Search for: "Haren v. Haren" Results 1 - 15 of 15
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jun 2018, 9:57 am by Jani Ihalainen
With that in mind, the decision has finally been released by the CJEU earlier this week.Even though the facts of Christian Louboutin v Van Haren Schoenen BV have been discussed extensively on this blog, they are worth revisiting. [read post]
12 Jun 2018, 9:57 am by Jani Ihalainen
With that in mind, the decision has finally been released by the CJEU earlier this week.Even though the facts of Christian Louboutin v Van Haren Schoenen BV have been discussed extensively on this blog, they are worth revisiting. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 3:00 pm
. 📷✍️📚Putting a Face to the Game: The Intellectual Property Implications of Using Celebrity Likenesses in Videogamesby Yin Harn LeeLecturer in Law, University of SheffieldLouboutin v Van Haren - AG Szpunar’s position on Louboutin’s red sole mark: a shoo-in for a shape markby Luxmi (“Lux”) RajanayagamQueen Mary, University of LondonStella McCartney v IMAX Srl - The protection of the ‘eco-friendly’ Falabella… [read post]
20 Feb 2018, 1:13 am by Jani Ihalainen
Even though the AG had given their opinion before, this is still an important consideration ahead of the Grand Chamber decision in the future.As a quick primer, the case of Christian Louboutin v Van Haren Schoenen BV dealt with a registered Benelux trademark owned by Louboutin (TM No. 0874489) for a high-heeled shoe with a red sole. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 1:12 am by Jani Ihalainen
A recent case involving this has been going through the European courts, and the Advocate General has finally given their two cents on the matter ahead of the CJEU's decision.The case of Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV concerns the registration of a mark in Benelux by Louboutin, comprising of a high-heel shoe with a red sole. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 11:44 pm
The Court of The Hague applied this decision and upheld the registration meaning that Van Haren infringed it (this conclusion followed from its earlier findings in 2015).Van Haren sought to resist this conclusion by raising, amongst other points, the issue in Textilis, which we cover [read post]
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… [read post]
27 Aug 2018, 3:11 pm by Afro Leo
  A happy outcome in the United States was the decision here  in Christian Louboutin S.A. v Yves Saint Laurent America Inc., No. 11-3303 (2d Cir. 2012) 1 ‘…the Red Sole Mark has acquired limited secondary meaning as a distinctive symbol that identifies the Louboutin brand, and…it is therefore a valid and protectable mark…’ (page 25) here.A second problem featured in the recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Christian… [read post]
17 Oct 2018, 3:59 am
     A one-line conclusion is all we end up with in the Louboutin red sole sagaChristian Louboutin v Van Haren Schoenen BV Case C‑163/16, CJEU (June 2018)This case looking at the nature of Louboutin’s attempt to protect the red sole of its famous footwear has been much discussed and debated amongst trade mark lawyers in its nine-year history. [read post]
9 Nov 2023, 9:05 pm by Brian Connor
Supreme Court’s 2019 Weyerhaeuser v. [read post]
8 May 2018, 6:37 am
    The Red Sole 2: Szpunar’s backChristian Louboutin v Van Haren Case C‑163/16 (February 2018)I debated whether or not to include this – Advocate General opinions aren’t the final word, and the CJEU does not always follow them. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 2:43 pm by Pace Law School Library
 Introduction by Paul Stanton Kibel and student Angela Haren Kelley;articles by Rebecca M. [read post]