Top Notes 
Heart Notes 
Base Notes 
07/11/2018
TIA1971
4 Reviews
Translated
Show original
TIA1971
Top Review
29
Guilty as charged
K l a g e
of EdT Bloomy Heaven, whft: at the turquoises and thus in every halfway bigger city
- Plaintiff -
represented by RAe Grapefruit & Bergamot, white flowers and aquatic notes pp., subagent: RAe. Vanilla & Musk
g e g e n
TIA1971, available several times a week on the website parfumo.de
- Defendant -
In the name and on behalf of the plaintiff we request that the defendant be ordered to
to refrain from treating the plaintiff as a terrible aquatic water of the most favourable category
and never to buy this again and due to its smell, durability and
Sillage to insult because the defendant simply and poignantly has guilt himself and this guilt is not the
Can be blamed on the plaintiff. The defendant shall duly apologize to the plaintiff.
Reason:
The defendant simply wanted to go for a stroll again and spend money to satisfy her perfume addiction. On the evening of 14.06.2018 she went to one of the many branches of the perfumery described above to have a look around. What happened then can only be described as the absolute stupidity of the defendant:
After she had sneaked through the shop for several minutes and found out that she knew all the fragrances she could buy there and either already owned them or considered them to be unwearable, she had a saleswoman approach her for "advice", with which the disaster took its course. In the end, however, the defendant was only interested in expanding her collection of fragrances and so she had the plaintiff's fragrance sprayed onto a carrier card and found it quite acceptable.
As is generally known, this is by no means an appropriate test and the defendant should have known and recognised what the result would have been based on years of membership of the Parfumo community. In addition to this fragrance, another perfumery, also the own brand of this perfumery, was selected almost within seconds and immediately paid for, because the defendant was of the opinion that a perfumery should be left with a fragrance. The price and the practical sizes of the flacons did the rest, that these are also no appropriate selection criteria, needs no further mention and is sufficiently known.
Since that day, the defendant has not missed an opportunity to insult and denigrate the plaintiff. Durability and Sillage would not be bad for an EdT at all, but due to the absolutely horrible smell in itself, just a big disadvantage. Furthermore, the defendant repeatedly criticizes the absolutely outstanding aquatic notes, which left room neither for vanilla nor for musk, not to mention the insult to the top note as "nothing special".
Since the defendant is, however, powerful at reading and hates aquatic notes - as is generally known on parfumo.de - the plaintiff's packaging could have simply been seen by the defendant to be absolutely unsuitable for accompanying her or permanently withdrawing her from her
Due to the above circumstances, it is in no way the plaintiff's fault that he did not do justice to the claims of the defendant's nose and is now denigrated by it. The defendant had sufficient opportunity to inform itself about the plaintiff and to reject a purchase. The plaintiff enjoys nevertheless some popularity with other customers of this Parfumerie and Community members on parfumo.de, why the deplored one is to be condemned in the sense of the indictment and to apologize for this absolutely self-caused false purchase to refrain from such purchases in the future and to expose the plaintiff in no way more in the public, in which way ever, in which way
The lawyers
signed Vanilla musk
of EdT Bloomy Heaven, whft: at the turquoises and thus in every halfway bigger city
- Plaintiff -
represented by RAe Grapefruit & Bergamot, white flowers and aquatic notes pp., subagent: RAe. Vanilla & Musk
g e g e n
TIA1971, available several times a week on the website parfumo.de
- Defendant -
In the name and on behalf of the plaintiff we request that the defendant be ordered to
to refrain from treating the plaintiff as a terrible aquatic water of the most favourable category
and never to buy this again and due to its smell, durability and
Sillage to insult because the defendant simply and poignantly has guilt himself and this guilt is not the
Can be blamed on the plaintiff. The defendant shall duly apologize to the plaintiff.
Reason:
The defendant simply wanted to go for a stroll again and spend money to satisfy her perfume addiction. On the evening of 14.06.2018 she went to one of the many branches of the perfumery described above to have a look around. What happened then can only be described as the absolute stupidity of the defendant:
After she had sneaked through the shop for several minutes and found out that she knew all the fragrances she could buy there and either already owned them or considered them to be unwearable, she had a saleswoman approach her for "advice", with which the disaster took its course. In the end, however, the defendant was only interested in expanding her collection of fragrances and so she had the plaintiff's fragrance sprayed onto a carrier card and found it quite acceptable.
As is generally known, this is by no means an appropriate test and the defendant should have known and recognised what the result would have been based on years of membership of the Parfumo community. In addition to this fragrance, another perfumery, also the own brand of this perfumery, was selected almost within seconds and immediately paid for, because the defendant was of the opinion that a perfumery should be left with a fragrance. The price and the practical sizes of the flacons did the rest, that these are also no appropriate selection criteria, needs no further mention and is sufficiently known.
Since that day, the defendant has not missed an opportunity to insult and denigrate the plaintiff. Durability and Sillage would not be bad for an EdT at all, but due to the absolutely horrible smell in itself, just a big disadvantage. Furthermore, the defendant repeatedly criticizes the absolutely outstanding aquatic notes, which left room neither for vanilla nor for musk, not to mention the insult to the top note as "nothing special".
Since the defendant is, however, powerful at reading and hates aquatic notes - as is generally known on parfumo.de - the plaintiff's packaging could have simply been seen by the defendant to be absolutely unsuitable for accompanying her or permanently withdrawing her from her
Due to the above circumstances, it is in no way the plaintiff's fault that he did not do justice to the claims of the defendant's nose and is now denigrated by it. The defendant had sufficient opportunity to inform itself about the plaintiff and to reject a purchase. The plaintiff enjoys nevertheless some popularity with other customers of this Parfumerie and Community members on parfumo.de, why the deplored one is to be condemned in the sense of the indictment and to apologize for this absolutely self-caused false purchase to refrain from such purchases in the future and to expose the plaintiff in no way more in the public, in which way ever, in which way
The lawyers
signed Vanilla musk
12 Comments
