Search for: "US v. Laurent" Results 81 - 100 of 126
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Oct 2022, 4:00 am by Administrator
Ciment du Saint-Laurent inc. c. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 10:36 pm by Marie Louise
(Class 99)   United States US General Federal Circuit judicial watch (Patently-O)   US Patent Reform USPTO prepares for historic rule making effort (Patents Post Grant Blog)   US Patents Top 5: Countries where US patents originate (Patent Quality Matters) Top 5: US patent classifications in 2010 (Patent Quality Matters) Essay: Not so confidential: A call for restraint in sealing court records (Patently-O) What Congress should do to improve… [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 9:38 am
 If red soles are more to your taste, the recent ruling in Louboutin v Yves St Laurent is given a make-over by US fashion law expert Charles Colman in his Styleite blog here. [read post]
15 Jan 2007, 10:13 am
Del Fabbro Laurent D2004-0481 (transfer denied). andMotorola, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 9:52 am
 The IPKat's keen pursuit of fresh news in the continuing saga of the Red Soles, with Louboutin lining up against Yves St Laurent, has brought him to Charles Colman's Law of Fashion blog. [read post]
13 Nov 2011, 7:57 pm
A trade mark registration is prima facie evidence that the mark is registered and valid (Lane Capital Mgmt v Lane Capital Mgmt (1999)). [read post]
12 Nov 2017, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
Please let us know if there are any media and law events which you would like us to list. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
Yves Saint Laurent, Decision and Order, No. 11 Civ. 2381 (SDNY Aug. 10, 2011). [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 2:36 am by Kelly
(IPBiz) US Patents USPTO extends deadline for Patent Application Exchange Program (Patent Docs) US Patents – Decisions District Court E D Texas: In an ‘exceptional’ case, court orders production of negotiations leading to license agreements: Clear with Computers, LLC v. [read post]
20 Apr 2015, 4:36 am by INFORRM
According to the judgment, the report contained “useful information (…) for the public” (District Court Brussels, 21 September 1999, AM 2000/3, 334). [read post]