Saxony Products, Inc. v. Guerlain, Inc.
Decision Date | 07 April 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 73-1290,73-1290 |
Citation | 185 U.S.P.Q. 474,513 F.2d 716 |
Parties | SAXONY PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUERLAIN, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before DUNIWAY and ELY, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, * District Judge.
Defendant-appellant, Guerlain, Inc., appeals from an order granting the motion of plaintiff-appellee, Saxony Products, Inc., for summary judgment and holding that (1) the use of appellant's registered trademark SHALIMAR in appellee's advertising did not constitute trademark infringement and unfair competition, and (2) appellant was guilty of unfair competition by threatening appellee with legal action based on unfounded claims.
Guerlain, a New York corporation and well known perfumer, is the owner of a trademark on the name SHALIMAR used in connection with unpatented perfumery products since 1926. 1 Saxony, a California corporation, produces toiletry items and distributes them throughout the United States.
Saxony produces and markets a line of toiletries called "LIKE COLOGNES" and "LIKE PERFUMES", which they advertise as being similar to high-priced colognes and perfumes identified as ARPEGE, CHANEL No. 5, ESTEE LAUDER, MY SIN, WHITE SHOULDERS, SHALIMAR, JOY and TABU. The Saxony product is sold for a fraction of the selling price of the cologne or perfume it simulates. 2
In its advertising displays, Saxony lists the well known colognes and perfumes in one column and its own cologne or perfume of similar fragrance in a matching column. The Saxony "LIKE" products are denominated Fragrance A, Fragrance C, Fragrance E, Fragrance M, Fragrance W, and Fragrance S, the letter corresponding to the first letter of the name product it simulates. Thus, the "LIKE" cologne corresponding to SHALIMAR is called Fragrance S. The comparison charts recite that "If you Like" (the) "Famous Colognes", then "You'll love" (the) "Similar Colognes".
Tester bottles of the LIKE perfumes are provided by Saxony at each display so that purchasers may determine for themselves that the Saxony product has the scent they desire. Tester bottles of the colognes and perfumes allegedly being simulated, however, are not provided. Although the trademark names appear on the Saxony displays for purposes of identifying the nature of the LIKE colognes and perfumes, only the Saxony name appears on the labels of the boxes or bottles in which Saxony's products are sold. Most of the comparison charts, display bins, signs, labels, and boxes, prominently identify Saxony as the source of Fragrance S and all other LIKE toiletries. 3
This controversy arose when Guerlain wrote a letter to F. W. Woolworth and Company, a customer of Saxony, stating that Saxony's LIKE cologne and perfume displays constituted an infringement of its trademark SHALIMAR and requesting that Woolworth remove the Saxony displays from its stores. Woolworth referred the letter to Saxony. Saxony replied to Guerlain's letter, asserting that the alleged trademark infringement was unfounded. When the matter could not be resolved, Saxony commenced this action, charging Guerlain with unfair competition by threatening one of Saxony's customers and seeking a declaratory judgment that Saxony was not infringing on Guerlain's trademark "SHALIMAR" and was not engaged in unfair competition against Guerlain through its advertising. In a counterclaim Guerlain alleged infringement of its trademark SHALIMAR, dilution and denigration of the trademark, misrepresentation, and unfair competition.
Saxony moved for summary judgment. Following three hearings, the motion was granted, and an order was entered declaring Saxony free of any infringement, unfair competition, dilution, or misrepresentation, adjudging Guerlain "guilty of unfair competition" by wrongfully threatening Saxony and its customer, and granting Saxony injunctive relief. The order was accompanied by "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in accordance with F.R.C.P. Rule 52(a) 4 and Local Rule 7(a)." 5 The conclusions of law contain a provision that, "There is no material triable issue of fact in this entire case and all of the questions presented by Plaintiff's claims and Defendant's counterclaims can be and hereby have been resolved by summary judgment."
