Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

Yeah I was a little bit perplexed as to how to get free samples from them. Ended up getting some on eBay.

Wow, I didn't realize they had succeeded in blocking TPC's sales. That's ridiculous, TPC had every right to sell them but I guess a small company doesn't need the hassle of a lawsuit over products that don't sell =x

I checked TPC website- - no Bond available. Huh ! Still ,there is Ebay ..........

I found the Bonds missing when I last checked TPC, maybe 2-3 weeks ago.

I'm slow ! *LOL*

or perhaps you don't care about the Bonds and therefore didnt bother to even look for them ;-)

That is more like it !

This attitude sours me more toward buying anything from their line. I don't own any and I never will. Buyers vote for a company's success with their money.

I am glad Guerlain is making some new releases soon. They will have my business.

Companies need to know that casual fragrance buyers do not make for long-term customers. Some are enchanted with a pretty bottle and buy on first sniff, but the repeat buyer and fragrance enthusiast is the one who returns over a period of years...or decades. I am also inclined to buy from Liz Zorn, a small natural perfumer in the U.S. who had a letter sent to her from Bond No. 9.

I will not be trying anything further from Bond no. 9's line. I will be making multiple purchases from TPC in the coming months...

Who wins?

Oh, I thought Anya was the only one hit in their campaign to threaten artisan perfumers over dubious intellectual property claims. Good to know! See these two links for more Bond No. NEIN PR gaffs:
http://www.basenotes.net/threads/204...y-My-Riverside
http://thenonblonde.blogspot.com/200...saved-230.html
And I love how Bond posts a long blog comment about how brutally they'd been treated by the letter's recipient.

Fair well, Bond No. 9, I won't buying anything from you. Ever. Which isn't hard given that Chinatown is the only nice piece in the collection.

Wow, so it looks like Anya and Lizz dodged a pretty serious bullet by giving into Bond. I didn't think Rahme would seriously go through with these kind of lawsuits but she has done it before. She didn't win but it took years and a fortune in lawyer's fees before it was settled out of court. http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?q...&pn2=&cop=&cn= (Lerner New York Inc. is the name of the nearly identical suit, it was "Chelsea Flowers" vs. "Chelsea Chic").

But she's been the defendant a few times too, I see.

Yes I agree. Bullying tactics from Bond aimed at small perfumeries especially = no business from me.

Bond is the evil empire of niche houses and sue crazy to boot. Laurice Rahme is just a very unpleasant person, but I guess it works in her favor in business. Needless to say I would rather douse myself in cat-piss followed by a skunk gland smear than ever wear a single thing from Bond.

I always thought many Bond No.9 scents lack soul. Now I know why.

I was about to purchase several Bonds. No longer.

Yup, put off for life. They have to reaslise that they are NOT the only perfume company out there. We can pick and choose. There's lots of good juice to buy. It certainly doesn't make Bond palatable when they start throwing their weight around. They choose 'offense' and I choose boycott.
Besides, I think their bottles verge on vulgarity.

I wouldn't go near a Bond scent now... at all. Ever. Not good PR, and quashing TPC doesn't speak well of the Bond perfumes themselves, if they can't stand the fair competition of really small houses and cottage industry decanters.

Also... If Bond names something "XXXX Perfume" does that mean they'll sue anyone who uses the word "perfume" in the name of theirs? That's the ridiculousness of the suit around Chelsea Flowers/Chelsea Chic ... in my mind those are TWO DISTINCTLY separate product names. (can you TRADEMARK a city name anyway?)

Grr.

Thank you, Zizanioides, for the updates. I will echo what others have already said: I won't buy a Bond No. 9--ever.

Again, the casual buyer will buy a pretty bottle or two, but the likes of us--who spend thousands of dollars over a period of decades--won't touch the stuff. We'll see if they are around in twenty years.

Do I hear the purchase of a Guerlain exclusive calling me?

