Miller Harris. With that said, those are the only two I'll purchase from (and Creed of course)

If you can't market your product well and you get pissed like how Bond is, then you shouldn't be in the game. Fragrance = 50%, marketing = 50%. Fragrances are made up of 2 things.. alcohol and fragrance oils; the money invested in a fragrance is a very very very small fraction of the outrageous prices many charge. Whether niche, mass market, perfume -- they're making 90+% profit from what is spent (including bottle) How greedy can one be? We all pay these prices because we're used to it, even on sale they're expensive when you're addicted to fragrances, but that's another topic all together.

The one acceptable way to sell samples is to offer the cost of the samples toward a full-bottle purchase. This makes business sense but also offers a discount to the prospective buyer. This might produce customer loyalty. The San Francisco house of Ineke does this. Even if I choose not to buy a full bottle at discount, I still have a nicely boxed package of samples. (BTW, I already bought a FB.)

BTW, many online vendors sell small vial samples to prospective buyers. Do they have a legal license to do this with each perfume house that they sell?

What of the concept of letting a friend borrow a bottle of perfume or if this can be legislated. It's preposterous. Of what of purchasing bottle splits? I loaned a bottle of Equipage to the 20-something son of a friend who wanted "cultured elegance." (I presume he wanted a departure from all those aquatics out there.) How can they monitor that? With perfume police?

Perhaps by being stingy with samples, the exclusive niche houses (not all, mind you) only want full-bottle patrons. Just as in casinos, they have a high-stakes room in which only high wagers can enter. If one cannot put up the minimum stakes, they don't want our business.

Ineke's policy is great and makes sense, but they are also generous; last year I requested a sample of one scent only and they sent it at no cost to me.

I also like what Les Parfums de Rosine does-- the cost of their generous sample set includes international shipping, which is probably the greater part of the price.

I personally do not own any fragrances from Bond No. 9 and I have read many stories about how rude this company is. I really do not understand why they would do this to TPC. Do they just want their line to be more "Exclusive"? Isn't there a point where exclusiveness just becomes ridiculous and people stop trying to buy your product altogether? I wouldn't let her dumbass-ness stop me from buying a bond scent (even though I have never even sampled one, but just saying) if I really enjoyed it, but I would feel much better knowing my money isn't going to some crazy bitch on a massive power trip. By the way, I think Bond is the very small minority of Niche houses who are this "greedy." Creed maybe just to a small extent with things like Windsor and that Gardenia scent, but I really appreciate many other Niche houses. If you think most designer labels are not as "greedy" as Niche ones, think again. If you haven't noticed there is about 800 different flankers for one fragrance coming out every week. Hmm..I wonder what the purpose of that is...

These Bond people are always finding something to bitch about.....


I got news for you. I think your fragrances suck, about as much as your business practices do.

Now feel free to attack my 1st.amendment right.

Im sure the mark up is closer to 1000%. Especially since Bonds are notoriously synthetic hence lower cost of raw materials.

I HATE Bond No9!!

I hate it that people think its their God given right to have free samples

if you are going to invest that much cash on a fragrance wouldn't you like to know what it smells like before buying it blind?

Of course its a nice gesture and good business practice , but still , not a given right that people should expect something for nothing

perfumed court is a place that you have to pay for samples so actually Bond in some manner will make money, since the site usually buys the bottles and decants them. if one is to sell a fragrance you usually need to test it out first , few people are going to pay the price that Bond demands without sampling somehow first.

Well put, I bought a Creed sample before I purchased a 4.0 oz bottle. I tested several Miller Harris fragrances before buying one, and same goes for Tom Ford when I recently purchased a 1.7 oz from their private collection which was 180 bucks plus tax at Saks. I'm not gonna spend such amounts if I can't sample it first, whether I pay or it's on the house.

Pour Monsieur, you are partially correct, but providing free samples (be it cookies, cinnamon rolls or perfume) is part of displaying your product with the hope of gaining sales. It's a form of marketing. This is particularly true for consumable products, such as perfume.

