This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P sued D seeking to restrain D’s use of P’s marks “Coty” and “L’Origan.” D purchases P's genuine powder, subjects it to pressure, adds a binder to give it coherence, and sells the compact in a metal case. D buys P's genuine perfume in bottles and sells it in smaller bottles. The District Court held that D must put upon the rebottled perfume 'Prestonettes, Inc., not connected with Coty, states that the contents are Coty's -- (giving the name of the article) independently rebottled in New York.' The court allowed D to make compacts from the genuine loose powder of P and to sell them with this label on the container: 'Prestonettes, Inc., not connected with Coty, states that the compact of face powder herein was independently compounded by it from Coty's -- (giving the name) loose powder and its own binder. Loose powder -- percent, Binder -- percent.' The Court of Appeals reversed on the consideration of the very delicate and volatile nature of the perfume, its easy deterioration, and the opportunities for adulteration. It issued an absolute preliminary injunction against the use of the above marks except on the original packages as marked and sold by P. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.