This cracks me up, or makes me ill, I'm not sure which. I mean, the hypocrisy...and the stones! And from a house that basically has done little more than rip off other perfumes: Wall Street = MI; Hamptons = SMW; Great Jones = Paco; HOT Always = Gentleman; New Haarlem = Rochas Man; and so on. To then turn around and threaten artisans over using a common word that they used in one of their fragrance names. Wow. Her entire business model is morally bankrupt, IMO. They never have, and never will get a dime from me.

The whole litigiousness is ridiculous coming from a company that has built itself entirely around borrowing the names and aura of New York City and weekend spots for wealthy New Yorkers, which are clearly supposed to seem chic, desirable, exclusive, and trendy. Bond No. 9: um, the name comes from a street address in NoHo. Did you need to get permission from New York City to use that name? Though, of course, you put the street number after the street name to give it a bit of European panache: by golly, now it's original and creative! Moreover, the company logo comes from an old NYC subway token design: that's not exactly "original" but a borrowing and adaptation of something existing and something created by someone else.

Chelsea Flowers? Someone is being sued for using "Chelsea" in a name? This is almost hard to believe, since it's a neighborhood in Manhattan, which is named for an area of London... Not to mention, it's also a fairly popular girls' name (along with Madison: even more popular!). I don't think one can copyright "Chelsea" or "Madison"!

And the Andy Warhol tie in? It's merely attempting to manufacture style and perceived exclusivity by using the name and work of a dead artist-celebrity. What are the connections between the scents and Warhol, and the scents and the NYC neighborhoods whose names have been adopted? Any relationships are tenuous at best. There are so many ironies in the approach of suing companies that may use names related to names that are already in the public domain.

Overall it's a very strange business model: attempting to succeed by killing the little guy with the threat of court action and legal costs rather than producing a superlative, rationally priced product!

That said, the company's SoHo store is quite well done: it makes one want to experience it as well as the products!

I dont care either way to be honest , but if TPC were to challenge Laurice Rahme legally what would their chances be of winning ? Of course its probably not worth their while financially - its just a shame that bullyboy tactics wins the day again ...

Look at USPTO application #77728339.

Bond No. 9 also filed a complaint against John Varvatos (whose fragrance license is with Elizabeth Arden) for the fragrance-related trademark "John Varvatos Bowery NYC", which in Bond No. 9's case sounds too similar to "Nouveau Bowery". This was despite the fact that it was only a trademark at this point and "(t)he examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02." Even weirder, John Varvatos has a store and headquarters in the Bowery in the old CBGB, so you'd think that Bond wouldn't sue because of that and the history involved.

At least the complaint is still pending. I hope Varvatos wins this one...

Annick Goutal filed against Bond No. 9; Goutal had Grand Amour and Bond tried to use Parfum d'Amour. So, she's not the only one doing it....

I find this litigatious environment too much of a BS and places unnecessary strain on the judicial system. 'Amour' is such a common word! Why isn't Kenzo sued for Kenzo Amour? I think AG is just dishing out what Bond No.9 has been serving lately. Serves them right!

I don't see the point of filing ...Grand Amour - Parfum d'Amour- completely different. All this stuff reminds me of Bikram Hot Yoga's attempt to trademark yoga moves as his own , ones that have been around for thousands of years.

I find this whole global phenomenon of legal action / sueing quite silly and unecessary but there you go

So do I. Particularly in this case, where the one who sues is calling for "creativity" on the parts of her competitors, and exhibiting in my opinion exactly, precisely, absolutely NO creativity herself. Makes the application of the term "Intellectual Property" somewhat ... ironic. She must think that it's such a genius turn to make derivative names like that and paste 'em on derivative scents... I suppose it has worked for her so far... but what if one of the big companies takes HER lack of creativity to task in a big way...what then? Would it be schadenfreude to wish that upon her?

Meh. Seems so silly, pretentious, and shallow, but I'm sure the lawyers are quite happy to help her part with her money. I'm equally sure that the same lawyers probably have much better things to do with their time.

