Search for: "United States v. Laurent"
Results 1 - 20
of 53
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Sep 2023, 2:45 pm
Nick was joined by Christina Martin, a senior attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation who argued the case to the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
16 Sep 2016, 9:23 am
United States v. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 1:07 pm
Earlier today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in Christian Louboutin S.A. v. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 1:07 pm
Earlier today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in Christian Louboutin S.A. v. [read post]
17 Apr 2011, 6:41 pm
No. 3376197; it’s been on the books in the United States since January 2008, with a claimed priority date of March 8, 2006. [read post]
9 Aug 2008, 3:17 pm
United States, 2008 U.S. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 6:50 pm
United States Patent and Trademark Office - Trademark Basics [read post]
28 Jul 2008, 1:17 pm
United States v. [read post]
18 Mar 2009, 9:00 am
In Adamowicz v. [read post]
20 Apr 2008, 3:21 pm
United States v. [read post]
5 Sep 2012, 10:46 am
He registered the red lacquered outsole as a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 2008. [read post]
9 Apr 2011, 8:20 pm
Yves Saint Laurent is a unit of Paris-based PPR, which owns Gucci and other luxury brands. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 6:22 am
United States v. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 3:17 pm
The United States Patent and Trademark Office does not register trademarks it considers aesthetically functional. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 12:00 pm
YSL's attorneys therefore maintained that Louboutin is not entitled to a trademark for the red soles, citing the United States Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Qualitex v. [read post]
18 Feb 2009, 9:41 am
Kaster) (hsj, ) (Entered: 02/18/2009)United States v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 9:35 pm
United States Steel Corporation [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 10:12 am
Yves Saint Laurent America Holding, Inc., 778 F.Supp.2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (No. 11-3303). [read post]
27 Aug 2018, 3:11 pm
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… [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 7:24 am
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rendered judgment last year, overturning the district court’s finding that the red soles could not be trademarked. [read post]
