This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D advertised a fragrance called 'Second Chance' as a duplicate of P's 'Chanel No. 5,' at a fraction of the price. D placed an ad in 'Specialty Salesmen,' a trade journal directed to wholesale purchasers. D bragged that its perfumes 'duplicate 100% perfect the exact scent of the world's finest and most expensive perfumes and colognes at prices that will zoom sales to volumes you have never before experienced!' The advertisement suggested that a 'Blindfold Test' be used 'on skeptical prospects,' challenging them to detect any difference between a well-known fragrance and the D 'duplicate.' One suggested challenge was, 'We dare you to try to detect any difference between Chanel #5 ($25.00) and Ta'Ron's 2nd Chance. $7.00.' P sued D seeking an injunction against referencing P’s products in D’s promotions. P conceded that D has the right to copy, if they can, the unpatented formula of P's products. P also disclaimed any contention that the packaging or labeling of D's 'Second Chance' is misleading or confusing. The court found for P because it deemed that D was profiting off of the goodwill associated with P’s trademark. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.