Search for: "Tiffany C v. ADES" Results 41 - 59 of 59
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jul 2020, 12:38 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Endorsement by Monroe means something v. different from endorsement by ABG but courts have refused to distinguish those things. [read post]
9 Jan 2009, 7:00 am
Please join the discussion by adding your comments on any of these stories, and please do let us know if you think we’ve missed something important, or if there is a source you think should be monitored. [read post]
23 Dec 2007, 8:00 pm
Please join the discussion by adding your comments on any of these stories, and please do let me know if you think we've missed something important, or if there is a source you think should be monitored. [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 11:57 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  Strong evidence of congruence: sex in ads works better when product has something to do with sex—perfume, jeans, hotel rooms v. iron skillets. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 8:11 am by Rebecca Tushnet
 Coca-Cola’s treatment in Canada v. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 4:14 am by Marie Louise
(EPLAW) Cheapflights: OHIM excludes likelihood of confusion between conflicting signs, due to very low degree of distinctive character of earlier marks: T-460/09; T-461/09  (Class 46) General Court upholds opposition brought  by PEPE JEANS against PEPEQUILLO CTM application: T-580/08 (Class 46) Royal treatment rejected in Luxembourg: T-397/09 (Class 46) ‘G’: Emram v OHIM: Guilty against Gucci (Class 46) General Court: summer time I and II – ‘Space of… [read post]