Clairol v Cody's Cosmetics, 353 Mass. 385 (1967)
Clairol seeks to enjoin Cody's Cosmetics from selling (in the manner theretofore practiced by Cody's) at retail to the general public Clairol's products designated
"Professional Use Only." 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 products are sold in two "different channels of trade at different prices: one through so-called `retail jobbers' for ultimate resale
through ... retail establishments to the general public for home use; and the other, through so-called `beauty supply jobbers', for resale to professional
hairdressers ... and beauty schools."
Cody's, "operating a discount store in Lawrence, has been buying from wholesale outlets ... six-packs designed for ... professional users only and selling the ...
bottles unopened, unaltered and singly at retail to home users."
The court ruled:
"Reasonable protection will be given if Cody's is enjoined from selling Clairol professional bottles except when it furnishes with each bottle a legible, printed
statement (a) containing the precise statutory warning required by G.L.c. 94, § 186, as amended (fn. 6), and any applicable Federal statutes; (b) indicating that the
professional bottle was originally sold by Clairol in six-packs for use by professional hairdressers, that the bottles are being sold by Cody's separately,
and (unless Cody's provides such a book) that there is furnished no copy of Clairol's instruction book prepared for nonprofessional, "home use," retail purchasers;
(c) warning that, unless consumers consult and follow such instructions, they may incur substantial health risks and, also, results may not be satisfactory,
(d) warning that the two blue shades are not safely to be used alone; and (e) suggesting a strand test because the contents of unpackaged professional bottles
may produce undesired results if they have been exposed unduly to light or are used after the indicated expiration date. The record shows no justification for
more stringent regulation of Cody's sales of professional bottles."
|