Code of Conduct
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 73
  1. #31
    PaulSC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    1,194

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.


    In stores long before Bond No. 9 was established, and still in production.
    Spray it, don’t say it…
    WARDROBE

  2. #32

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Primrose View Post

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

  3. #33

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by PaulSC View Post

    In stores long before Bond No. 9 was established, and still in production.
    And still under trademark. Oops!!

  4. #34
    PerfumedLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northeast Indiana
    Posts
    1,880

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    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.
    Currently wearing: Bel Respiro by Chanel

  5. #35

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    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.
    Tom Ford Splits!!!! - Tobacco Vanille, Tuscan Leather, Oud Wood, Noir de Noir - PATCHOULI ABSOLU
    Plum Japonais, Italian Cypress, Neroli Portofino, Costa Azzura, Azure Lime, Champacca Absolute

    HARD TO FIND - Lavender Palm, Arabian Wood, and AMBER ABSOLUTE, etc...


    Most of the time I am very proud of the Basenotes community. Time after time I have witnessed the thoughtfulness, empathy & genuine friendship that members of this community extend to others - oldtimers & newcomers alike. There are other times, however, when egos get the upper hand and civility goes out the window. My philosophy is that I won't say anything here that I would not say if you were standing in front of me. Welcome to Basenotes, each and every one of us. ~ TwoRoads

  6. #36

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    But their fragrances are all, in my opinion, derivitive rubbish. I have never smelled one which I thought was of high quality.
    "Don’t try to be original. Be simple. Be good technically, and if there is something in you, it will come out. ” - Henri Matisse.

    "Wear R de Capucci" - Hirch Duckfinder

    reviews

  7. #37

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by PerfumedLady View Post
    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.
    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.
    "No elegance is possible without it...perfume is a part of you." Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel
    Currently wearing: Poison by Christian Dior

  8. #38
    PerfumedLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northeast Indiana
    Posts
    1,880

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    [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)!
    Last edited by PerfumedLady; 30th July 2010 at 01:44 PM.
    Currently wearing: Bel Respiro by Chanel

  9. #39

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    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.
    Last edited by donna255; 30th July 2010 at 08:22 AM.
    DONNA
    Currently wearing: Y by Yves Saint Laurent

  10. #40

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by donna255 View Post
    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.
    "No elegance is possible without it...perfume is a part of you." Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel
    Currently wearing: Poison by Christian Dior

  11. #41
    Craig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Posts
    3,037

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    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.

  12. #42

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Craig View Post
    . 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.

  13. #43

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    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.

  14. #44
    tott's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    2,767

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Altering? In what way?

  15. #45

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by tott View Post
    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.

  16. #46
    fjord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Jersey
    Posts
    299

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Master-Classter View Post
    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.
    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.

  17. #47
    tott's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    2,767

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex M View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by tott; 30th July 2010 at 11:21 PM.

  18. #48
    Basenotes Institution
    Mimi Gardenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Exactly Where I Should Be
    Posts
    16,439

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    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 .
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/370...o-Profumo-Onda
    For sale. Carnal Flower and Vero Profumo Onda.

  19. #49

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    I agree with MG, (while obviously posting yet another Bond v TPC post!)
    Actias luna's fragrance reviews | Now blogging with AromiErotici, Carrie Meredith, Mimi Gardenia, Sugandaraja, Asha, bluesoul, shamu1, Redneck Perfumisto and Daly Beauty at Il Mondo di Odore
    Art: Actias luna's other hobby
    - along with some impromptu "performance writing" here on Basenotes!

  20. #50

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex M View Post
    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 their products.
    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.

  21. #51
    Moderator

    Redneck Perfumisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Spiritually, Kansas
    Posts
    13,379
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zizanioides View 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.
    * * * *

  22. #52

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zizanioides View 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.
    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.

  23. #53

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    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.

  24. #54

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redneck Perfumisto View Post
    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.
    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!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex M View Post
    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.
    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!

  25. #55

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex M View Post
    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.
    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.

  26. #56

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex M View Post
    I'm saying that Bond No.9 would have the right to tell TPC to remove there products off there site. Depending on the court, the judge, the lawyers, the case, Bond would most likely win this court case. One main reason is Bond has a lot of money to back themselves up, and TPC doesn't.
    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?

  27. #57

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenFreak View Post
    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.

  28. #58
    Point Blank
    Guest

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed 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.

  29. #59

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Point Blank View Post
    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".
    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.

  30. #60
    Point Blank
    Guest

    Default Re: Bond no 9 vs the perfumed court.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenFreak View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. The Perfumed Court
    By david in forum Online Shopping
    Replies: 708
    Last Post: 3rd December 2014, 03:36 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
  •  



Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000