I think that if one must purchase samples, there should be an incentive. 30 Roses already mentioned that you can buy Ineke samples in a wonderfully presented box for $25.00 off the official site. The $25 dollar coupon included is good toward a full-bottle purchase. This generates business, pure and simple.

Ineke know that their customers are already niche fans looking for the unique and artisanal perfumes.

This also shows respect for the customer's perfume connoisseurship and builds CUSTOMER LOYALTY--important in consumable goods which people buy over and over again. Ineke are confident that the quality of their perfumes will speak for themselves.

It takes more than pretty bottles to creating lasting customer loyalty. (BTW, the Ineke bottles are very pretty indeed and the presentation box is elegant--even the samples are presented with care and pride.) Yes, Ineke is generous and planning to launch a new scent soon.

The sample-purchase-with-coupon is good business sense and shows an awareness of the customer's interest in buying.

exactly if i had to buy blind every cologne i was curious about i would be homeless

I am much more likely to buy from a company/house that understands and courts its customers rather than one that is as crass as Bond 9. One that understands that a person spending $200-$300 or more for a completely discretionary product is a privilege to a company, not a right.

Regards,
Steve

Well said. Cultivating customers means complimentary samples to induce sales, and complimentary products to induce loyalty. Business sense--pure and simple.

Guerlain does this.

Bond will not last with this kind of attitude. If a lot of us here are up in arms I can only imagine what it is like for the non basenoters who are also fragrance buffs.

Regarding the right to free samples, do you not expect to test drive a car free before buying it?

Would you expect to have to pay to test drive that car, or for the gasoline used on that test drive?

Whether or not Laurice Rahme is a flesh-eating succubus is a matter for another time, another thread but I am none too impressed with Bond's claim of trademark infringement or the manner in which that claim was asserted. I recognize that this is a business decision on the company's part, if short-sighted and poorly-judged.

I have yet to smell any Bond No. 9 scents. I would not rule out purchasing something I happened to absolutely love, but seeing as how fragrance is meant to smell good and there are plenty of others that smell great, I see no great hurry to go and sample the line. Which is just as well, because it obviously will not get any easier to do so now.

Fine fragrance is a discretionary purchase. And since the choice is mine, I can choose to purchase anything I want for any reason, just as I can refuse to buy anything for any other reason.
The fact is, at the top end of any market, you have to make the customer feel special when they do business with you. Sometimes exclusivity will do it but often as not, it is customer service, personal attention, public relations that makes the difference; people always remember these things, whether it happened to them or not.

Bond might do well to remember that selling luxury doesn't mean you can buy class.

This thread is fascinating. The arguments on both sides are mind boggling.

30 Roses, good point. I had a hard time when a scent line counter could not make me a small sample vial and offered me a lame paper strip sprayed with scent. If I expect to pay $100 and upwards for a scent, I expect to give the sample a full wearing--several times.

I have been permanently turned off to several luxe lines because of this.

Haha, well said. Although that's a little harsh . . I think succubi just eat souls.

Spoiler Alert: Bond No. 9 is releasing a new fragrance called "Washington Heights" some time soon. No really. I even posted that name in the satire release thread and it turns out it was already in the works. I couldn't find a reference to it so I guess it's news.

I look forward to seeing Bond try to sue the neighborhood of Washington Heights for trademark infringement and dilution. And every other area with Bond perfumes.

Sorry to kick a dead horse. But I'd find it interesting if we could write a letter to Bond, stating our disgust at their actions, and that we plan on not supporting them, and passing the word to friends/family, along with virtual "signatures" of all those on BN who support the letter, and seeing their response.

Regarding the free samples bit. I don't really have strong opinions supporting for or against it. I've paid a lot of money for samples in the years I've been a member of BN, and I consider it just a necessary part of this hobby. IMO, it's completely up to the company in question, and whatever they choose to do, should be equally customer-driven as well as financially responsible. Finance aside, it would be entirely up to the individual house's discretion whether or not offering free samples would be a beneficial way of spreading the word, or if it would be to much of a economic liability to risk it. I DO, however, think that all companies should have SOME form of sampling service in place, that is both reasonable and rewarding to the customer,(i.e Ineke).

Some people buy cars based on a ten minute test drive around the block and back to dealership.

