Code of Conduct
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 60 of 218
  1. #1

    Default Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Saw the following on the Bond twitter:

    "@theperfumedcour Please remove all Bond No 9 decants you made from your website within the next 24 hours.you are infringing on our trademark"

    I'm a Bond fan, and I can understand their motivation, but this makes me a lot less enthusiastic about them.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Nooooo!! I love Bonds and I love perfumedcourt but this is some seriously misplaced shenanigans

  3. #3

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Fascinating news.

    Is this really trademark infringement?

    And wouldn't a letter from their lawyer be more appropriate than a tweet?

  4. #4

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    It does seem strange and this isn't the kind of message I think you'd want to do out in the open. Regardless, this may work out in Perfumed Court's benefit. That's potentially another 1135 people that have now been clued in onto the existence of Perfumed Court. I bet Perfumed Court's sales of Bond decants picks up!

  5. #5
    Basenotes Institution
    Mimi Gardenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Exactly Where I Should Be
    Posts
    16,346

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Hah - amazing piece of news.Is one infringing trademarks by decanting etc ?
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/370...o-Profumo-Onda
    For sale. Carnal Flower and Vero Profumo Onda.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by mysticknot View Post
    Hah - amazing piece of news.Is one infringing trademarks by decanting etc ?
    Hmmmm...

    A descriptive mark acquires secondary meaning when the consuming public primarily associates that mark with a particular producer, rather than the underlying product. Thus, for example, the term "Holiday Inn" has acquired secondary meaning because the consuming public associates that term with a particular provider of hotel services, and not with hotel services in general. The public need not be able to identify the specific producer; only that the product or service comes from a single producer. When trying to determine whether a given term has acquired secondary meaning, courts will often look to the following factors: (1) the amount and manner of advertising; (2) the volume of sales; (3) the length and manner of the term's use; (4) results of consumer surveys.
    So, are the words "Bond no. 9" protected or just to logo itself? TPC is not using Bond's actual logo anywhere.

    If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. �� 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent.
    Outside of perfume enthusiast circles, "Bond no. 9" is not widely known as a company name. It also references an actual address. It would be difficult to argue that their use would be likely to confuse consumers, especially when the circumstances behind their use is thoroughly explained.

    Perhaps the case could be made that Bond isn't sponsoring the goods, however.

    Another thing to consider:

    Reverse passing off occurs when the defendant tries to pass off the plaintiff's product as its own. So, for example, taking a computer made by Apple, removing the label, and putting on a different label.
    Does TPC "repackaging" Bond's scents in their own decant bottles count as "relabeling" and taking credit? I think not, considering they identify the manufacturer.

    I think this would be a tough case for Bond, which is probably why TPC freely sells decants of scents produced by other companies with bigger names and a lot more legal clout than Bond.


    http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metasch.../domain/tm.htm



    (I know, unnecessary, since there are probably actual lawyers taking care of this, but this stuff interests me!! )
    Last edited by LiveJazz; 29th April 2010 at 03:20 PM.
    "It's not what you look like when you're doing what you're doing; it's what you're doing when you're doing what you look like you're doing."

  7. #7

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    I don't think selling decants of any fragrance whether trademark protected or not is any different from selling any other already purchased product on ebay or any other secondary market. The Perf. Court are clearly not infringing on the Bond No. 9 trademark because they recognize that it is Bond fragrances they are selling. The don't duplicate their trademark in any way to market the product! It actually might be a restraint of trade violation on behalf of Bond No. 9 to prohibit Perfumed Court from reselling any product as a used item whether in a decant or original bottle.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Bond No. 9 frags sux anyway. (no offence to its fan)
    AUSSIES, come join our SPLIT GROUP at http://groups.google.com.au/group/oz-scent-splits

    "No Pain, No Gain"

  9. #9

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    sigh.

    Commerce interferes with artistic enjoyment, yet again. Said at the risk of aggrandizing Bond creations, of course.

  10. #10
    Frag Bomb Squadron XVII
    Diamondflame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,349

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Hmmm. Interesting. But what's the official word?