Appellant contends that the court erred in holding that there were no genuine issues as to any material facts and that the case was proper for summary judgment. 6 In particular, appellant argues that the evidence presented through its affidavits and exhibits raises genuine issues of fact with respect to its allegation that Saxony violated Sec. 43 of the Lanham Act,15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 7 Appellant claims as violations of the Act that (1) in designating its product "Fragrance S" and in comparing Fragrance S to SHALIMAR, Saxony has falsely represented that Fragrance S is "similar" or " LIKE" SHALIMAR and (2) the use of Guerlain's trademark SHALIMAR and Saxony's code name Fragrance S in the promotional materials used by Saxony is designed to confuse the public as to the origin of Fragrance S. 8
In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Guerlain submitted detailed affidavits of Harold I. Kaplan, one of its counsel, and Thomas Spelios, its research director. 9 Attached to the Kaplan affidavit is a verified report of Dr. Paul Bedoukian, a consulting chemist and specialist in the perfume and essential oil field. After analyzing SHALIMAR Cologne and LIKE Cologne S on the basis of odor components and lasting quality, 10 Dr. Bedoukian concluded:
Annexed to a supplemental affidavit of Kaplan is a verified report concerning a series of odor tests between SHALIMAR Cologne and Fragrance S Cologne prepared by Foster D. Snell, Inc., an independent analytical laboratory. A description of those tests and the results thereof were summarized as follows:
Spelios' affidavit sets forth his findings and conclusions with respect to a series of tests he conducted, including a standard "blotter" test with ten persons. Spelios concluded:
"Fragrance S cologne is completely different in character and performance from Shalimar cologne according to criteria upon which accepted evaluations are based and, accordingly, the products must be deemed to be completely dissimilar with respect to characteristics related to product function." 11
The report of Dr. Bedoukian was presented at the first hearing on July 31, 1972. 12 At the close of that hearing the court stated:
At the third hearing, on September 18, 1972, counsel for Saxony, at the request of the court but over the objection of Guerlain, prepared a sniffing or smelling test. 13 The tests were described in detail in the finding of fact:
The conclusions of law include the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Estate of Presley v. Russen
...of the plaintiff, without his consent, to identify the originator or the product copied. See, e. g., Saxony Products, Inc. v. Guerlain, Inc., 513 F.2d 716 (9th Cir. 1975), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on different grounds, 594 F.2d 230 (9th Cir. 1979); Smith v. Chanel, Inc., 402 F.2d 562 (9......
-
SSP Agr. Equipment, Inc. v. Orchard-Rite Ltd., ORCHARD-RITE
...sponsorship of the advertiser's product." Smith v. Chanel, Inc., 402 F.2d 562, 563 (9th Cir. 1968); Accord, Saxony Products, Inc. v. Guerlain, Inc., 513 F.2d 716, 722 (9th Cir. 1975). The district court found that sellers of wind machines were well known to potential purchasers in the area ......
-
Nat. Football League v. Governor of State of Del.
...Safety Razor Corp., 26 F.2d 108, rev'd on other grounds, 34 F.2d 445 (3rd Cir. 1929); McCarthy § 25:13. 12 Saxony Products, Inc. v. Guerlain, Inc., 513 F.2d 716 (9th Cir. 1975); McCarthy § 13 Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (1974); McCarthy §§ 25:12-25:14. 14 Potato Chip Institute v. Gen......
-
Playboy Enterprises v. Netscape Communications
...as there is no confusion. See SSP Ag. Equip., Inc. v. Orchard Rite Ltd., 592 F.2d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.1979); Saxony Prods., Inc. v. Guerlain, Inc., 513 F.2d 716, 722 (9th Cir.1975) ("[defendant] could use [plaintiff's] trademark SHALIMAR to apprise consumers that Fragrance S is `LIKE' or `s......
-
Trademark Protection for Small Businesses
...a defendant to take advantage of the plaintiff's goodwill in comparative advertising and parody. Saxony Products, Inc. v. Guerlain, Inc. 513 F.2d 716 (9th Cir. 1975); Enters. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 1987). Is this a fair result 23. Jordache Enters., supra, note 22. 24. ......