Roberto Cavalli went after Boucheron for the snake motif on the tops of their bottles. Cavalli had Oro and Boucheron had Trouble. In the end, Boucheron had to change their bottle tops to a swirling bit of ribbon with a jewel.

How silly. The snake motif has been around for thousands of years in many cultures, and the Victorians were very fond of snake jewellery and motifs in the 1840s and onward.

I'd like to see someone trademark the name for Paris: YSL Paris, YSL Parisienne, Soir de Paris, Field Notes from Paris...

In stores long before Bond No. 9 was established, and still in production.

There was actually a "gentleman's agreement" in early 20th century France between perfumers who vowed they'd never name a perfume "Paris" after the "godfather" of perfumery Francis Coty created "Paris" de Coty. The name "Paris" was untouchable until Yves Saint Laurent challenged this notion in 1983 when he created Paris. He cleverly added a "d' " in front of his name, and insisted that the Perfume's name was "Paris d'Yves Saint Laurent". Nowadays however, just the name "Paris" has remained.

And still under trademark. Oops!!

Wouldn't it be in Bond No.9's interest to allow TPC to sell decants of their fragrances?If they are really putting out such a fabulous product,it seems more samples in more hands=more FB's sold!I think a perfumer who is confident in their work would want as many people as possible to try it.Anyway,in reference to Flemishpainter's post,I have never been interested in this line because of their Andy Warhol "connection".I am a longtime fan of the man's work(dating back to way before he passed away)and I think trying to tie in their product with the image of a man who couldn't possibly have worn their fragrances is just the height of desperation and pretentiousness.

I would suspect that they are very carefully managing the consumer experience by ensuring that trained employees can build a relationship in the process of giving out samples, so TPC or Ebay circumvents that. Also, they'd rather you buy full bottles, or at least their "travel" sized ones.

But their fragrances are all, in my opinion, derivitive rubbish. I have never smelled one which I thought was of high quality.

LOL! I agree. But Warhol was certainly interested in consumerism of the highest order and the use of product/image. This certainly fills the bill!

Sorcery, thanks for the historical info on the naming of perfumes.

[QUOTE=Primrose;1893677]LOL! I agree. But Warhol was certainly interested in consumerism of the highest order and the use of product/image. This certainly fills the bill!

Ha,Primrose,how right you are!Although,I'm thinking maybe he was a little more tongue-in-cheek about it than Bond No.9!And,completely off-topic,have you read Warhol's diaries that were published several years back?I can't think what the book is titled,but it incudes wonderful insights as to how he thought as an artist and some great stories about his personal life(especially the Studio 54 era)!

The most stupid one in history has to be the champagne region in France vs Caron. So Caron had Bain de Champagne named and sold since it came out in the 1940s. Then in the late 90s early 00s the champagne people took Caron to court and made them change the name to Bain de Caron. I mean seriously WTF!!!!!

Some people just over rate their importance in life.

Let us not forget how Bond No9 started. Bond No9 was the address of the Creed boutique in NYC. They started slipping in the Bond No9 range into the boutique and many thought it was a Creed range. Infact as we know nothing to do with them. The woman behind Creed in the US was the one behind Bond No9 and wanted to get the brand up and running so played up the Creed connection. Then when Creed went nuts sold all the Creeds in the boutique at dirt cheap prices. We had a number of bottle splits of Private Collection of Creed on perfume boards, because of the really cheap prices. Creed then took Bond No9 to court. Never found out the result.

I think this also happened to YSL Champagne, if I recall.

I'm wondering if Bond No.9 will be targeting anyone else? It's not as though The Perfumed Court were the only online site selling decants of their fragrances. There are other's out there I can think of but they are not in the USA, so I suppose with countries having different laws, some online sites may still be able to sell decants such as 2.5ml's for example without worring about Bond creeping up on them.

