Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Co. v. Annick Goutal, S.A.R.L.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “third-party usage is less troublesome when ... the other marks stand for unrelated products” and discounting importance of third-party usage for products that did not compete in “quality, price or location”
• finding that a suggestive mark with only minimal third-party usage but whose “strength is limited by its restricted market” falls “in the middle ground between strong and weak”
• no proximity found where one fragrance sells in mass department store outlet while the other sells in more exclusive stores
• \[A] minimal showing of secondary meaning is required in a reverse confusion case.\
• despite frequent use in fragrance advertising, “passion” is suggestive mark rather than descriptive
• \[A] minimal showing of secondary meaning is required in a reverse confusion case.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).