Pay Per Click Advertising Benefits
How Can Internet Advertising Help Your Business?
List of Celebrity Branded Fragrances
List of Celebrity Brand Fragrances: Actresses
The most successful fragrances branded by a celebrity are those of Elizabeth Taylor as she collaborated with Elizabeth Arden. The duo released 12 of the most successful celebrity fragrances between 1988 and 2010, and some of these fragrances include Passion, White Diamonds, Black Pearls, Gardenia, and Violet Eyes.
Jennifer Lopez has released over 15 fragrances and some of the most successful include Glow, Still, Deseo, and Love and Glamour.
Sarah Jessica Parker released 8 fragrances between 2005 and 2009 that included Lovely, Covet, SJP NYC, Endless, and Twilight.
Halle Berry released three popular fragrances including Halle, Halle Pure Orchid, and Reveal. The branded fragrances have been released by Jennifer Aniston, Kate Walsh, Eva Longoria, Reese Witherspoon, Mary-Kate Olsen, Ashley Olsen, and Isabella Rossellini.
List of Celebrity Brand Fragrances: Male Actors, Models, and Athletes
Male musicians with the most successful branded fragrances include Diddy, Usher, Akon, and Nelly.
Diddy’s successful fragrances include Sean John I Am King, Sean John Unforgivable, and Sean John Unforgiveable for Women. Usher’s successful fragrances include UR for Men, UR for Women, and Usher VIP. Popular fragrances by Akon include Konvict Homme and Konvict Femme. The most popular fragrance by Nelly is Apple Bottoms, and other musicians like 50 Cent and Tim McGraw have popular fragrances as well.
Antonio Banderas has released 15 branded fragrances, and some of the more popular fragrances include Seduction in Black, Spirit VIP for Men, Spirit VIP for Women, and The Secret. Male celebrities like David Beckham and Patrick Dempsey have released branded fragrances as well.
List of Celebrity Brand Fragrances: Female Musicians
Celine Dion has released 14 fragrances, and some of the popular fragrances include Celine Dion, Belong, Enchanting, Sensational Moments, and Simply Chic.
Britney Spears has released 9 different fragrances, and she has collaborated with Elizabeth Arden for most the fragrances. Her popular fragrances include Curious by Britney Spears, Fantasy, Midnight Fantasy, Circus Fantasy, and Radiance.
Mariah Carey has also released 9 fragrances, and she has also collaborated with Elizabeth Arden. Some of her popular fragrances are M, Luscious Pink, Forever, and Lollipop Bling Honey.
The following female musicians have also released popular fragrances: Avril Lavigne, Beyonce, Christina Aguilera, Rihanna, Katy Perry, Shakira, Fergie, Gwen Stefani, Jordin Sparks, Faith Hill, Shania Twain, Jessica Simpson, Mary J. Blige, Hilary Duff, and Queen Latifah.
List of Celebrity Brand Fragrances: Other Popular Celebrities
The following celebrities are known for popular branded fragrances as well:
Andy Warhol: Andy Warhol and Marilyn Rose
Kat Von D: Saint, Sinner, and Adora
Cindy Crawford: Cindy Crawford, Summer Day, and Joyful
Maria Sharapova: Maria Sharapova
Heidi Klum: Shine
Kim Kardashian: Kim Kardashian and Gold
Kate Moss: Kate, Vintage, and Wild Meadow
Paris Hilton: Heiress, Siren, and Tease
Daisy Fuentes: So Luxurious, Dianoche Love, and Mysterio
Naomi Campbell: Eternal Beauty, Cat Deluxe, and Naomi
Michael Jordan: Michael Jordon, 23, and Legend
Trade Secret
A trade secret is primarily defined by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). Essentially, the trade secret is information such as a formula, pattern, program, method, process, technique, or similar piece of information that produces economic value. However, the information only produces actual or potential economic value because it is not accessible by other parties who could also generate economic value with its use.