I think that most fragrance companies still think along the lines of the majority of fragrance buyers: You go to a fragrance counter and try the scent. You purchase the scent. End of story.

BN'ers are the minority, we sample, we try decants, we possibly purchase full bottles, probably at a discount online site. I have purchased a LOT of decants in my time. Honestly, have they led to full bottle purchases? No, not really. (I'm talking the decants here, samples are an entirely different thing.) My feelings are mixed on the whole deal. I like and own Bond fragrances, and will probably purchase from them again. I lean towards Mr Reasonable's opinion that decants really do not increase Bond's sales . Did the Twitter line make them look ridiculous? Absolutely. But they are getting pretty slammed here. I do feel Bond has pretty good customer service. Just this week I received in the mail a pretty large spray sample of their newest, High Line with a very nice note thanking me for being a loyal customer. (When you buy Bond, there is a card in the box to fill out and send back.) A nice touch, IMO. My last purchase from the Bond site came with 5 large samples. I do not expect something for nothing, but samples with purchase are nice. Not every fragrance company does that.

Serge Lutens have declined my request for samples despite the fact I offered to pay for them

I suspect they may have a tight policy to maintain 'le mystique' . . . they offer you two samples with a purchase here and that's it. I managed to get a sample of L'Eau today because they know me - a bit of a coup. Chanel have a similar policy with Les Exclusifs - one sample with a purchase. The Bond retailer (which look like they may be dropping the line here) used to give away their little bonbons like . . . well, candy.

I got 12 samples at Chanel in Paris when I bought Cuir de Russie and Chanel No 22.

This whole sample thing is pretty random though. The Berlin boutique was also generous, here in Amsterdam it seems like you don't get any extras.

I can hear another purchase of Guerlain or Ineke calling...a consumer's best bargaining chip is his feet: walk to another fragrance counter.

Companies don't realise they are really shooting themselves in the foot with this attitude. I won't be happy with a lame spray on a little card. And I *will* pay for samples. Why this attitude?

These companies need to know we perfumistas/perfumistos will spend hundred of dollars for perfume over a period of time. Multiply that times thousands of fragrance enthusiasts. Can you do the math? Minority or not as BNers, its the repeat customer who will buy consumable things like perfume. And we can always voice our views. The worst negative advertising is an unhappy customer who voices his views.

you hurt someone the most through their pocketbook. companies that take care of their customers usually stay in business for quite a while.

I'm pretty sure that reselling these cookies is Just Plain Legal, by default. I don't think that anything needs to be negotiated. You buy X, you resell X, and while the government may care about your storage and labeling and so on, the person that you bought X from doesn't have any particular authority over you, as long as you're not confusing the trademark.

Some products can be controlled by the seller for various reasons. For example, software has to be copied to be used, which is a copyright issue, and that is, I believe, one of the main premises behind shrinkwrap licenses - though there was some doubt about whether some elements of those licenses were enforceable, especially before the DMCA.

Complex devices require a warranty, so the seller can impose conditions on the buyer, or void that warranty. And when someone needs a regular, reliable supply of something like, say, soda syrup, they're likely to contract with the seller and cooperate with their terms.

But that ability for the seller to exercise control comes from circumstances, not law. I don't think that the law could care less about CookieCo's "right" to tell you that you can't break up a pack of CookieCo cookies and resell them. If you, say, wrapped them in waxed paper and stamped CookieCo's trademark on them, yes, then, you're in trouble, because you're implying that your sloppy packaging is implemented and condoned by CookieCo, and that could damage their reputation. But if you make it clear that it's a CookieCo cookie in your own packaging, I think that CookieCo is helpless to stop you.

I agree!

Maybe if they lowered their aspirational pricing, decants wouldn't be as popular... But regardless, they must be earning money from that anyways, so why discourage buyers?

But lower your price and your product is no longer aspirational , it loses all of its cache and becomes mass market

I thought the banning was super sad. I love trying perfumes before I buy them.

But the company is a little of a bully. I recently sold (well tried to sell) a bon bon on Ebay (that they sent me in the mail for free for buying the products all the time). I did not like the new scent so I wanted to sell it. They filed a complaint with Ebay stating it was not a legitimate/counterfeit product and it was taken down.