That's the best part! TPC didn't do anything against the law and selling decants was established as legal and not a trademark infringement ages ago.

The reason why Bond made TPC remove there products was because they had every right to, they were debottling there fragrances and putting them into vials, which is what decanting is, and also maybe they were infringing Bond No.9's trademark. When I read this thread I became interested on how Bond made TPC remove there products so quickly. I asked my friends dad who is a lawyer about this case. He said TPC had every right to tell them to remove there products because Bond No.9 did not manufacture that vial with there fragrance in it. Just how TPC sprays fragrance into a vial is considered atlering a companies product, which in this case would be Bond No. 9. I have to agree that twitter post Bond No.9 made to TPC was very unprofessional. In my opinion, It was a public comment to let people know what was going on. I am not on Bond No.9's side on this case. I don't think it was necessary for Bond to tell TPC to remove there products because they weren't hurting there company. If Bond took TPC to court, I think that Bond would win due to the fact that Bond did not manufacture that product they are selling, and that they were altering thier products.

Altering? In what way?

Altering means changing, or changing around. Bond No.9 did not make those decants, TPC did. Let me use Bond No.9's the scent of peace as an example. Bond No.9 manufactured the scent of peace in a 3.7oz bottle and a 1.7. Also, Bond No.9 made a unique bottle design, and packaging for this fragrance. To go out and decant a fragrance is like changing the image of the fragrance. Also, Bond No.9 has full manufacturing rights to this product. For someone to decant a fragrance and sell it is like making a whole new product for that fragrance with no agreement with the company that has the rights to manufacture it.

I think you have a point here. The main problem is, their conduct has totally turned me off their products. Many others here have already expressed the same feelings (and I'm sure many more lurkers could say the same). Brand, price, bottle design, the story behind a fragrance - all these factors come into the equation when we decide whether to buy a bottle, even if we try hard to deny it. And their business model right now looks like I'd be getting a fragrance from the soup nazi - no, thanks! Next time I'm in NYC, I just don't feel like stopping by their fine store. They might have "trained employees" there, but they'll have to build relationship with someone else.

This has been rehashed many times, but The Perfumed Court do not alter fragrances by decanting them. They are very clear about what they're selling (decants) and they do not try to mislead people into believing they are buying something they're not. They are not trying to pass of their decants as official BN9 products, for instance.

They are not changing or harming the image of the product. In fact they may help to uphold the company image by stocking it among their many rare and exclusive fragrances.

I want to know if Bond would have a problem with TPC selling their official sample vial bons bons?
Also I think this topic has been done to death .

I agree with MG, (while obviously posting yet another Bond v TPC post!)

I think that's a very good summary of the argument Bond No. 9 would make but I'm not sure if it would work. The first sale doctrine immunizes a purchaser from trade infringement claims when reselling that product. Otherwise stores could be sued for selling trademarked products they had legally purchased.

The Supreme Court ruled on almost this exact situation in Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 US 359 - Supreme Court 1924 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr, a case that is still cited, that it's legal to repackage someone's trademarked product if: 1. you inform the consumer of what you've done 2. it's the unadulterated product 3. the repackaging doesn't affect the products condition 4. the new package doesn't violate consumer protection laws.

As to trade dress (the appearance and packaging of the bottle etc.) I can sue someone for copying my trade dress to mislead consumers, just as I can for any other trademark infringement, but that's the major extent of the protection.

Cool!

So unless there is more recent and/or more pertinent law.... TPC has the law in its favor? And if so, then is Bond simply challenging TPC to a potentially expensive fight that TPC may not be inclined or able to sustain against Bond's deeper pockets? That's my only guess as to why TPC would back down.

I can see that - although I can also see Bond as being at risk for a nasty drubbing if TPC decided to fight back or countersue.

I agree with you here, but still weather or not these rules apply to this situation with Bond No.9 vs TPC, Bond No. 9 would still have power to remove there decanted fragrances off websites as they please. TPC listened to Bond No.9's command to remove their decanted fragrances off there site was maybe because they wouldn't stand a chance against them in court, or did not have a strong case.

