Search for: "USA v. Rolex Watch" Results 1 - 16 of 16
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Feb 2024, 6:31 am by Linda Panszczyk
As for the injunction, the Fifth Circuit agreed with Rolex that the district court should have enjoined the sale of Rolex watches with non-genuine bezels, thus affirming, as modified, the district court’s injunction in part (Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Jul 2007, 10:00 am
An upscale Suffolk County watch and jewelry retailer, Maddaloni Jewelers, Inc., claimed that luxury wristwatch manufacturer, Rolex Watch USA, Inc. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
  Justice Baxter: Let’s say a watch represented to be a Rolex and it’s not. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 1:41 am
Indústria e Comércio v OHIM, Consorci de l'Espai Rural de Gallecs (Class 46) CFI: John Deere prevails before CFI with colour combination mark: BCS v OHIM, Deere (Class 46) (IPKat) CFI finds trademarks containing common element in identical font confusingly similar in Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co v Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (Class 46) CFI: RNAiFect and RNActive: who would get confused? [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 1:41 am
Indústria e Comércio v OHIM, Consorci de l'Espai Rural de Gallecs (Class 46) CFI: John Deere prevails before CFI with colour combination mark: BCS v OHIM, Deere (Class 46) (IPKat) CFI finds trademarks containing common element in identical font confusingly similar in Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co v Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (Class 46) CFI: RNAiFect and RNActive: who would get confused? [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 1:41 am
Indústria e Comércio v OHIM, Consorci de l'Espai Rural de Gallecs (Class 46) CFI: John Deere prevails before CFI with colour combination mark: BCS v OHIM, Deere (Class 46) (IPKat) CFI finds trademarks containing common element in identical font confusingly similar in Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co v Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (Class 46) CFI: RNAiFect and RNActive: who would get confused? [read post]
6 Feb 2011, 5:15 pm
x Consumer Law and Policy Blog reports: In a closely watched case, the California Supreme Court on Thursday issued a decision preserving the broad availability of the state’s principal consumer protection laws in cases involving mislabeled goods.The question at issue in Kwikset v. [read post]