Legal Opinion
Clairol, Inc. v. Cody's Cosmetics, Inc.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided December 7, 1967PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCutter, J.
The plaintiff (Clairol) seeks to enjoin the defendant (Cody’s) from selling (in the manner theretofore practised by Cody’s) at retail to the general public Clairol’s products designated “Professional Use Only.” The facts are stated upon the basis of the trial judge’s careful, complete, subsidiary findings, which are fully justified by the reported evidence. The case is before us on report without decree. G. L. c. 214, § 31.
Clairol makes fourteen shades of permanent hair dye and also two blue shades which are to be used only in conjunction with one or more of the basic shades. All these…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Champion Spark Plug Co. v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Prestonettes, Inc. v. CotySupreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Carter v. Yardley & Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
- Waring v. WDAS Broadcasting Station, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Polaroid Corporation v. Polaraid, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1963
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Corning Glass Works v. Ann & Hope, Inc. of DanversMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1973
- Clairol, Inc. v. Boston Discount Center of Berkley, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
- Matrix Essentials, Inc. v. Cosmetic Gallery, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 1994
- Clairol Inc. v. Cosmetics PlusNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1974
- Bell v. Streetwise Records, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.