For Lawyers | Log In | Join | Upload
WORKING... advanced

Incontestable - August/September 2011

more+
less-

In this issue: Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am., Inc., 2011 WL 3505350 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011); Fair Isaac Corp. v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., 2011 WL 3586429 (8th Cir. Aug. 17, 2011); Habush v. Cannon, 09-CV-18149 (Milwaukee County Cir. Ct. June 8, 2011); Levi Strauss & Co. v. Papikian Enters., Inc., 2011 WL 3739550 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2011); Quia Corp. v. Mattel, Inc., 2011 WL 2749576 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2011); Nike, Inc. v. Maher, Opp. No. 91188789 (TTAB Aug. 9, 2011); and Reviewing the Situation.

Excerpt from 'Christian Louboutin...':

The Southern District of New York denied Christian Louboutin S.A.’s (“Louboutin”) request for a preliminary injunction preventing competitor Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc. (“YSL”) from selling monochromatic red shoes that Louboutin claimed infringed on its registered trademark for “a lacquered red sole on footwear.” Finding that the use of a single color is functional when used in fashion design, the district court denied relief and issued a Show Cause Order requiring Louboutin to show that its federal registration should not be cancelled.

Please see full publication below for more information.


LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Civil Remedies Updates, Commercial Law & Contracts Updates, Intellectual Property Updates, Personal Injury Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Finnegan | Attorney Advertising

×

Expand Your Reach

JD Supra gets your content noticed, increases your visibility and makes your marketing efforts hassle free...

Learn More  or  Schedule a demo