Smith v. Chanel, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
402 F.2d 562 (1968)
- Written by Emily Houde, JD
Facts
Smith (plaintiff) manufactured fragrances, including one called “Second Chance,” that copied famous designer fragrances. Smith advertised that these fragrances were perfect duplicates of their more expensive counterparts. Specifically, one advertisement dared consumers to try and find the difference between Smith’s “Second Chance” perfume and Chanel, Inc.’s (Chanel) (defendant) “Chanel No.5” perfume. Each of Smith’s fragrances had a note printed on the packaging that stated the famous fragrance that it was duplicating. Chanel sued Smith. At the district court, Chanel conceded that Smith could copy any unpatented fragrance formula and agreed that the packaging and labeling of Smith’s fragrances was not misleading to the consumer. The district court found that Smith had violated Chanel’s trademark because Smith was profiting off of the goodwill associated with Chanel’s trademark. Smith appealed this decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Browning, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.