Search for: "Good v. Good" Results 5701 - 5720 of 76,265
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jun 2017, 12:20 am
The case reference is Christian Louboutin and Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV, C-163/16.More specifically, the Dutch court is asking the CJEU to answer this question:“Is the notion of ‘shape’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive C (‘Form’, ‘vorm’ and ‘forme’ in the German, Dutch and French language versions of the Trade Marks Directive respectively) limited to the three-dimensional… [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 9:23 am by Marcel Pemsel
The applicant relied on the AS v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (case C‑541/18, IPKat here). [read post]
21 Feb 2013, 4:08 am
In its view, Seven's earlier trade marks had acquired an average distinctive character on the Italian market in relation to those goods, but rejected the opposition in respect of all the other goods. [read post]
17 Jan 2013, 9:56 am
However, there is a subtle but potentially important distinction between "all goods/services in the class" and the goods/services appearing in the Nice alphabetical list. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 12:24 pm
Today the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its ruling in Case C‑583/12 Sintax [or, if you prefer, Syntax: the CJEU uses both spellings] Trading OÜ v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus, a reference for a preliminary ruling from Estonia's Riigikohus. [read post]
23 Jul 2024, 7:53 am by Dan Farber
The Supreme Court struck down the Obama rule in a case called West Virginia v. [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 7:19 am by Andrew Berger
The BNA Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal recently published my article dealing with the aftermath of the deadlock in Costco v. [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 12:16 am by Julius Stobbs
These principles were all recently explored again in the CJEU case of Junek Europ-Vertrieb v Lohmann & Rauscher International Case C-642/16. [read post]
26 Jan 2009, 12:30 pm
Eurodif, S.A. et al, together with No. 07-1078, USEC Inc. et al. v. [read post]