Whose Brand Is It, Anyway?

Tweet

It didn't last long. Within a week, Lancaster knew that Glow by J.Lo was going to be a phenomenal success. The biggest challenge would be keeping the bottles in stock. "I think we were all surprised," says Macy's East chairman Hal Kahn. "From the time it came in, it was by far our leading performer, which is a tremendous achievement -- to go from new to No. 1."

It was a similar story all over the country. Midway through the Christmas season, Women's Wear Daily reported that "on the top-five list of nearly every major department store retailer is Lancaster's J.Lo scent, called Glow." Outside the United States, sales were just as strong. In Germany, Walsh and her people knew within three weeks that Glow by J.Lo was a hit. Test markets in Spain and Italy did so well that Lancaster began rolling out the product there. In its first month, the fragrance did an astonishing $17.9 million in sales, which led Lancaster to forecast $47 million for the year. Even that prediction would prove too timid. Sales would reach that level in less than six months.

The good news for Catherine Walsh and Jennifer Lopez was, of course, bad news for Terri Williamson. Desperate to limit the damage, she turned to federal court. On September 24, her attorney filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asserting that Glow -- her Glow -- was suffering irreparable harm and requesting that a judge intervene as soon as possible to stop Jennifer Lopez and Coty from using the name Glow in any way, shape, or form.

The two Glows would meet in court.

"They Are Putting My Client Out of Business"

Last November 7, Terri Williamson walked into federal district court in Los Angeles fearing, above all, that she'd be told she had no case and sent home. She was accompanied by her two attorneys. One was Arthur Aaronson, a partner in a small firm in Encino, Calif., who had handled all of Glow's legal work from its inception. The other, O. Yale Lewis, was an intellectual-property litigator from Seattle whom Williamson had contacted after realizing that the case was likely to go to trial. Lewis had agreed to come in for the hearing, he says, to "buttress her team." Team J.Lo, meanwhile, was represented only by its lawyers, led by Lisa Pearson, a New York City-based trademark litigator with Fross, Zelnick, Lehrman & Zissu.

Both sides had an enormous amount riding on the hearing. Williamson believed her company's long-term viability hung in the balance. There had been such an avalanche of advertising for Glow by J.Lo since late August that she felt completely overwhelmed. Every time she turned on the television, it seemed, she saw a commercial for the fragrance, often with the tag line "It's the Glow." The ultimate indignity came in October, when the November issue of Elle appeared with an article about things that could be found in the purses of celebrities. Pamela Anderson was quoted as saying she always carried Glow by J.Lo. Williamson saw the item and immediately guessed what had happened. She contacted Anderson's assistant, who confirmed that the article had credited the wrong Glow. Even Williamson's celebrity endorsements were being hijacked by J.Lo!

But the most unsettling developments were on the department-store front. After the launch of Glow by J.Lo, Nordstrom halted its rollout of Williamson's products to other stores. In addition, two department-store chains that had been interested in getting her line for the Christmas season suddenly decided to think about it. "We hope you'll understand," the buyers said.

On the other side, Lopez and Coty knew that, if they lost the injunction battle, Glow by J.Lo would probably have to be pulled off the market at the height of the holiday season and at great expense. Coty had already invested more than $29.5 million in the manufacture, advertising, and promotion of Glow by J.Lo in the United States. More than $5.2 million had been spent on advertising alone. Much of that would be wasted if the motion were granted and production shut down while the packaging was changed -- which could take four to six months. Coty estimated it would lose $13 million in U.S. sales during that time.

Such an outcome was by no means inconceivable. In 1987, a strikingly similar case had gone to court in New York. The dispute arose when the Elizabeth Taylor Cosmetics Company came out with a fragrance called Elizabeth Taylor's Passion. At the time, renowned Parisian perfumer Annick Goutal was selling her own fragrance called Passion. Goutal sued and won an injunction. But could Williamson pull off the same trick? To do so, she would have to convince the judge of three things: first, that she had a protectable trademark; second, that consumers might confuse the brands; and third, that Glow Industries would suffer irreparable harm as a result.

 PREV  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12  NEXT 

Read more:

Bo Burlingham

Burlingham joined Inc. in 1983. An editor at large, he is the author of Small Giants: Companies That Choose to Be Great Instead of Big. The book was a finalist for the Financial Times/Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year Award in 2006. Burlingham is also the co-author with Norm Brodsky of The Knack; and the co-author with Jack Stack of The Great Game of Business and A Stake in the Outcome.

Sign-up for our Sales and Marketing Newsletter

Email Address: