diary of a playground bully by Zencat
Behaviour of some perfumers in the playground are incongruous considering .. the word......
Both Liz Zorn from Liz Zorn Perfumes and Anya McCoy from Anya's Garden have been subjected to not very nice bullying.
Please read below and also please take the time to read these bulletins on various blogs about this .
http://perfumeoflife.org/index.php?showtopic=22360&st=0
http://www.community.basenotes.net/showthread.php?t=204231http://www.makeupalley.com/m~70366888
plus http://thenonblonde.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-i-saved-230.html
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Say Goodbye To Peace On Earth
Dear Customers and Friends:
We have received a letter from the attorney George Gottlieb, of Gottlieb, Rackman & Reishman in New Your City representing, Laurice & Co. Better known as Bond No. 9. Letter dated January 2, 2008
Stating that unless we stop using the word “Peace” as in our “Peace on Earth Natural Perfume, and notify them in writing by January 15, 2008, they will sue us for infringing on their right to the word. As in their fragrance called “Scent of Peace”
Apparently they believe that they have exclusive rights to the word “Peace” . As it is used in any capacity regarding fragrance or any related product.
Here is a quote from their letter.
“Therefore unless we receive your written assurance by January 15, 2008 that your company will discontinue any use and distribution of “PEACE” in any and all capacities in connection with perfume or any other related goods, we will consider all appropriate legal remedies, including legal action against your company seeking injunctive relief, legal fees, and actual punitive damages.”
This would mean any personal care product or product containing fragrance.
I am assuming that we are not the only company getting this letter, since “Peace” is a common and universal word, used by many for many things. And is used in part as the name for several perfumes on the market today. This could end up being a very nasty venture on their part, particularly with Avon launching a new fragrance called “Wish of Peace” Are they going to sue them too.
If it had been something else like the word yellow or flower. I might have considered taking them on. But to go to war over the word “Peace” is to me an abomination. To even think such a thing, is unthinkable. And the bad, karma, Ouch!......gives me the willies.
So I sent along to them by fax today as well as Certified Mail a letter, declining to fight with them, and advising them that we will no longer use the word “Peace” in relation to our scent. I will not raise a hand or word against peace in any fashion. So we have temporarily changed the name of our fragrance to “Solstice”
The truth is, I don’t know these folks. We live in completely different universes. I am one person. An artisan who makes perfumes by hand. I find it odd that anyone would think me a threat, and even more odd that they would want to sue my little company. What do I have that they could possibly want. A stack of bills, A small lab of supplies, A few boxes of unused bottles and caps. My work is not ego driven. I make perfume because I have a love of the art, it means something to me. More than just dollars and I guess in some cases, power.
When will the world learn. Peace cannot be achieved through war. Even if it is a war over the word “Peace”. Any kind of conflict, will only serve to bring about more conflict. So instead of being angry or, lashing out at these people I chose instead to send them (through my letter) a blessing and a wish for peace. It is the only honest thing that I could have done.
As Always, Peace. ZZ...........
1 comment:
Company trying to control the color Purple. Much the same as Peace as a word.
Chocolate giant Cadbury has lost a court bid to stop rival Darrell Lea using the colour purple.
The Federal Court has dismissed an application by Cadbury Schweppes that the use of purple by Darrell Lea amounted to misleading and deceptive conduct.
Justice Peter Heerey said he was not persuaded that Darrell Lea in using purple had passed off its business or products as those of Cadbury or had contravened the Trade Practices Act.
"I am not satisfied that such usage has resulted, or would result, in ... purchasers of chocolate being misled or deceived," Justice Heerey said.
Cadbury had claimed customers linked purple with their products and mistook Darrell Lea's goods for Cadbury's, and vice versa.
But Darrell Lea had said Cadbury's knowledge was limited to inspection of goods on display and physical surroundings, and did not involve any observation of consumer behaviour.
Post a Comment