Search for: "Champagne v. Champagne"
Results 61 - 80
of 305
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Mar 2010, 6:52 am
Luxury good maker Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy (LVMH), who produces Moet & Chandon champagne and Dior perfume, claimed that Google’s advertising polices violated their trademark. [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 1:52 pm
In Ponzetto v. [read post]
15 May 2015, 4:10 am
The majority opinion in Boyer-Liberto v. [read post]
30 Jun 2008, 9:51 pm
See Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, Section 1210.02, Fourth Edition (April 2005); citing Institut National des Appellations D'Origine v. [read post]
2 Mar 2017, 9:00 am
BackgroundThe recent High Court decision of Champagne Louis Roederer (CLR) v J Garcia Carrion SA & Others [2017] EWHC 289 (Ch) has a number of quirks in its factual matrix. [read post]
24 Apr 2008, 12:02 am
Moments ago, the Fifth Circuit handed down its decision in Ackermann v. [read post]
The BASMATI saga: General Court accommodates extended passing off within Community trade mark system
3 Oct 2015, 2:58 am
Like the law on passing off, it is a legal construction of UK courts which Danckwerts J first acknowledged in 1960 in Bollinger SA v Costa Brava Wine [this resulted from an action aimed at preventing the defendants from calling their product 'Spanish champagne'], and has more recently excited the minds and hearts (and possibly also the hunger) of passing off enthusiasts with, for instance, the Greek Yoghurt case [here, here and… [read post]
11 Oct 2015, 11:32 am
Earlier today this Kat posted a guest item by Katfriend Aaron Wood on the ruling of Mrs Justice Rose in Roederer v J Garcia Carrion S.A. [read post]
27 Sep 2023, 7:02 am
’ Id. at ¶ 32.Champagne v. [read post]
14 Feb 2010, 2:33 pm
The title says it all: The Widow Clicquot: The Story of a Champagne Empire and the Woman Who Ruled It (2009).In a scant 200 pages, the book illuminates a central fact: the signature on each bottle's egg-yolk-orange label, "V Clicquot Ponsardin," is not the autograph of a fictitious woman conjured, like Betty Crocker, by an office-full of admen. [read post]
4 Nov 2015, 1:49 pm
In the closing days of its September term, the Illinois Supreme Court heard oral argument in Petrovic v. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 1:15 am
Paul’s Retail Pty Ltd v Lonsdale Australia Limited [2012] FCAFC 130 Société Anonyme des Manujactures de Glaces v. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 8:33 am
Smith v. [read post]
11 Dec 2020, 5:00 pm
We thought of this in regard to Clarington v. [read post]
31 Jul 2008, 9:03 am
Roederer v. [read post]
31 Oct 2019, 1:34 am
Early Bird Standard = £510 Early Bird Group Ticket / IBIL Sponsor / UCL alumni = £433.50 Standard fee = £600 Standard Group Ticket / IBIL Sponsor / UCL alumni = £510 More information: here Fashion Law Seminar: Common Law v. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 11:31 am
Horton, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jan 2008, 5:50 am
The Court has a case on its docket involving that very dispute, and Tuesday’s ruling will be followed up soon, perhaps by next week, with action on that case — California Regents v. [read post]
19 Apr 2007, 6:20 am
Scarcely had the ink dried (metaphorically speaking) on the IPKat's brief posting on the ECJ's ruling in CELLTECH when he realised that his main task of the day still lay before him: to celebrate the ECJ's ruling in Case C-381/05, a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel, Brussels, in De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne, Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA.In short, De Landtsheer produces… [read post]
