Search for: "Richemont International SA" Results 1 - 7 of 7
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jan 2015, 11:34 am
Bond Street Photo Wikipedia In Cartier International AG and Others v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd and Others [2014] EWHC 3354 (Ch), [2014] WLR(D) 464 three of the subsidiaries of Compagnie Financière Richemont SA applied to Mr Justice Arnold for injunctions against the five largest internet service providers ("ISPs") in the UK in the following terms: "1. [read post]
22 Mar 2008, 6:36 am
Die Richemont International SA klagte als Inhaberin der Marken "IWC" gegen die WMC Logo Concept GmbH, die Uhren mit der Bezeichnung "WMC" anbietet (Website), vor dem OGer SH gestützt auf UWG und teilweise erfolgreich auf Unterlassung. [read post]
14 May 2012, 2:59 am
A review of the recent submissions filed by INTA will reveal not only a large number of US cases, as may be expected, but also a growing number of European cases, covering key issues in Europe such as Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (Richemont International SA v Russian Patent and Trademark Office, Arbitrazh Court of Moscow, see INTA brief here), goods in transit (Nokia Corporation v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs (HMRC) before the CJEU, see… [read post]
13 Jun 2017, 10:53 am by Barry Sookman
Aug. 8, 2014) Richemont International SA v Chen, Case (SDNY Jan. 4, 2013) ABS-CBN Corporation v Cinesilip.net 2017 WL 1628900 (S.D.Fla. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 10:10 am by Marty Schwimmer
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 has been posted on the Court’s website. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 9:26 am by Barry Sookman
Several such cases are cited in the arguments of [International Federation of Film Producers Associations and International Federation of the Phonographic Industry], including APC v. [read post]
19 Nov 2017, 5:45 am by Barry Sookman
District Court order (the “Google Order”) abrogated a fundamental principle of international law by failing to subject the Equustek Order to traditional principles that govern the enforcement of foreign judgments demanded by principles of private international law and international comity. [read post]