    The vast majority of people who buys samples from the likes of TPC are savvy shoppers or serious perfume enthusiasts who want to know what they're getting into before splurging on a nifty looking bottle. Prohibiting TPC from selling decants (if indeed that's what they're doing) sounds like a message telling these savvy shoppers/enthusiasts that "Bond No.9 doesn't really need your business." Not when there are many less informed consumers who buy at first whiff, have no interest in doing comparative studies on fragrances marketed earlier or simply think the stylish bottles look good in a collection.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by scentsitivity View Post
    Fascinating news.

    ... wouldn't a letter from their lawyer be more appropriate than a tweet?
    Good point. I would take a tweet this seriously


    .


    odysseusm

    "The force that through the green fuse drives the flower // drives my green age..." Dylan Thomas

  12. #12

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Bond No.9 complaining about someone selling smells they think are their own; oh the irony.
    That girl, that bottle, that mattress and me.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Sigh. I really don't give a tweet.
    The Bark Bites Back.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    I'm wondering why they are picking on the PerfumedCourt? It's not like this is the only place you can buy Bond No.9 decants from online, so who is next in their firing line?
    Maybe if Bond no.9 sold their own samples far cheaper, then their sales would shoot up and people would not have to buy a decant from the likes of PerfumedCourt in order to test a fragrance out, before splashing out their hard earned cash on a full bottle.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Of course its not a trademark infringement , Bond are just being assholes thats all

  16. #16

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    It seems somewhat unprofessional to tweet this message than contacting the owners of TPC through lawyers and what not
    I guess the economy must be really down
    Off-Site Decants =) (updated 05/16/12)
    http://flacon.ambaric.net/viewtopic....7994440fd3c0ab

  17. #17

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Wasn't Bond N°9 also behind -- at least in part -- the decision to ban decants from eBay? I seem to remember there was quite a kerfuffle about it at the time...

  18. #18

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by carmencanada View Post
    Wasn't Bond N°9 also behind -- at least in part -- the decision to ban decants from eBay? I seem to remember there was quite a kerfuffle about it at the time...
    I remember hearing this as well, but don't recollect what the evidence is.
    Last edited by scentsitivity; 29th April 2010 at 06:16 PM.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by Hasupk@gmail.com View Post
    It seems somewhat unprofessional to tweet this message than contacting the owners of TPC through lawyers and what not
    I agree. This matter should have been handled in private.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    I'm afraid I unfriended this house back when I found sales associates incredibly pushy with it.
    That girl, that bottle, that mattress and me.

  21. #21

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Yet another reason not to buy anything from this house. If they're trying to alienate their potential customer base, they're doing a fabulous job. Remarkable, even. Wouldn't be surprised if they started using Bernard Madoff as their spokesman.

  22. #22

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    If anything, at least Bond should be happy that someone is buying their perfumes.

  23. #23
    Pollux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    http://goo.gl/maps/XJ8rn
    Posts
    3,331

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    As far as I know, property entitles owners with rights as owners of the goods bought. This actually means that I am free to do what I want with whatever I bought: Bond won't be able to do anything at all if I decide to buy, say, 50 bottles of any Bond Nº 9 in order to sell them at a huge discount in a store located in the most decrepit neighbour of any city.

    Based on this, I guess the Twit is just a useless action designed to misplace TPC on the eyes of their actual or potential customers.

    Still, let's ask a lawyer.
    Last edited by Pollux; 29th April 2010 at 07:26 PM.

  24. #24

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by Hasupk@gmail.com View Post
    It seems somewhat unprofessional to tweet this message...
    Especially when there are perfectly good "We're taking you to court!" e-cards out there, some with music and everything...

  25. #25

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by grm215 View Post
    Saw the following on the Bond twitter:

    "@theperfumedcour Please remove all Bond No 9 decants you made from your website within the next 24 hours.you are infringing on our trademark"

    I'm a Bond fan, and I can understand their motivation, but this makes me a lot less enthusiastic about them.
    what a bunch of babies those bond people, never buying a frag off of them, I will continue buying Creed. nh was the only one i liked from bond, oh well too late now bond.

  26. #26

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by SirSlarty View Post
    If anything, at least Bond should be happy that someone is buying their perfumes.
    cosign

  27. #27

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    I'll dig up the case law in a bit but the short answer is no, it's not trademark infringement.

  28. #28

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Thats utterly ridiculous.

