Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P sued D seeking to restrain D’s use of P’s marks “Coty” and “L’Origan.” D purchases P's genuine powder, subjects it to pressure, adds a binder to give it coherence, and sells the compact in a metal case. D buys P's genuine perfume in bottles and sells it in smaller bottles. The District Court held that D must put upon the rebottled perfume 'Prestonettes, Inc., not connected with Coty, states that the contents are Coty's -- (giving the name of the article) independently rebottled in New York.' The court allowed D to make compacts from the genuine loose powder of P and to sell them with this label on the container: 'Prestonettes, Inc., not connected with Coty, states that the compact of face powder herein was independently compounded by it from Coty's -- (giving the name) loose powder and its own binder. Loose powder -- percent, Binder -- percent.' The Court of Appeals reversed on the consideration of the very delicate and volatile nature of the perfume, its easy deterioration, and the opportunities for adulteration. It issued an absolute preliminary injunction against the use of the above marks except on the original packages as marked and sold by P. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co