Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it did not violate Lanham Act for defendant company to purchase plaintiff’s genuine products and resell them with a label indicating that contents included plaintiff’s products in repackaged form
• explaining that a trademark “does not confer a right to prohibit the use of the word or words” and cannot be used “to prevent its being used to tell the truth”
• approving use of trademark on labels of repackaged products and discussing details mandated by the district court
• finding trademark can be “used in a way that does not deceive the public”
• “[W]hat new rights does the trade-mark confer? It does not confer a right to prohibit the use of the word or words. It is not a copyright.”
• “A trademark only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner’s good will against the sale of another’s product as his.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).