Not dissuaded, L'Oreal served an all-but-identical motion within ten days of the judgment. The court denied this motion without comment and entered judgment. It wanted to present evidence that it believed would show the judge that he misunderstood the actions and motives of its lawyers. After the turn of the year ZHD directed the supplier of the shampoo and conditioner to fill some bottles the record does not reveal how many.īetween the filing of the opinion and the entry of judgment, L'Oreal made a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. In September 1986 ZHD began to sell small quantities of shampoo in bottles filled (and labeled) by hand in the salon. Later it ordered stick-on labels listing the ingredients of its products. Late in 1985 ZHD had ordered 25,000 bottles silkscreened with the name ZAZU. After L'Oreal's national marketing was under way, its representatives thrice visited ZHD and found that the salon still had no products for sale under the ZAZU name. These bottles could not have been sold to the public, because they lacked labels listing the ingredients and weight. These were designed to interest the Floridian in the future marketing of the product line.
He also made two shipments to a hair stylist friend in Florida-40 bottles of shampoo for $78.58. Koubek shipped two bottles to a friend in Texas, who paid $13. Between November 1985 and February 1986 ZHD made a few other sales.
Eventually ZHD received acceptable samples from Gift Cosmetics, some of which Segretto sold to customers of the salon in plain bottles to which he taped the salon's business card. Early efforts were unsuccessful no one offered a product that satisfied ZHD. In 1985 Koubek began meeting with chemists to develop ZHD'S products. Unknown to L'Oreal, Koubek and Segretto had for some time aspired to emulate Vidal Sassoon by marketing shampoos and conditioners under their salon's trade name.
0 kommentar(er)
