Search for: "State v. Coty"
Results 41 - 60
of 65
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Nov 2013, 6:00 am
Coty, 264 U.S. 359 (1924). [read post]
21 Nov 2013, 4:22 am
for participation, by an act occurred in another Member State (Member State B), in violation of trade mark rights committed in the first Member State (Member State A )? [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 6:23 am
Coty, 264 U.S. 359 (1924). [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 6:57 am
If the Court wants member state input on what the shape of EU law should be, which I think it should, then it could perhaps try to find more time for Member States’ observations. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 5:00 am
In State v. [read post]
14 Nov 2012, 12:58 pm
The case is STATE OF KANSAS v. [read post]
14 Nov 2012, 11:58 am
The case is STATE OF KANSAS v. [read post]
9 May 2012, 5:54 am
(United States) Coty is a global cosmetic company. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 2:50 pm
., Prestonettes v. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 2:59 am
Where the proprietor of a trade mark supplies to its authorised distributors items bearing that mark, intended for demonstration to consumers in authorised retail outlets, and bottles bearing the mark from which small quantities can be taken for supply to consumers as free samples, those goods, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, are not put on the market within the meaning of Directive 89/104 and Regulation No 40/94 [= Case C-127/09 Coty Prestige Lancaster v Simex,… [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 2:58 am
324/09 L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie, L’Oréal (UK) Limited v eBay International AG, eBay Europe SARL and eBay (UK) Limited. [read post]
12 Feb 2011, 7:07 am
Lemley: think about mental state and the negligence analogy. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 3:37 am
[this fits with the Court's ruling in Case C-127/09 Coty Prestige Lancaster v Simex, noted by the IPKat here] (2), (3) and (4) The trade mark proprietor is entitled to oppose further commercialisation of the unboxed products within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104 and Article 13(2) of Regulation No 40/94 where the outer packaging have been removed from perfumes and cosmetics without the consent of the trade mark proprietor if, as a result of the removal of the… [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 11:02 am
Title: Smith v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 2:27 pm
Coty to support the truthful use of a mark to identify the topic of discussion. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 4:56 am
Duh. - ECJ ruling in Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v Simex Trading AG (IPKat) (Managing IP) Frisdranken/Red Bull dispute is referred to ECJ: Frisdranken Industrie Winters v Red Bull GmbH (Class 46) A serious reference or is somebody winding us up? [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 9:05 am
The perfume testers in the case at hand had been been obtained by a Coty dealer based in Singapore. [read post]
10 May 2010, 12:42 pm
Coty that a trademark may always be used to “tell the truth” about the identity of the goods and services at issue. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 5:00 am
(Class 46) Member States simplify international design registration system (WIPO) (Class 99) Greece Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki: Trying to claim damages in Greece: RP ABEE ALL DAY vs ALL DAY (Class 46) India Indian ‘Bayh Dole’ Bill keeps stirring a hornet’s nest (Spicy IP) India’s Bayh Dole: A blind legal transplant? [read post]
31 Aug 2009, 12:14 pm
On June 19, 2009, in Zino Davidoff SA v. [read post]
