In A. Bourjois & Co. v. Katzel, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the actions of the defendant as an importer of cosmetics from a common French source violated the plaintiff's trademark. How are the case compatible? Please ensure you look at the facts of the case and the legal reasoning and that you understand HOW the facts relate to the legal principles.

Intellectual Property Case Bourjois & Co. v. Katze1360 US. 689 (1923) United States Supreme Court I. IRAC Analysis: Plaintiff is the US assignee of a trademark from a cosmetics company of French. After that, the French company still produced the same goods as what it sold to Plaintiff. Katzel took advantage of the exchange rate, imported products from France and continue sell it under the trademark of the plaintiff in the US. 2. Rule: Trademark law to parallel imports 3. Application: The Supreme Court based on the conclusion of selling products in the grey market violated the US. trademark law of the French company. Katzel claimed that the using the trademark of the French company is a correct action and it's not the cause of customer misunderstanding. Conversely, according to the by public understanding, the goods came from the plaintiff, Bourjois although it's not made it. Besides, the court pointed out that the origin goods must belong to the plaintiff and must be only sold by the plaintiff. The Katzel's action reduced the reputation of the plaintiff. 4. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the French didn't have permission to authorize for other companies selling products because it did not produce anymore. The Sopreme Court declined the decision of the US. Court of Appeals not to provide a preliminary injunction for the plaintiff