Davidoff & Cie, S.A. v. PLD International Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
263 F.3d 1297 (2001)
- Written by Mike Cicero , JD
Facts
Davidoff & Cie, S.A. (Davidoff) (plaintiff) manufactured fragrance products and sold them under the trademark “Davidoff Cool Water.” PLD International Corporation (PLD) acquired bottles of “Davidoff Cool Water” fragrance (the genuine product) that were intended for foreign sales or that were sold in duty-free sales. The bottles had batch codes near their bases, but PLD acknowledged that it obliterated those batch codes using an etching tool to prevent Davidoff from discovering who had sold the fragrances to PLD. This obliteration left a mark on each bottle measuring about one and one-eighth inches long and one-eighth of an inch wide. PLD then resold the etched bottles of fragrance to discount retail stores in the United States. Davidoff sued PLD in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and moved for a preliminary injunction. The district court concluded that PLD’s obliteration of the batch codes from the bottles had resulted in an altered product, upon which Davidoff could predicate its infringement claim. The court credited witness testimony that a consumer might think that the etching of the bottles had resulted from tampering. The district court thus granted Davidoff’s motion and preliminarily enjoined PLD from selling any “Davidoff Cool Water” products with obliterated batch codes. PLD appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.