    I never get this kind of a business plan.
    I mean, alright, I'm on a budget wont go ahead and buy FB, ESPECIALLY if their distribution is so poor that i cant even try them anywhere around here but in the end, if I dig something, I WILL shell out the money, somehow
    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondflame View Post
    "Bond No.9 doesn't really need your business.".
    To me this is somewhat spot on, it seems they dont even want my business for reasons I dont understand. If I buy a bottle of their juice they rofit just as much as if I was some rich whoever. Probably more, since the "whoever" would most likely not build up a wardrobe with possible more of their frags within months.
    But alright, I will pass, theres too much good stuff around to care all that much.

  29. #29
    Lifelong Sniffaholic
    30 Roses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    11,279
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    You would think Bond No. 9 would want people to try their fragrances -- they are just shooting themselves in the foot with this attempt to restrict buyers' access to samples.

  30. #30

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    I just went to the Bond website and sent them a message.

    This is a very short sighted decision.

    I own 2 bottles of Bond, both of which were purchased because of decants. I'm not about to spend that kind of $$$ without several full wearings of a fragrance.

    The scent grows richer, he knows he must be near
    He finds a long passageway lit by chandelier
    Each step he takes, the perfumes change
    From familiar fragrance to flavours strange
    A magnificent chamber meets his eye

  31. #31

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    From what I hear, the owner of this company is a complete terror and everyone in the industry has an issue with her. Add another notch in the belt of her vengeful rampage I guess.

  32. #32

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Bond need to get their head from out of their collective backsides and realise that decanting creates fans of a fragrance who buy their fragrances.

    It's the same as the moronic approach of the music industry to peer to peer. As a result of peer to peer sharing I've bought many albums I wouldn't otherwise have considered.

    Bond should stop being litigious and start being grateful that people care enough to have decent sampling periods to try their fragrances in the first place.

    Oh and they should remove "Harrods for him" from sale on account of it being bloody awful.
    In a world where people smell bad, it is the personal responsibility of every Basenoter to improve the world one SotD at a time...

  33. #33

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Why would they twitter this and not make a formal complaint ? Sounds like one of Bond no.9 employees 15 year old was having some fun when momma was away from the kiosk computer..
    -

  34. #34

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    I don't think trademark infringement is exactly what this is, and I don't have any particular feelings toward Bond No. 9 one way or the other, but I do see their point. To me, selling decants of fragrances is like buying an album, recording a song from it, and then selling that song to others. I can't imagine that being considered legal or ethical. Small samples are probably OK (although I think they should be offered free by the manufacturers), and decants given to friends may be OK, but selling substantial decants of commercially sold fragrances seems a bit iffy to me, and making an entire business of it seems pretty shady. To put it another way, if someone were buying Tide detergent, repackaging it in smaller amounts, and reselling it for profit without a licensing agreement, do you think that Procter and Gamble would not be all over them?

  35. #35
    Basenotes Institution
    Mimi Gardenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Exactly Where I Should Be
    Posts
    16,346

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzley View Post
    Small samples are probably OK (although I think they should be offered free by the manufacturers), and decants given to friends may be OK, but selling substantial decants of commercially sold fragrances seems a bit iffy to me, and making an entire business of it seems pretty shady. To put it another way, if someone were buying Tide detergent, repackaging it in smaller amounts, and reselling it for profit without a licensing agreement, do you think that Procter and Gamble would not be all over them?
    When you put it that way, I see your point.
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/370...o-Profumo-Onda
    For sale. Carnal Flower and Vero Profumo Onda.

  36. #36

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by cairomerta View Post
    From what I hear, the owner of this company is a complete terror and everyone in the industry has an issue with her. Add another notch in the belt of her vengeful rampage I guess.
    she was basically a traitor she was doing bond while working for creed as the president and has ripped off creed basically her whole career, thats the only reason why she is half as successful as she is. she must have learned from p diddy.

  37. #37

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Ok, its an old case but it still gets hauled out when questions like this arise. The legal theory behind decanting is established in Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359 (1924) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr

    This is a more recent one in a similar vein (http://openjurist.org/263/f3d/1297/d...hillipe-l-dray)
    Basically, if you repackage and a sell a product under its trademarked name you are in the clear as long as you avoid a). misleading labeling that confuses consumers b). destroying/modifying the product and still claiming it as the brand name product.

