So, for ages, I haven’t featured Stella McCartney fragrance on BBB because I hated the way they were so forceful in acquiring the name Nude for a fragrance when Nude the skincare brand already had a patent for it. To say they wouldn’t take no for an answer just about sums it up. At the time it was an outstanding example of how big brands just walk all over smaller brands.
However, now that Nude has sold out, changed its formula and packaging I don’t think it really applies any more, so am quite happy to show these stunning visuals for the latest Print Collection for 2012. They all contain the Stella fragrance, a rose laden, feminine scent that is really very pretty, and cost £38 each. I have no idea why they don’t bring out a mini-collection where you can buy all three (hello, collectable!) because that really would be something to get your hands on.
Anyhow, these pretties launch in September.
Transparency Disclosure
All products are sent to me as samples from brands and agencies unless otherwise stated. Affiliate links may be used. Posts are not affiliate driven.
4 comments
These printed bottles look lovely! I’ve only ever tested the Stella fragrances but I would love to own one (maybe that collectable trio you were suggesting if it came out!)…
Helen xxx
Nude didn’t have a patent for the name. It was a trade mark registration. (Patents protect inventions, whilst trade marks protect brands).
Nude sued and lost because there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks — the court thought that no one would be confused between NUDE for skincare and STELLANUDE for perfume, not least because there were a number of other “nude” products on the market sold by other businesses — and in any case, it did not meet the requirements necessary for grant of an emergency injunction. In other words, whilst Nude Brands did not like the name of the Stella perfume, it had no right in law to object. The right person won.
I also don’t see why Nude Brands is less “worthy” of support now that it’s owned by a bigger, richer entity, rather than by an entity funded, in part, by the wife of a rock star. Whilst it is natural to sympathise with the underdog (although, in this case, as we are actually talking about the difference between millions and mega-millions neither gets the poor-me vote in my eyes), it is arguably the case that larger corporations that sell more things to more people contribute more to the larger social good. They employ more people, pay more tax, serve a greater number of customers across a greater part of the market.
I seem to recall though that Nude got a pay-out…? Maybe I’m wrong.. it was all a long time ago. But you know, the business side of beauty is actually so mindblowingly sharky that sometimes I want to make a stand. And that is my preference on my own blog. Don’t for a second think that I am under any illusions about the business nature of Nude.. I am. But there are hundreds of small businesses that get trampled on every year that we hear nothing about so it was a good way to highlight that it happens to brands we have heard of, too. And for sure the employment issue is totally relevant.. especially, in this case, lawyers.
I have no idea whether the parties finally settled the dispute (which probably ranged on several fronts) and if so, on what terms, or whether the judgment in the case constituted the end of it. I did read the Nude judgment back when it came out and I don’t remember thinking that either side’s conduct was particularly egregious. It’s clear from the judgment Nude Brands made some decisions in the early days when it chose its name that came back to bite them in the litigation, long before the perfume’s name was chosen. That said, I’ve acted in cases where what the press reports about the dispute bears no resemblance at all to what actually occurred so I think that it’s very difficult to know for sure what happened.
Whether someone pays out though rarely has much to do with the merits of the case. Settlement is usually a rational commercial call based on where a business wants to devote its resources. Some want to litigate, whilst others want to settle. It isn’t necessarily the case that big businesses always want to fight, either. They may have to meet far more rigorous internal assessments as to the value of the litigation than a small business, which will usually tend to have much simpler corporate governance requirements.
As a lawyer, I act for all kinds of businesses and my impression is that all business is sharky to someone. Unsurprisingly, viewpoints tend to be heavily influenced by whether you win or lose. I imagine that as a journalist you tend to hear more from the losers rather than the winners. The winners’ attitude once they’ve won is usually to move on with their businesses. Since the beauty industry depends so much upon presenting a happy fantasy that is accepted, if not colluded in, by its customers and those dependent on the industry, I daresay that is even more likely to be the case.
And thanks for the lawyer dig; my point on employment as I am sure you will appreciate was intended to be a wider one. Lawyers rarely struggle for work and we tend to have marketable, transferable skills. Is the same true of people who work in cosmetic factories?
I do think that there is a debate to be had about the merits of big business v SMEs, but that can only be done if you recognise the value that each brings to the market, to wider society and to the consumers they serve. No one is all bad, or indeed all good either.
I do enjoy your blog although we clearly stand on different sides of this issue, I think. Thank you for your comments.