I tried to appeal it saying the product came from them but they never responded.

I have a sour taste in my mouth now.

Interesting..

So eBay simply took Bond No. 9's word for it and never checked with you about the source/authenticity of the bonbon or tried to find out themselves if it was indeed not legitimate? Wow..the unsubstianted accusation is the judgement!

Yes, Ebay allowed me to fight the claim. I tried, but both Ebay and I contacted bond. I sent them emails saying the claim was in error and that the product was indeed theirs and Bond never responded. So in these cases Ebay always sides with the companies. I can see that too. because their are people out there that do counterfeit perfumes.

But in this case I think Bond did not want this HOT NEW sample on the market. They removed it with only 2 hours left on the auction.

To this day I do not understand why that ever happened. It just broke my heart because A) I am honest B) I do buy retail perfumes all the time. I have spend lots of my money with Bond.

Companies forget that what is "business" for them is "personal" for the customer who has been offended-- and that an alienated customer is a loss of business in the end. It's very short sighted.

Rose and sfsassy, the sample may have a had a printed note forbidding the sale, thus the removal from eBay: "Echantillon gratuit--free sample. Not to be sold."

Still, this is nothing short of bullying. A company cultivates customers by its largesse, not by pettiness. I bring up the case regarding natural artisan perfumer Liz Zorn, who is not grossing millions with her hand-crafted scents. If I find myself with a spare $180, I will certainly consider the Siovhole line. Alienating customers willing to spend hundreds of dollars is pure business insanity.

http://thenonblonde.blogspot.com/200...saved-230.html

http://perfumedpolitics.blogspot.com...dominance.html

[QUOTE=Primrose;1857529]Rose and sfsassy, the sample may have a had a printed note forbidding the sale, thus the removal from eBay: "Echantillon gratuit--free sample. Not to be sold."...

That would mean not for sale by Bond-- it does not mean not for sale by the person who receives it.

Whatever 'good' Bond No 9 thinks they received out of that removal will be grossly outweighed by the ill-will generated among most hard-core fragrance users who learn about it . What a bad business decision by someone at Bond..

And it seems eBay will always go the direction of least resistance and problem for themselves (the individual eBayer gets the shaft)

kbe, well said. The average consumer (who buys only one pretty bottle and never finishes it nor makes a repeat purchase) does not become a return customer year after year. The dedicated fragrance fan, over a course of years, will spend literally thousands of dollars. "Bad business decision," indeed.

Mine had no print or note saying not to resell, but I know that they now DO print that one the samples they mail out.

In any case, it's done. My feelings were hurt, but I will move on......on to another company that sells perfume that IS NOT Bond.

I think selling off small quantities of a scent is an odd business model, but to each it's own.
Bond gives out plenty of samples for me to throw out. I bout two bottles from them in the past. I bought Chez Bond and can't stand it. I put on one spritz, and the next morning I still wreak of it! Chez bond smells ok or I wouldn't have bought it, but it is just too potent and lasts way to long.
If i where bond I wouldn't want people using my name, and selling off sample sizes from old bottles that could have lost their top note either. I hope the perfume court resolves this setback and can continue on selling bond anyway.

Re. selling free branded sample vials.

I think from a broader perspective I can understand Bond or any other company trying to prevent their branded samples being sold on ebay or anywhere else for that matter. I have seen complaints in different threads about Sales Assistants keeping the free samples they receive and instead of handing them out to potential customers in the store to encourage sales or even reward loyal customers, selling them off for profit. This strikes me as unethical on the part of a paid sales representative, if not illegal.

I guess if Bond, or any other company, directly gives the customer a free sample and that individual chooses to sell it (as has happened in the instance mentioned here) then the individual should be entitled to do so, but then again, if the company object to free samples being sold in a commercial venue - be it a bricks and mortar store or an online trading operation - then they have a right to step in and either warn the potential customer that this item was a freebie and designated as such, or try to prevent the commercial venue from allowing or being seen to encourage such actions.

It ain't life and death but maybe there's more than one way of looking at this?