    The time Bond has taken to actually move on TPC could also bring up the affirmative defense of laches.

    Bonds' threatened lawsuit seems remarkably frivolous unless there's more to the story.
    P.S: This isn't legal advice, just an opinion.

  38. #38

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzzlepuff View Post
    I don't think selling decants of any fragrance whether trademark protected or not is any different from selling any other already purchased product on ebay or any other secondary market. The Perf. Court are clearly not infringing on the Bond No. 9 trademark because they recognize that it is Bond fragrances they are selling. The don't duplicate their trademark in any way to market the product! It actually might be a restraint of trade violation on behalf of Bond No. 9 to prohibit Perfumed Court from reselling any product as a used item whether in a decant or original bottle.
    100% Agreed. Wow the Bond mudslinging is in full effect today! I'm sorry, I didn't like them previously, and this does nothing to correct that for me. It's pretty weak IMO.
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

    Obsessions of the Moment- Kristiansand EDC, Green Irish Tweed, Zizan

    Granted, we've known each other for some time. It don't take a whole day to recognize sunshine. ~ Common Sense

  39. #39

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    ..........
    Last edited by MikeNY; 4th September 2011 at 01:23 AM.

  40. #40

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by Zizanioides View Post
    Ok, its an old case but it still gets hauled out when questions like this arise. The legal theory behind decanting is established in Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359 (1924) http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr
    Fascinating. Decanting existed all the way back then!

  41. #41

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by DustB View Post
    I'm afraid I unfriended this house back when I found sales associates incredibly pushy with it.
    Maybe they train them to be. Every one I've come across is uber pushy.

    I also tend to agree that decants cant hurt Bond. Simply because whosever making those decants have to be buying bottles from Bond either through retail, grey market or other. They all come from Bond and help sell and consume their product. So they're definitely aren't doing themselves any favors and they look like @holes on top of that.

    I've been away from the boards for a bit and it feels good to be back. :-)

  42. #42

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzley View Post
    I don't think trademark infringement is exactly what this is, and I don't have any particular feelings toward Bond No. 9 one way or the other, but I do see their point. To me, selling decants of fragrances is like buying an album, recording a song from it, and then selling that song to others. I can't imagine that being considered legal or ethical. Small samples are probably OK (although I think they should be offered free by the manufacturers), and decants given to friends may be OK, but selling substantial decants of commercially sold fragrances seems a bit iffy to me, and making an entire business of it seems pretty shady. To put it another way, if someone were buying Tide detergent, repackaging it in smaller amounts, and reselling it for profit without a licensing agreement, do you think that Procter and Gamble would not be all over them?
    Except that you don't need to sample a detergent extensively before you spend upwards of $250 for a non-returnable bottle.

  43. #43

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    As a company Bond has always sucked and always will. Apart from not liking the entire approach to perfume, I've blacklisted them ever since they threatened an independent perfumer who dared to name her scent Peace (peace - a Bond TM?). I was delighted to hear that these arrogant bastards were a complete failure on the German market where they seriously expected US-size turnover for their overpriced junk and thus flooded stores with excessive stock which has wound up in half-price bargain bins. Not that most of their stuff doesn't belong in a different kind of bin.
    My Wardrobe
    II est de forts parfums pour qui toute matière/Est poreuse. On dirait qu'ils pénètrent le verre.

  44. #44

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    I haven't been to the webpage, but has anyone responded to the bond tweet?

    Someone could have some fun with this!

  45. #45

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    ......
    Last edited by MikeNY; 4th September 2011 at 01:24 AM.

  46. #46

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeNY911 View Post
    I responded to Bond's tweet and told them that is was unprofessional to take legal action in a "tweet"
    You've simply provoked them to take legal action

  47. #47

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Has this actually been confirmed or denied by TPC ? In a country where lawsuits are ten a penny TPC should take it with a large pinch of salt

  48. #48

  49. #49

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by DustB View Post
    Bond No.9 complaining about someone selling smells they think are their own; oh the irony.
    Indeed what irony this is!

