Perfume Industry / News & Opinion
Smells Like Censorship? Inside Noel Deyzel’s TikTok Ban and Luxury Perfume’s War on Dupes
By Bibi Burness
His fragrance accounts were suspended, then restored. But the dispute exposed a bigger question: who decides when an honest perfume comparison becomes unlawful advertising?
An expensive perfume can survive a bad review. A reviewer’s account may not survive a succession of intellectual-property strikes.
That imbalance sits at the heart of the dispute involving Noel Deyzel, the creator behind Noel Smells, and German fragrance distributor NOBILIS GROUP. Deyzel’s fragrance-focused TikTok and Instagram accounts—reported as having approximately 1.8 million and 1.2 million followers respectively—were suspended following actions he attributed to the distributor. The controversy reportedly followed videos comparing luxury fragrances, including Creed and Amouage, with cheaper alternatives. Premium Beauty News
His accounts were subsequently restored. That is an important correction to posts still presenting the ban as permanent. But recovering access has not answered the question that made the dispute resonate beyond fragrance enthusiasts: can a platform reliably distinguish a useful review from an advertisement selling an imitation? Premium Beauty News
For perfume buyers, that distinction matters. There is a substantial difference between someone helping you spend wisely and someone using the language of independent reviewing to sell you something.
There is an equally substantial difference between protecting a trademark and suppressing an inconvenient opinion.
The perfume industry has a legitimate interest in protecting its brands. Consumers have a legitimate interest in comparing what those brands sell.
When a fragrance review becomes a platform dispute
Deyzel’s suspension prompted other creators to describe restrictions they also linked to NOBILIS complaints. Supporters circulated messages defending honest reviews, while some creators called for boycotts of the brands distributed by the company. Premium Beauty News
German creator Patron Profumo publicly announced that he was cutting ties with NOBILIS-distributed brands, naming Amouage, Xerjoff and Creed in his post. Reporting also described his account as having been restricted and subsequently recovered. Patron Profumo’s post · Primetimer
However, the numbers circulating around the controversy require caution. The public material reviewed for this article does not establish a reliable total of 10, 15 or 20 banned influencers. Discussions frequently combine individual video removals, trademark strikes, temporary restrictions and account suspensions as though they were the same event.
They are not.
Nor should every creator who criticised the company be counted as someone whose account was banned. Kai Porten and Cal Cologne, for example, published commentary on the dispute; those posts alone do not establish that their accounts were suspended. Kai Porten’s reaction video · Cal Cologne’s post
The distinction may seem fussy. It is the difference between reporting a controversy and inflating one.
The distributor’s defence: we report violations, platforms impose penalties
NOBILIS is a distributor and service partner, not simply another name for the perfume houses it represents. Its own website identifies relationships with brands including Creed and Amouage. Those relationships do not, by themselves, prove that either house authorised a particular complaint against a creator. NOBILIS—Creed · NOBILIS—Amouage
In a public statement, co-owner and CEO Udo Heuser rejected the suggestion that the company itself strikes creators:
“We at NOBILIS GROUP don’t strike creators. But we do consistently report any violations of the law—to protect the brands, the people, and the jobs across our industry.” NOBILIS GROUP on LinkedIn
The company’s explanation is that it reports alleged violations to platforms, which decide whether to issue strikes or restrict accounts. Its stated concern is advertising for imitation fragrances that uses established brands to promote cheaper products. NOBILIS GROUP on LinkedIn
That distinction is meaningful. A distributor does not control TikTok’s enforcement decisions.
But it does not end the discussion. A complaint can initiate a process with consequences far beyond the disputed video. The relevant questions are whether the complaint was appropriate, what evidence supported it and how carefully the platform assessed it.
TikTok’s published policy demonstrates the stakes. Copyright and trademark strikes are counted separately, and repeated infringement can result in account removal. Strikes may expire or be removed following a successful appeal or a retracted report. An individual content dispute can therefore escalate into an account-level problem. TikTok Support
“We only filed the report” explains who pressed which button. It does not establish whether pressing it was justified.
The legal line is not “never compare perfumes”
Some commentary presents the dispute as a collision between free speech and a German prohibition on comparisons.
The reality is more specific.
German law does not impose a blanket ban on comparative advertising. It sets conditions under which comparisons are unfair, including misleading comparisons, unfair exploitation of another trademark’s reputation and presenting a product as an imitation of goods sold under a protected mark. German Federal Ministry of Justice—§6 UWG
The European Court’s L’Oréal v Bellure decision is relevant because it addresses imitation-perfume marketing and the use of established trademarks. It restricts advertising that presents products as imitations and unfairly benefits from a famous mark’s reputation. It is not a general ruling that independent reviewers may never say two perfumes smell similar. EUR-Lex— L’Oréal v Bellure
NOBILIS has also publicised its success against dupe supplier ÉCLAT. According to the company’s press release, a German Federal Court of Justice decision in April 2025 made a Berlin appellate ruling final. The conduct described concerned the supplier’s use of customer reviews in marketing imitation fragrances—not a blanket prohibition on independent perfume reviewing. NOBILIS press release
That distinction is central.
