Should You Send a Cease and Desist Letter?

Most people think of a cease and desist letter as a legal formality... a written instruction telling someone to stop doing something wrong. In practice, it often marks the moment a quiet problem becomes an active dispute. That is why the decision to send a demand letter should be treated strategically.

A cease and desist letter does not simply communicate a position; it forces a response. The recipient may comply, negotiate, ignore the request, or fight back. Each of those reactions carries different costs, risks, and consequences, many of which are outside the sender’s control once the letter is delivered. This uncertainty is what makes a demand letter powerful and dangerous at the same time. Each communication initiates a process, not just a message.

The expense of a cease and desist letter is rarely tied to drafting alone. The real cost comes from what must be done before and after:

• Determining whether the business actually has enforceable rights

• Assessing the quality of evidence

• Predicting how the recipient is likely to respond

• Preparing for escalation if the warning fails

  
  

Simple disputes can be resolved cheaply while ambiguous facts, emotional parties, or high-stakes issues may rapidly turn a single letter into extended legal engagement.

One of the biggest risks is unintended escalation. A letter that overstates claims, misstates facts, or adopts a hostile tone can provoke resistance rather than compliance. It may even prompt the recipient to seek declaratory relief or assert counterclaims, shifting the business from defense to active litigation. In other words, the letter meant to stop the problem can become the reason it grows. Despite these risks, demand letters remain effective tools when used correctly. They can stop misconduct early, frame negotiations, preserve rights, and signal the seriousness of the issue without filing suit. With this in mind, the letter’s tone, scope, and legal basis must match the business’s goals and tolerance for conflict.

Instead of asking, “Should we send a letter?” businesses should ask:

• What outcome do we actually want?

• What happens if the letter is ignored?

• Are we prepared for a legal response?

• Is this the lowest-risk way to achieve our goal?

If those questions do not have answers, sending a demand letter may create more uncertainty than clarity.

The Scent of Confusion: How Smell-Alikes and Decanting Practices Threaten Luxury Fragrance Brands

Luxury fragrance brands are increasingly affected by business practices that fall into a legal gray area but still damage brand value. These practices include marketing products as “similar to” or "inspired by" famous scents as well as repackaging authentic perfume through decanting. While neither practice involves outright counterfeiting, both can blur brand identity, mislead consumers, and weaken the exclusivity that defines luxury goods.

So-called smell-alike perfumes are designed to evoke well-known fragrances without copying trademarks directly. Sellers often rely on suggestive product names, similar packaging, or familiar marketing language to trigger consumer recognition. Even without logo use, this conduct can still raise legal concerns when it creates a misleading impression of connection to the original brand or copies distinctive visual elements.

Decanting presents a different set of issues. Although reselling genuine goods is usually lawful, that protection has limits. Problems arise when sellers highlight branding in a way that implies authorization or when the repackaging process alters the product’s quality. Such practices can expose the seller to legal risk and harm the brand’s reputation.

Human Voices in the Age of AI

Artificial intelligence has transformed how media is created, enabling machines to replicate human speech with remarkable realism. While these technologies unlock new creative and commercial possibilities, they also raise a fundamental legal question: who owns a person’s voice once it has been cloned by AI?

The Rise of Voice Cloning

Early text-to-speech tools have evolved into sophisticated AI systems capable of recreating a person’s unique vocal characteristics including tone, pitch, cadence, and accent. These tools have legitimate uses, such as improving accessibility for people with speech impairments and enabling seamless dubbing in entertainment applications. Unfortunately, this same technology can be exploited to create deepfakes, enabling impersonation that facilitates fraud and inflicts reputational harm. Because a voice is closely tied to personal identity, its replication presents serious ethical and legal concerns.

Why Copyright Law Falls Short

Traditional intellectual property law offers little protection for the human voice itself. Copyright protects recorded works, scripts, and compositions rather than the distinctive sound of a person’s voice. As a result, AI systems can generate synthetic speech that sounds identical to an individual without copying a protected recording, exploiting a significant legal gap.

The Role of the Right of Publicity

Most legal protection for vocal identity currently comes from the right of publicity, which gives individuals control over the commercial use of their name, likeness, and voice. Courts have recognized that unauthorized imitation of a distinctive voice can violate these rights, particularly in commercial contexts. Recent decisions and legislation suggests a growing recognition that a person’s voice is a form of personal property deserving protection, even after death.

Industry Response and Contractual Protections

Performers and voice actors have been especially affected. To address the risk of unauthorized AI training and voice replication, many now rely on contractual tools such as synthetic voice or AI riders. These provisions prohibit the use of recorded performances for AI purposes without explicit consent and compensation. Regulatory efforts are also emerging, including proposed U.S. legislation and the European Union’s AI Act, which aim to impose transparency and accountability requirements on AI developers.

Final Thoughts

While AI developers may own the technology, the voice itself should remain the property of the individual. As the law evolves, personality rights and targeted legislation are increasingly filling the gaps left in traditional copyright law.