Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
jillian, if you want to dig in, here you can find the pdf's
Christian Louboutin S.A. et al v. Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc. et al Document 53 - :: Justia Docs
Chicks and shoes...
Just sayin'.
oh hell yeah....thats Jillians longest post in 2 years.........shoes!!
i have plenty longer.
i just don't bother when there's no convo to be had. plus, IP was a big part of my practice. it happens to be an area that interests me.... unlike the pointless blathering of obama deranged lunatics.
I'm backing Louboutins! One must have one's trademark red soles! I'm right, aren't I, mo chara?
i think the southern district judge had no clue what thenature of the red soles is. the court seemed to ignore the registration of the mark, which generally carries great weight initially. they were also overbroad in defining what was being sought and seemed to think louboutin was trying to keep st laurent from using the color red. obviously, they need an education in shoes. if it were my case, i'd argue that the laquered red soles made louboutins instantly identifiable so had taken on a secondary meaning beyond the color. I would also point out that the use of laquered red soles by any company other than louboutin would totally and completely devalue the mark and the product carrying it.
clearly someone needs to educate DCJ Marrero that the shiny red soles need to be protected in the same way that coke and pepsi need their marks protected. if you notice, tiffany's filed an amicus on louboutin's side... can you imagine if every jeweler decided to use the baby blue box?
Chicks and shoes...
Just sayin'.
oh hell yeah....thats Jillians longest post in 2 years.........shoes!!
California Girl said:Precisely! Well put, Lawyer Lady. It is absolutely fundamental to Louboutin's to protect their trademark red sole. I totally love that flash of vamp red!
Dammmmit to hell and back.... St L's are just pissed cuz they didn't think of such a brilliant move!
oh hell yeah....thats Jillians longest post in 2 years.........shoes!!
Blind much...?
i know. one would think a real moderator would see an interseting conversaton happening and not troll it.
ah well...
Chicks and shoes...
Just sayin'.
oh hell yeah....thats Jillians longest post in 2 years.........shoes!!
And that is a problem?
Besides, it's not about the shoes, it's about the trademark red sole. You clearly know nothing of the importance of Louboutins!
I'm backing Louboutins! One must have one's trademark red soles! I'm right, aren't I, mo chara?
i think the southern district judge had no clue what thenature of the red soles is. the court seemed to ignore the registration of the mark, which generally carries great weight initially. they were also overbroad in defining what was being sought and seemed to think louboutin was trying to keep st laurent from using the color red. obviously, they need an education in shoes. if it were my case, i'd argue that the laquered red soles made louboutins instantly identifiable so had taken on a secondary meaning beyond the color. I would also point out that the use of laquered red soles by any company other than louboutin would totally and completely devalue the mark and the product carrying it.
clearly someone needs to educate DCJ Marrero that the shiny red soles need to be protected in the same way that coke and pepsi need their marks protected. if you notice, tiffany's filed an amicus on louboutin's side... can you imagine if every jeweler decided to use the baby blue box?
it is most definitely not baby blue... it is robins egg blue..... please no disrespecting the blue.
California Girl said:Precisely! Well put, Lawyer Lady. It is absolutely fundamental to Louboutin's to protect their trademark red sole. I totally love that flash of vamp red!
Dammmmit to hell and back.... St L's are just pissed cuz they didn't think of such a brilliant move!
heck. I'm sorry I didn't think of it. Lol
oh hell yeah....thats Jillians longest post in 2 years.........shoes!!
And that is a problem?
Besides, it's not about the shoes, it's about the trademark red sole. You clearly know nothing of the importance of Louboutins!
it has been noted- shoes + women = madness....
i know. one would think a real moderator would see an interseting conversaton happening and not troll it.
ah well...
it was actually a joke, you know the emoticons and all I went and found outside the site to try and convey the meaning, ah well.
gratuitous mod comment noted, for shame....
it has been noted- shoes + women = madness....
Chicks and shoes...
Just sayin'.
oh hell yeah....thats Jillians longest post in 2 years.........shoes!!
And that is a problem?
Besides, it's not about the shoes, it's about the trademark red sole. You clearly know nothing of the importance of Louboutins!
2,800,000,000, that;s 2.8 billion pairs of shoes were sold in the USA last year....that's about 7- 8 pairs plus bought per person....
It's an awesome industry/business!
There's no business like Shoe Business!
oh hell yeah....thats Jillians longest post in 2 years.........shoes!!
And that is a problem?
Besides, it's not about the shoes, it's about the trademark red sole. You clearly know nothing of the importance of Louboutins!
I know. It just cracks me up that it's such a big industry and now we've got legal IP battles over sole color. Sole color!
I think the precedent ya'all are looking for is Owens Corning re: The color pink.
