## Facts

- Plaintiffs were related entities doing business under the registered trademarks “Dior” and “Christian Dior.”
- Defendant operated discount department stores known for low-price, high-volume retailing.
- Defendant sold garments that were lawfully copied from plaintiffs’ original fashion designs.
- To market the garments, defendant used “Dior” and “Christian Dior” in advertising and labeling, describing the items as copies/adaptations rather than originals.
- Promotional methods included newspaper advertisements, hang tags stating “Original by Christian Dior — Alexander’s Exclusive — Paris — Adaptation,” and a television fashion show commercial.
- Plaintiffs alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition, claiming defendant traded on Dior’s goodwill and caused confusion about origin or sponsorship.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying preliminary injunctions barring defendant’s use of “Dior” and “Christian Dior.”
2. Whether plaintiffs made a clear showing of probable success on trademark infringement or unfair competition based on defendant’s use of the marks to identify copied designs.
3. Whether plaintiffs showed possible irreparable injury sufficient to justify the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the denials of both motions for a preliminary injunction.
- Preliminary injunctive relief requires a clear showing of probable success on the merits and possible irreparable injury.
- On the record of pleadings and affidavits, defendant’s statement that the garments were copies of plaintiffs’ designs was apparently truthful.
- Plaintiffs did not establish that defendant’s marketing created confusion or deception as to whether the garments were Dior originals or authorized by Dior.
- Because plaintiffs failed to make the required clear showing, the district judges did not clearly abuse their discretion in refusing to enjoin defendant’s use pending a final merits determination.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and is improper absent a clear showing of probable success and possible irreparable injury.
- Appellate review of a preliminary-injunction ruling is limited; reversal requires a clear abuse of discretion.
- Truthful, descriptive use of another’s trademark to identify that goods are copies or adaptations of the trademark holder’s designs may be insufficient, on a preliminary record, to establish infringement or unfair competition where the presentation does not mislead consumers about source or sponsorship.
- The absence of demonstrated consumer confusion or deception weighs strongly against preliminary injunctive relief in trademark and unfair competition disputes.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that plaintiffs did not meet the demanding standard for preliminary injunctive relief because the challenged use of “Dior” was tied to a truthful description that the garments were adaptations of Dior designs and plaintiffs did not clearly show likely success or irreparable harm; the district court’s denial of injunctions was therefore affirmed.


Societe Comptoir de L’Industrie Cotonniere Etablissements Boussac v. Alexander’s Department Stores, Inc., 299 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1962)