  50. #50

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    "It's not what you look like when you're doing what you're doing; it's what you're doing when you're doing what you look like you're doing."

  51. #51

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeNY911 View Post
    I responded to Bond's tweet and told them that is was unprofessional to take legal action in a "tweet" and that they shouldn't talk about copyrights as most of their line is plagerized. Anyone else care to let Bond know how we feel?
    I will try to do that this evening (haven't been in the twitterverse yet).

    It would be interesting to know what TPC thinks of it all.

  52. #52

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by DustB View Post
    Bond No.9 complaining about someone selling smells they think are their own; oh the irony.
    HA!

  53. #53

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Wow. Thanks to DustB for the link. It seems Bond's threatening tweet was enough fot TPC to pull all the Bond samples from their website. What bullies Bond are turning out to be. I think Creed should send them a letter telling them to stop selling their blatant Creed rip offs.

    Someone on Bonds facebook page has posted a link to this discussion. So perhaps we should take this opportunity to educate some new-commers. For the newer cologeophiles among us Bond No 9 has ripped off lots of Creed (and other companies) fragrances. They didn't make them close to or an homage to, they literally copied them, and not for the better IMO. Hamptons is a dead ringer for Silver Mountain Water and Chez Bond is a straight up copy of Green Irish Tweed. I know theres more but these are identical just using lesser quality ingredients.

    Full disclosure I own about 11 bottles of Bond (so im not a hater) plus countless samples all obtained directly from Bond SA's. Ive never ordered from TPC but I just dont like the strong arm tactic they are employing here. If anything TPC is helping to market Bond. Have they learned nothing?
    Last edited by Futami; 30th April 2010 at 05:31 PM. Reason: typos and clarity

  54. #54

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    I am not going to address the legal questions here.....and I will not speak bad of Bond No.9.....I will say that I will not purchase a decant of any fragrance from any House.....Not One!!!!! I will only purchase Fragrance from an authorized representative.....I want the real thing.....I see so many threads about fake scents.....I cannot afford to take chances with fakes.....I want to know and be sure that I have purchased the real thing!!!
    Gary

  55. #55

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by Futami View Post
    It seems Bond's threatening tweet was enough fot TPC to pull all the Bond samples from their website.
    TPC hasn't pulled the Bond decants from their website.

    I don't know why the scents aren't showing up when you search for the Bond house specifically, but if you just do a keyword search for "Bond" (top right at the TPC site), a bunch of Bond decants still show up.
    "It's not what you look like when you're doing what you're doing; it's what you're doing when you're doing what you look like you're doing."

  56. #56

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by Galamb_Borong View Post
    Fascinating. Decanting existed all the way back then!
    It's a pretty awesome case since it's addressing an identical situation in the same industry so you don't have any messy guesswork/research needed to clarify. Maybe it's been overturned somewhere but I've yet to find it and it's been cited as recently as 2008.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pollux View Post
    As far as I know, property entitles owners with rights as owners of the goods bought. This actually means that I am free to do what I want with whatever I bought: Bond won't be able to do anything at all if I decide to buy, say, 50 bottles of any Bond Nº 9 in order to sell them at a huge discount in a store located in the most decrepit neighbour of any city.
    You're right, it's called the first-sale doctrine and it immunizes resellers from these kinds of suits. If it didn't exist Sony and other companies could sell their products to Wal-Mart and then sue them for trademark infringement when they try to sell them.

  57. #57

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by G.303 View Post
    I will say that I will not purchase a decant of any fragrance from any House.....Not One!!!!! I will only purchase Fragrance from an authorized representative.....I want the real thing.....I see so many threads about fake scents.....I cannot afford to take chances with fakes.....I want to know and be sure that I have purchased the real thing!!!
    Gary
    What does buying a decant have to do with purchasing non-faked fragrances? Decants allow you to test the fragrance out before you shell out the money to purchase a full retail bottle. I could be wrong, but I've never heard of faked decants, and as such, it sounds to me as if you're comparing apples with oranges. Certainly, no one is accusing PerfumedCourt of selling fake juice.

  58. #58

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Stupid move ,what are they afraid of ? Maybe someone will buy a decant ,fall in love and buy whole bottles. I think all perfume houses would do themselves a favour selling 10ml bottles and sample sets.