A seller using “smells like a famous perfume” to market its imitation is not necessarily in the same position as a reviewer who bought two products and is describing their differences.
Sponsorships, affiliate commissions, sales links, the overall presentation and the applicable jurisdiction may complicate the assessment. Neither “I’m just giving my opinion” nor “our trademark appears in the video” settles the matter on its own.
The allegation that complicates the “dupes only” explanation
One of the most interesting pieces of material concerns Fragrance Flan.
In a reaction video, Kai Porten discusses a removed comparison involving two Amouage fragrances. At approximately 1:08, the video reproduces a creator-shared screenshot displaying an apparent TikTok trademark-removal notice. Readable text includes “Video removed” and “Claimed by: Nobilis Group GmbH.” The accompanying creator text describes comparing Amouage Elsewhere and Sindbad. Kai Porten’s reaction video
This requires careful handling. It is a screenshot reproduced inside commentary, not an independently authenticated platform record. It does not provide the complete complaint or establish the legal merits. Its displayed post date also means it should not be used to establish the timing of Deyzel’s suspension.
Nevertheless, it raises a direct question:
If the comparison involved two perfumes from the same house, what specific infringement was alleged?
An explanation focused entirely on cheap imitations does not, by itself, answer that.
The original video, full complaint and platform rationale would be necessary to resolve the allegation. Until then, it is a serious question—not a proven verdict.
Influencers do not get a free pass either
The backlash should not turn every fragrance creator into an automatically disinterested consumer champion.
Deyzel’s accessible Instagram profile links to a fragrance store and advertises decants. Porten’s video description links to his perfume retail business and includes an affiliate-link disclosure. Those connections do not establish that the disputed videos were advertisements or that either creator acted unlawfully. They demonstrate why commercial context matters. Noel Deyzel’s Instagram profile · Kai Porten’s video description
The wider concern about paid dupe promotion is legitimate. Trade reporting describes an industry argument that sponsored “identical to” or “better than” comparisons can cross the line from commentary into commercial promotion that exploits an established brand’s identity. But the material reviewed does not establish the payment arrangements behind each disputed video. Premium Beauty News
A sales pitch does not become independent advice because the presenter is likeable.
Equally, an honest review does not become unlawful simply because its conclusion is commercially inconvenient.
The sensible standard is the same for everyone: disclose the commercial relationship, substantiate the claim and explain the complaint.
Boycotts, threats and the limits of online outrage
Primetimer reported that Heuser said he had received death threats amid the backlash. The publication attributed to him a defence of trademark protection and criticism of dupe manufacturers as “highly professional pirates.” These are reported statements from Heuser, not independently verified findings about the threats or the businesses he criticised. Primetimer
Threats are unacceptable. They do not become defensible because somebody believes a reporting system was misused.
A boycott is different. Consumers and creators can decide where to spend their money and which products to feature. Reporting described Deyzel removing NOBILIS-distributed fragrances from his collection, while Patron publicly announced his decision to stop supporting the company’s brands. Primetimer · Patron Profumo’s post
But an online boycott is not evidence of financial damage. Without sales figures or documented changes in distribution relationships, claims that the controversy has cost brands millions would be speculation.
There is already enough here to scrutinise without inventing a balance sheet.
The accounts returned. The transparency problem remains.
Premium Beauty News reports that Deyzel regained access to his accounts after appealing. The accessible reporting does not establish the precise reinstatement time, the platform’s full reasoning or the outcome of every individual complaint. Premium Beauty News
Restoration is not a judicial declaration that every comparison was lawful. The original suspension was not a judicial declaration that it was unlawful.
What this dispute exposes is a transparency problem.
Consumers cannot meaningfully judge a recommendation without knowing whether it is commercially motivated. Creators cannot meaningfully challenge a complaint without understanding what was allegedly infringed. Brands cannot expect public confidence if the explanation stops at “we protect our rights.”
Platforms sit between all three.
The answer is not to abandon trademark protection. It is to distinguish more carefully between selling an imitation, reviewing an alternative and comparing two perfumes.
Luxury brands should be able to defend their work. Reviewers should be able to defend their conclusions. Consumers should not have to choose between corporate messaging and undisclosed salesmanship.
A perfume should earn its place on your shelf. A recommendation should earn your trust. And a platform strike should never be mistaken for a court judgment.
Reporting note and data limitations
This article draws on public company statements, trade reporting, creator posts, published legal material and a reproduced screenshot. It does not claim access to private platform records or original interviews.
A verified total of affected accounts, complete complaint files, the commercial arrangements behind each disputed video and the platforms’ full enforcement reasoning were not available. The German litigation is described using NOBILIS’s account of the 2024 ruling and 2025 appeal outcome, rather than the complete German judgments. The reproduced creator screenshot appears to contain a 2024 post date and cannot establish the timing of the 2026 controversy. Parfums de Marly’s involvement in the relevant complaints was not established and has therefore been excluded.