Designer Louboutin hits back in red sole lawsuit
Headline Legal News
Renowned French shoe designer Christian Louboutin has defended his court battle to protect his famous red stiletto soles.
Louboutin, who is suing fellow French fashion house Yves Saint Laurent for trademark infringement in a U.S. court, argues that he is not trying to monopolize the color red.
The designer said Monday he is defending his ownership to "a specific color in a specific place" of a shoe.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Louboutin called YSL's parent company PPR hypocritical because one of its brands, Gucci, also claims ownership of a specific color combination — red and green stripes — in its logo.
Louboutin was in London to open a major retrospective exhibition at the Design Museum to mark the 20th anniversary of the brand.
Related listings
-
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit
Headline Legal News 03/06/2012Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Molycorp, Inc. common stock during the period between March 9, 2011 and November 10,...
-
NY court decision bolsters anti-fracking movement
Headline Legal News 02/23/2012A New York court decision has bolstered a movement among towns determined to prevent the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas within their borders. A state Supreme Court justice on Tuesday upheld the town of Dryden's August ...
-
Court says police cannot be sued over warrant
Headline Legal News 02/22/2012The Supreme Court said Wednesday that California police officers cannot be sued because they used a warrant that may have been defective to search a woman's house. The high court threw out the lawsuit against Los Angeles County Sheriff's Detective Cu...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.