After reading this thread, I'm half tempted to go down to my local Saks, break in and torch the Bond No. 9 counter!

Personally, I think they are a little overrated and A LOT overpriced. I sampled a few that I liked, but I would never entertain paying retail for a bottle of it.

My thoughts exactly! Even if I'm right and Bond doesn't have a solid trademark infringement case it would be an awful lot of money and time for TPC . . .and they would only be winning the right to sell Bond products so it's lose-lose for them. :P

(I kid, I kid! I like Chinatown! Don't sue me!)


Certainly could be! The law is a wondrous and complex beast, like a surly unicorn or magical liopleurodon, and my status as a reliable source is compromised by a persistent mental haze of medical grade Bandit.
Anyways, welcome to basenotes!

I'm confused by your interpretation- the text that you're responding to seems to make it clear that Bond No. 9 would _not_ have that right.

I think that TPC would very likely win a court case - the precedent seems quite clear - but lawyers are expensive. Would TPC win _and_ financially survive through the court case _and_ get their legal expenses back _and_ still have a business after spending all of their time on the court case? Probably not.

Fighting the case would almost certainly cost many, many times the amount that TPC would ever profit from selling Bond No. 9 decants. So if Bond No. 9 wants to shoot themselves in the foot by eliminating the one place that makes it easy to sample their scents, why should TPC put themselves at risk to thwart them? TPC stops selling Bond No. 9 decants, people like me stop even considering Bond No. 9 scents, and in the end it's Bond No. 9 that suffers from their own actions. As it should be.

But the one precedent stated above (Prestonettes), would be on TPC's side. Or are you just saying that whoever has more lawyers wins, no matter what the law says?

I'm saying It can all depend on the case Bond No.9 has against TPC. I'm not stating at all that whoever has more lawyers wins. Bond No.9 might find a way to prove TPC could be violating 2. it's the unadulterated product, 3. the repackaging doesn't affect the products condition, and 4. the new package doesn't violate consumer protection laws. Who really knows what Bond No.9 would have put against the TPC, but these are all really just possible things Bond could have had against TPC if this case went to court.

I find it very unlikely that Bond would win such a trial. Most probably TPC doesn't want to commit time and risk substantial money to carry some shitty wannabee-creed fragrances so basically... fuckem.

If, indeed, there's something prohibiting this, we should all be very, very worried. That means you don't own what you've bought. You're a corporate slave by "ownership".

From now on, I will talk as much shit about Bond as I possibly can.

Yep. If Bond is right then, as just one example, every restaurant and bar in existence is breaking the law by selling drinks by the glass.

As far as I know, restaurants don't have to be licensed by the winery or brewery, housepainters by the paint manufacturer, hand knitters by the yarn manufacturer, bakers by the people who sell the butter and flour and cupcake wrappers and waxed paper bags, and so on.

There are things like pouring contracts and sales territories, but those aren't about a manufacturer having a legal right to control the use of his product, they're about agreements that grant privileges (reliable supply, warranty support, etc.) in exchange for obligations.

What about software, people may ask? That's about copyright, and copyright is very different - it _does_ give the owner a whole lot of extra rights. But perfume, wine, beer, and butter aren't protected by copyright.

Exactly, the ramifications would be absurd. What about my pair of Levis. Can I be sued for ripping them? After all, that's not how Levis intended them to look and they must control their image. How about my coffee, can I blend it however I like? I mean, the coffee producer wouldn't want me to make bad lattes with their coffee, that wouldn't be good for their image. Etc, etc.

The only acceptable ground for litigation, as I see it, is if you misrepresent a product. If I would dilute a Bond and sell it as a factory Bond, that would be damaging both to Bond and the buyer. But if I want to sell a diluted Bond, stating "this is Bond diluted", I must have the right to.

This is not law at work, this is lawyer terrorism.