Before the UTSA was passed, the use of a secret in trade was an offense under a common law tort known as the Restatement of Torts. Section 757 and 758 of this tort laid out general policies, and the majority of U.S. Courts adopted the trade secret tort. Comment (b) of §757 is still accessed regularly and determines what qualifies as a secret in trade. A secret in trade is recognized depending on the following:
· the amount of information about the secret known outside of the business
· the amount of information known by employees for the business
· the measures taken by the business to protect the information from exposure
· the value of the secret to the business compared to competitors
· the difficulty involved in acquiring the information and duplicating the information
In order to submit a trade secret claim, the information needs to qualify for protection in the first place. Secondly, the party holding the secret needs to prove that they took reasonable steps to keep in the information private. Thirdly, the party holding the secret must prove that the secret was not unlawfully obtained from another party.
There are two cases when a secret in trade is unlawfully obtained. The information was unlawfully obtained through improper means or there is a breach of confidence. For example, if an employee accessed information and sold the information to another company, the second company committed breach of confidence.
It is not illegal to obtain a trade secret if the information is discovered independently, reverse engineering leads to the discovery, or the company holding the secret failed to take proper steps in protecting the secret.
A trade secret does not last for a specific number of years like a patent. The secret in trade continues indefinitely until disclosure of the secret is reached lawfully. An inventor has the choice to choose between a patent and a protection of the secret, but the information cannot by dually protected at the same time.
Obtaining a secret in trade does not always exist as a crime only under tort law. It qualifies as a federal crime in some cases. The crimes becomes a federal crime when it violates the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.
A recent trade secret violation occurred when Kolon Industries stole information about the manufacturing process used by DuPont for Kevlar para-aramind fiber. Kolon is headquartered in South Korea and makes a bullet-proof product called Hercron. Kolon wanted to improve its products, so they targeted former employees that formerly worked for DuPont to receive information on the secrets.
They soon received information about the secret manufacturing process used by DuPont and replicated the process in three years.
Hungry Jack’s
Hungry Jack's
Hungry Jack's is an Australian fast food franchise that was originally under the control of the American fast food franchise Burger King. From 1995 to 2001, the two companies were involved in a prolonged legal dispute that was ultimately decided in favor Hungry Jack's.
Hungry Jack's began business in 1971 as the exclusive franchise of Burger King in Australia. In 1991, the contract between the two businesses was renewed. The contract included a "termination clause" stating that Hungry Jack's was responsible for opening four new franchise locations a year. However, the contract contradicted itself with another clause which stated that as long as Hungry Jack's opened at least two new locations in a year, another year's worth of a "grace period" would be granted.
In 1995, Burger King decided it wanted to take over directly from Hungry Jack's. Though the terms of the contract stated that every franchise location opened had to be approved by Burger King, the company refused to approve the opening of any new locations, making it impossible for Hungry Jack's to live up to the terms of the contract. At this time, Burger King also made use of a Hungry Jack's employee who provided them with information about the company's activities.
In 1996, Burger King claimed that Hungry Jack's had violated the terms of its contract and began directly opening its own franchise locations. In 2001, Hungry Jack's filed suit against Burger King, claiming that they had violated the terms of the contract. The case was heard in the New South Wales Court of Appeal and resolved on June 21, 2001. In its decision, the court considered the termination clause's terms and its contradictions with other parts of the contract. The court ruled that the contract allowed Burger King to arbitrarily impeded and hinder Hungry Jack's, making it impossible for them to honor the contract.
In reviewing the contract, the court considered the question of "good faith." Because the contract in question was not a standard commercial agreement for which precedent concerning good faith had not yet been established, the court had to rule on whether there was an implicit, justifiable reason to assume such a basis for business. Taking into account Burger King's attempts to prevent Hungry Jack's from opening more locations and use of internal information provided by its informant, the court ruled that Burger King's actions were taken with the direct intent of harming Hungry Jack's to allow Burger King to open its own locations.
As a result, the court ruled in favor of Hungry Jack's and ordered that Burger King pay roughly 71 million in Australian dollars. Burger King appealed the decision but was not successful in this attempt. The case is considered in the Australian legal system for introducing "good faith" as a measure of determining the merits of two parties' actions when involved in a contractual dispute. The case is often cited as a precedent in such cases.