  59. #59

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by buzzley View Post
    I don't think trademark infringement is exactly what this is, and I don't have any particular feelings toward Bond No. 9 one way or the other, but I do see their point. To me, selling decants of fragrances is like buying an album, recording a song from it, and then selling that song to others. I can't imagine that being considered legal or ethical. Small samples are probably OK (although I think they should be offered free by the manufacturers), and decants given to friends may be OK, but selling substantial decants of commercially sold fragrances seems a bit iffy to me, and making an entire business of it seems pretty shady. To put it another way, if someone were buying Tide detergent, repackaging it in smaller amounts, and reselling it for profit without a licensing agreement, do you think that Procter and Gamble would not be all over them?
    Your scenario adds the element of coypright infringement. There's no copying with decants, just repackaging.

    Scenarios that match better would be buying an encyclopedia and selling the individual volumes to others, or buying a case of wine and selling the individual bottles to others - or, as you say, selling detergent by the cup.

    Or, really, buying and reselling any product. For example, do I need a license when I resell my used books to the used bokstore, or do they, being a business rather than a private person, need a license from the publisher when they turn around and re-resell them?

    As far as I know, no, neither of us need such a license, and you don't need a licensing agreement to sell detergent, wine, your own used books, your own used perfume, or other similar products.

    I think that the draconian restrictions that are legally supported these days in copyright matters lead people to believe that a corporation with a logo can exercise absolute control over how _any_ product is used. But that's not true - selling a product isn't the equivalent of, for example, copying or displaying or performing a copyrighted work.

    A newspaper can forbid you to tack a news story on your front door, because that's a "public display" of their copyrighted work. But a maker of, say, flour, can't forbid you to bake a scone with their product, or forbid you to sell it. They can't even stop you from stating that the scone was made using Pillsbury flour, as long as you don't state it in such a way as to imply that the whole scone was a product of Pillsbury.

    To continue the example, as far as I know, when someone opens a Mini-Mart, they don't have to sit down with the lawyers and write thousands of licensing agreements for selling the Pringles and the milk and Hershey bars and every other thing they sell. Nor, I believe, do they have to sign up with some central distributor who handles those license agreements. I'm pretty sure that they just obtain products of acceptable quality and sanitation, and turn around and sell them.

    I know that many perfume companies have a pretty tight control over the distribution chain, but I assume that that's enforced by contracts between individual parties - we give you a thousand bottles, you sign a contract that you will not sell the bottles below a specified price and outside a specified territory.

    And "authorized retailers" of electronics are, I believe, disciplined by availability of warranty fulfillment, warranty parts, and of course a reliable flow of new product. There are all sorts of contract and service-related ways to control the way that a product is handled, but that's not the same as a law saying that Coke, for example, is entitled to decide the final fate of every last bottle and can and squirt of syrup.

    So I'm pretty sure that I can sell my own possessions as I darn well please, without getting the permission of the original manufacturer or trademark holder.

    ChickenFreak

  60. #60

    Default Re: Bond No. 9 demanding PerfumedCourt stop selling decants

    Quote Originally Posted by 30 Roses View Post
    You would think Bond No. 9 would want people to try their fragrances -- they are just shooting themselves in the foot with this attempt to restrict buyers' access to samples.
    I agree. Bond No. 9 is one house I have not explored...and now will not explore. Decants are one way in which serious fragrance buyers (read that as $$$) sample, then buy full bottles. This is just poor business sense. I suppose there is a grey area on licensing, but in the end, Bond stands to have buyers of full-bottles.

    I can give my money to other perfume companies gladly. Not nice to alienate serious buyers who spend quite a bit on niche. I hear a new bottle of Guerlain or Ineke calling!

    And a Tweet rather than a legal letter? This is clearly not a class act.
    Last edited by Primrose; 30th April 2010 at 08:46 PM.
    "No sweet perfume ever tortured me more than this." Desert Rose by Sting and Cheb Mami, Album 1999.

Similar Threads

  1. Who sells decants? besides perfumedcourt
    By Speed00kills in forum Just Starting Out
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 13th May 2009, 06:55 AM
  2. some perfumedcourt decants more expensive than retail
    By smellyliquid in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20th September 2007, 06:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •