The media-commercial event of the beginning of 1994 was the big fight between a haute-couture firm and great champagne producers, over a perfume. The French fashion-designer was taken to court and. forced to change the name of his latest perfume for reasons of the "guaranteed origin’ of French products.

IN 1991. Yves Saint-Laurent himself found the name for his new, perfume which he intended for women who sparkle”, an allusion to the legendary champagne bubbles, a drink of which it is said that it brings'a pink glow to the cheeks of ladies. But this choice offended the big champagne producers -who had. for years, been fighting to defend the name of their wine all over the world. And they had succeeded, even in their own country where, in 1984, the French tobacco-production company. Selta. who-had used the name champagne for cigarettes, had been sentenced In court.

In June 1993, several months before the new perfume was launched, the group was taken to court by the Comite Interprofessional du Vin de Champagne (Interprofessional Champagne Wine Comittee) and the Institut National des Appellations d'Origtne (National Institute for guaranteed origins), which asked for the jiure and simple withdrawal of the label. These two organisations base their claims on a law which came out on 2nd July 1990 stipulating that "the geographical name which guarantees, the origin cannot be used for any similar product, nor for any other product, when that use is likely to misappropriate or weaken the reputation of the original name”.

Since the complaint was lodged, this argument has come up against the incomprehension of the directors of the Yves Saint-Laurent group, According tb them "the name Yves Saint-Laurent is an extra bonus for the reputation of the name". Pierre Berge, the chairman and managing director of the famous hautecouture firm declared in June. "Because it is him (Yves Saint-Laurent). Because it comes from him. it cannot be the same”, the general manager of the trade-mark considered a few months later.

A month after the launching of the perfume (estimated cost’ 100 million francs), invested, in particular, in an advertlse-menl showing a glowing woman in a red sequin sheath dress, the big champagne manufacturers won their case.

Champagne was banned by the Paris Court. The Yves Saint-Laurent group does not have the right to use the name as "there is a risk that consumers will establish a parallel between the name of the perfume and the guaranteed origin". The firm had to pay a heavy fine (3.000 franc* for every Infraction ascertained after a time-limit of one month).

However, encouraged by the numerous messages of sympathy coming from the fashion-riesigner's admirers and sure thaf it was in the right, the Yves Saint-Laurent group did not give up. It Immediately ap-

pealed against the court's de clslon. But. on 15th December, it had to comply with the decision. The Paris Court of Appeal confirmed the earlier decision.

Considering that the fash ion-house wanted to 'create an effect of attraction by using the litigious name” the Court compelled It to withdraw the litigious bottles from sale by 30th December at midnight, other wise it would be fined 3.000 franca for every infraction ascertained

It also confirmed that the company had "misappropriated the reputation that only the producers and dealers In champagne can use to market

wine which has the right to this label". The firm carried out the orders, contenting itself with simply changing the name on the champagne-corkshaped bottles from champagne to Yves Saint-Laurent.

Fantastic Publicity for

Yves Saint-Laurent

While awaiting the fatal date, there was a terrific rush to buy the perfume everywhere. Over the last two or three years, many French people have become keen collectors of perfume bottles’; So they were desperate to obtain one of those little bottles before they disappeared from the shelves. The success was all the greater as the epilogue to the story occurred at Christmas and New Year time which is a favourite period for giving perfume as a present.

Numerous lessons can be drawn from this affair. The first is that the directors of Yves Saint-Laurent were so convinced of the quality of their products that they underestimated the pugnaciousness of the big champagne manufacturers, who were Just as convinced as they were. The latter made the affair a matter -of principle. Moreover, they could not just sit back and do nothing In their own country in the first big case which had arisen since the 1990 law had been voted, otherwise their position would have been weakened too much, on an International level, in other cases of litigation.

it is. however, a pity to see French luxury goods firms involved in such important matters as world imitations of famous names (a challenge on a planetary level), in such a public way in fratricidal warfare.

For months on end. the matter made the headlines in the press The name Cham "' pagne was repeatedly heard on the airwaves, on television and appeared in all the papers, giving the product a great reputation without Y S L s having to spend dozens of millions of extra francs on ad vertislng. Indeed, what woman would not wish to smell this fruity, flowering. Cyprian perfume. for hearing so much about it. or even to feel herself sparkle too?

L Actuality En France