AUSTIN, Texas (FNS) -- A Travis County jury here last week ordered Randalls Food Markets, Houston, to pay $6 million of a $15.25 million verdict for selling a salon-only line of hair care products.
ohn Paul Mitchell Systems, Beverly Hills, Calif., said it has filed similar lawsuits against other companies, including the Houston division of Kroger Co., Cincinnati, and Meijer Inc., Grand Rapids, Mich., and several drug-store chains. Officials at Kroger and Meijer could not be reached for comment last week.
Randall Onstead, chairman and chief executive officer of Randalls, said the retailer intends to pursue "legal remedies" but declined to say if that meant it will appeal the verdict. Officials at Jade Drug declined comment last week.
Judge Durwood Johnson said he will consider written motions from both sides before deciding how and whether to finalize the verdict into a judgment.
Kathy Lussier, a Randalls spokeswoman, said the Paul Mitchell line is the only group of products Randalls buys from Jade. She said Randalls has carried the line since March 1997, "although I'm not sure if we've made a decision on whether to remove it," she told SN last week, a day after the verdict.
"Randalls has done absolutely nothing wrong in the selling of Paul Mitchell products," Onstead said.
"We're in the business of selling products customers want us to carry. Randalls added Paul Mitchell products because our customers were going to other supermarkets to buy them.
"Why Randalls was singled out when our competition was allowed to sell these products is beyond understanding, and we intend to pursue our legal remedies in this matter." Speaking to local media here, Michaeline Re, the in-house lawyer for John Paul Mitchell Systems, said although the issue may seem petty on its face, it is important to the company and its customers because a customer who buys a professional shampoo from an unauthorized supermarket or drug store has no recourse if he or she is not satisfied. Re also said shampoo sold at unauthorized retail locations often looks exactly like the real thing but has altered codes on the bottom of the bottles, making it impossible for the manufacturer to say where it comes from.
"The consumer is totally misled," Re said. "We can't prove it's our product, and we can't prove it's not our product."
Paul Browder, the attorney who represented the manufacturer, called the verdict a victory in the longterm effort by sellers of salon-quality shampoos to make sure their products are distributed only by authorized salons.
Testimony during the eight-day trial in state district court here did not indicate how Jade Drug obtained the product.
