Search for: "State v. Stokke"
Results 1 - 9
of 9
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jun 2010, 9:06 am
Stokke, 348 Ore. 114, 228 P3d 1213 (2010) (reconsider in light of State v. [read post]
21 Oct 2014, 5:03 am
KG v Stokke A/S, Stokke Nederland BV, Peter Opsvik and Peter Opsvik A/S was decided on 18 September, but this Kat -- who has been beset by a succession of happy distractions -- has only just got round to writing it up for the weblog. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 8:20 am
Tripp TrappWith that background, the IP High Court of Japan recently issued a Judgment (Stokke v Katoji, Intellectual Property High Court, April 14, 2015, Hei 26 (ne) No. 10063) which recognized the copyright in an industrial design, namely for the TRIPP TRAPP children’s chair (Stokke has known some IP trials and tribulations for the same chair in Europe, see here). [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 2:30 am
KG v Stokke A/S, in which the dispute centered around children's chairs. [read post]
25 Oct 2009, 7:38 am
State v. [read post]
27 Oct 2014, 5:27 am
KG v Stokke A/S, Stokke Nederland BV, Peter Opsvik and Peter Opsvik A/S, a decision where the CJEU addressed the trade mark absolute grounds of “substantial value” and “shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves”. [read post]
9 Sep 2015, 2:49 am
Advocate General Szpunar, in his opinion in Hauck, states at the referred to passage (emphasis added):99. [read post]
8 Dec 2014, 4:24 am
At present, there is no common standard for copyright protection within the EU, so little prospect of pan-European relief for copyright infringement, whereas trade mark law offers far better prospects of such relief,Functionality of protectable subject matter came next, with discussion focusing on the ruling of the Court of Justice ruling in the TRIPP TRAPP case [Case C-205/13 Hauck v Stokke, noted by the IPKat here]. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 6:07 am
This point could be inferred from the reasoning of the Advocate General and the CJEU in Case C-205/13 Hauck GmbH & Co KG v Stokke A/S, which indicated that an important purpose of Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of the Trade Marks Directive was to prevent the use of indefinite trade marks protection to extend the time-limited protection of other intellectual property rights. [read post]
