Thread: 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.
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:Noir de Noir, Neroli Portofino, Lavender Palm, Plum Japonais, Champacca Absolute, Tobacco Vanille ONE LEFT: Italian Cypress, Patchouli Absolu, Amber Absolute, Tuscan Leather, Oud Wood
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
But their fragrances are all, in my opinion, derivitive rubbish. I have never smelled one which I thought was of high quality.
"No elegance is possible without it...perfume is a part of you." Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel
[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.
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.
"No elegance is possible without it...perfume is a part of you." Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel
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.
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?
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.
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 .
Petty small minded people have no place in my life.
I agree with MG, (while obviously posting yet another Bond v TPC post!)
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.
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.
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.
(I kid, I kid! I like Chinatown! Don't sue me!)
Anyways, welcome to basenotes!
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.
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.
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.
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.