## Facts

- Calvin Klein Cosmetics Corp. distributed premium fragrance products sold under the registered trademark OBSESSION, marketed through department stores with substantial advertising.
- Parfums de Coeur, Ltd. marketed CONFESS as an imitation fragrance in its “Designer Imposters” line, sold at much lower prices through discount retailers and drugstore chains.
- Parfums used comparative “like/love” statements on packaging and point-of-sale materials, including “If you like OBSESSION you’ll love CONFESS,” sometimes stating “OBSESSION by CALVIN KLEIN.”
- The referenced marks (OBSESSION and CALVIN KLEIN) were shown with trademark symbols, while CONFESS appeared prominently; some displays also included “Designer Imposters by Parfums de Coeur.”
- Calvin Klein alleged the comparative references and overall presentation created a likelihood of consumer confusion regarding source, sponsorship, or association, constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition.
- The district court largely denied preliminary injunctive relief but enjoined sale of a specific body-spray configuration found ambiguous as to manufacturer, and also entered a broad order directing Parfums to refrain from conduct likely to cause confusion (a generalized directive to comply with trademark law).
- Calvin Klein appealed seeking broader preliminary relief against all packaging and all use of the “like/love” slogan; Parfums cross-appealed the generalized “obey the law” portion of the injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a broad preliminary injunction barring Parfums’ comparative “If you like OBSESSION you’ll love CONFESS” slogan and related packaging and promotional materials.
2. Whether the district court erred by issuing an injunction that broadly commanded future compliance with federal trademark law without specifying prohibited conduct.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the denial of Calvin Klein’s requested broad preliminary injunction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in treating the likelihood-of-confusion showing as insufficient at the preliminary stage for a sweeping ban on the comparative slogan and all packaging.
- The court vacated the portion of the injunction that effectively ordered Parfums to “obey the law,” because it lacked specific, definite prohibitions.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of preliminary-injunction rulings is deferential; reversal requires an abuse of discretion based on the record before the district court.
- Comparative references to a competitor’s trademark in advertising may be permissible and not infringing where the use functions to identify the competitor’s product and does not likely confuse consumers as to source, sponsorship, or approval.
- Injunctions must describe prohibited conduct with sufficient specificity; a general command to comply with statutory law is improper because it provides inadequate notice and risks contempt enforcement without clear boundaries.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit allowed Parfums to continue using the challenged comparative slogan and materials at the preliminary stage because the record did not require a finding of likely confusion warranting broad relief, but it removed the district court’s non-specific directive that merely required future compliance with trademark law.


Calvin Klein Cosmetics Corp. v. Parfums de Coeur, Ltd., 824 F.2d 665 (8th Cir. 1987)