I was getting close to caving in and buying the new Bond no. 9 Andy Warhol Silver Factory perfume. After all, it's a great scent and I really liked it (it's the last item in the linked post), even though the 3.4 oz bottle would mean a lifetime supply, with enough left for my nieces and nephews to sell as vintage in the estate sale.
However, it seems that Bond no. 9 has not only a love for my favorite city and its icons but also a huge case of hubris. Apparently, this company, who has used the names of nearly every NYC landmark for its perfumes, is now the owner of abstract nouns and concepts. Case in point: Artisan perfumer Liz Zorn got a nastigram from Bond no.9 attorneys, threatening to take her to the cleaners because her fragrance "Peace on Earth" is an infringement on Bond's right to the word "Peace" that was established in their "Scent of Peace" perfume (which to my nose is a total bore, but that's beside the point).
Do you think that a similar letter was sent to LVMH, the owners of Kenzo's "Time for Peace"? My money would be on "No".
It looks like this isn't a new tactic for Bond no. 9. According to posts made by Anya McCoy (here and here), another artisan perfumer and owner of Anya's Garden, had a similar experience before she discontinued her Riverside perfume (Bond no. 9 also offer a perfume called Riverside Drive, and apparently they own that part of Manhattan, though I suspect the Donald might argue with this statement).
I find this nasty and ridiculous. I don't see Serge Lutens battling Keiko Mecheri over the rights to the name Loukhoum, or D&G going after Bvlgari in a battle of the Blue, not to mention the many blacks, reds, passion or loves can be found in many perfumes of competing companies (How many others can you find?). But Bond no. 9 owns "Peace". Lovely irony.
What they don't own is my money, which will be spent elsewhere, on something from a very small and independent perfume house. One that doesn't have a law firm on retainer.
However, it seems that Bond no. 9 has not only a love for my favorite city and its icons but also a huge case of hubris. Apparently, this company, who has used the names of nearly every NYC landmark for its perfumes, is now the owner of abstract nouns and concepts. Case in point: Artisan perfumer Liz Zorn got a nastigram from Bond no.9 attorneys, threatening to take her to the cleaners because her fragrance "Peace on Earth" is an infringement on Bond's right to the word "Peace" that was established in their "Scent of Peace" perfume (which to my nose is a total bore, but that's beside the point).
Do you think that a similar letter was sent to LVMH, the owners of Kenzo's "Time for Peace"? My money would be on "No".
It looks like this isn't a new tactic for Bond no. 9. According to posts made by Anya McCoy (here and here), another artisan perfumer and owner of Anya's Garden, had a similar experience before she discontinued her Riverside perfume (Bond no. 9 also offer a perfume called Riverside Drive, and apparently they own that part of Manhattan, though I suspect the Donald might argue with this statement).
I find this nasty and ridiculous. I don't see Serge Lutens battling Keiko Mecheri over the rights to the name Loukhoum, or D&G going after Bvlgari in a battle of the Blue, not to mention the many blacks, reds, passion or loves can be found in many perfumes of competing companies (How many others can you find?). But Bond no. 9 owns "Peace". Lovely irony.
What they don't own is my money, which will be spent elsewhere, on something from a very small and independent perfume house. One that doesn't have a law firm on retainer.
No comments:
Post a Comment