woodspice

not in the least...just expressing my concern as there is a lot of misinformation that flies around the internet. It's hard to know what is fact and what is not. well...kind of I guess. I suppose I just don't get the point of massively piling on this etailer for doing things that many others, including bpal, are doing as well...intentional or not. I love bpal, and have found some wonderful perfumes that I enjoy immensely...but there is a certain fanatical element to this board that ignores commonalities between bpal and other etailers when pointing fingers. I guess I just like to play the Devil's Advocate every once in a while to balance the universe That being said, I understand why feathers have been ruffled. other etailers do not seem as "involved" in their threads on this board. I get it. I just think some bad information started flying around in the ensuing drama. I've never seen Beth be anything but ethical with her business. I have no doubt she'll continue to be.

exactly...there is information being given on these various threads that runs from kind of true, to dubious, to flat out wrong. it's all speculation by a group of people who are not lawyers, and have little knowledge of the complex trademark system. and I feel that a group of people who are essentially customers, though well-meaning, should not be doling out edicts and "free advice" to another company to change names of products or risk legal issues. Not only is it the lawyer's place to deal with this, there is also the risk of unintentinally putting BPAL at risk by exposing some trademark discrepencies in their own product (such as a 3 minute google search that uncovers commercial products with the same names) and not to rankle feathers, but my little web search took exactly 3 minutes and uncovered commercial perfumes for most of the examples sited. There is a such thing as due diligence, and one could claim that bpal is in no better a position than h&e as the information is clearly out there for consumption. or is it your position that because h&e and bpal are more "direct" competitors (vying for the exact same customer base) h&e should have been more respectful of using common names to bpal than bpal should be using a name common to a company like Escada or Bob Mackie? Because someone looking to purchase Disney's Snow White will never mistake BPAL for Disney? (that would not be Disney's position, but just for argument's sake) I found it, QS: they have in fact trademarked their perfume as "Walt Disney's Snow White," not just "Snow White." This goes back to my point #1 above...bad information being given. I'm sure innocently, but this is why layman should not be spouting information as if they are experts. I believe you to be correct in that trademark law has a "first use" rule whereby a company can challenge a trademark application based on being able to prove they have first use of the said trademark...which of course if expensive and drawn out, and there are no guarantees the trademark board will see it your way. then of course, there's the bigger company that may want to become involved and say "you may have used Snow White before company B, but WE used it and trademarked it before any of you, so now we'll go ahead and sue you all!" this is increasingly becoming a very slippery slope in this debate. also, according to Macha's description of trademark law, this would not matter. if Disney released this before bpal and added the little TM mark to it, they would have a claim against bpal regardless of filing status. and I suppose bpal would have a claim against Disney if bpal released THEIR perfume first. something tells me though disney would not be bullied by some harsh criticism on a fan site. more likely bpal would not pursue the case as disney would just bankrupt them through a drawn out legal process. sorry for the bold and non-quotes..I was having a bear of a time getting the quotes to look right... Tried to fix your quotes, but I couldn't get them to work right either....don't know why. Sorry! — Macha I know why they didn't work - the double quote with mine had two end quotes and only one opening quote. --qs

I just wanted to comment really quickly, as I am the one who brought Disney into the H&E topic...I was not bringing up Disney in the abstract (as in they have a Snow White cartoon or figurine). I was writing specifically of this: Snow White Perfume an actual Snow White perfume by Disney that exists. Your comparison touches on Disney in general, whereas I am speaking specifically of a real perfume called Snow White released by Disney that really exists. To me, this speaks to the heart of the trademark debate. A lot of people have been throwing the word "trademark" around in what I would call a "willy nilly" fashion. Just because a company calls a specific product a specific name does not mean they hold trademark to that name. Trademarking is an expensive and lengthy process (as many who have been following the stitch n' bitch debacle know). I find it hard to believe a company that has several hundred products has trademarked all the names. I find it harder still to believe those trademarks would not have been challenged seeing as there are current commercial products on the market with the same names (namely the perfumes I listed in the H&E forum). With that having been said, I have not seen the lab making these trademarking claims, but some well-meaning people standing up for them. I think in discussions about these matters perhaps the official "legal" announcements should really come from the lab, and not all us junior trademark lawyers. With all THAT being said, I am a huge fan of BPAL. I haven't even tried H&E...I just find this whole debate very interesting and can't resist a good argument