Can you explain the historical patent litigation context behind Christian Louboutin exclusive rights to the lacquered red sole on high heels?
Download run
Fan-out diagram
The searches the AI actually ran for this prompt.
SEED QUERY
Can you explain the historical patent litigation context behind Christian Louboutin exclusive rights to the lacquered red sole on high heels?
3 real searches · 1 real-search pass
Christian Louboutin Yves Saint Laurent red sole trademark litigation Second Circuit 2012 opinion historyGoogle ↗
OBSERVED
Louboutin v Yves Saint Laurent 2011 district court 2012 Second Circuit opinion red sole trademark registration 2008Google ↗
OBSERVED
CJEU Christian Louboutin red sole trademark 2018 Van Haren judgmentGoogle ↗
OBSERVED
Badge and edge weight = share of passes that produced the query. Hover a query for its intent and routing format.
Query classes
Google's semantic query class for every sub-query: what kind of answer each search is after, simulated vs real.
Classifying 3 queries…
Searches and sources
ChatGPT3 real searches · gpt-6
Christian Louboutin Yves Saint Laurent red sole trademark litigation Second Circuit 2012 opinion history Google ↗
Louboutin v Yves Saint Laurent 2011 district court 2012 Second Circuit opinion red sole trademark registration 2008 Google ↗
CJEU Christian Louboutin red sole trademark 2018 Van Haren judgment Google ↗
- Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Inc., No. 11-3303 (2d Cir. 2012) :: Justia · law.justia.com
- OPINION, Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded by JAC CJS DAL , FILED for Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Inc :: Justia Dockets & Filings · docs.justia.com
- ALSTON+BIRD LLP · alston.com
- f3d rep bv 696 · law.berkeley.edu
- Microsoft Word · govinfo.gov
- Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holding, Inc., No. 11-3303 (2d Cir. 2013) :: Justia · law.justia.com
- Reports of CasesJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)12 June 2018*(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity — · eur-lex.europa.eu
- Case C-163/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 June 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag — Netherlands) — Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of the product — Concept of ‘shape’ — Colour — Position on a part of the product — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 2 · eur-lex.europa.eu
- C-163/16 • Louboutin and Christian louboutin • 12 JUN 2018 • Trade marks: Validity · acr.amsterdam
Queries
3 queries · click a column to sort
| Query / type | Search | Intent | Query class | Routing format | Cluster | Freq ↓ | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Christian Louboutin Yves Saint Laurent red sole trademark litigation Second Circuit 2012 opinion history OBSERVED | Google ↗ AI Mode ↗ | — | — | — | — | 1x of 1 | |
Louboutin v Yves Saint Laurent 2011 district court 2012 Second Circuit opinion red sole trademark registration 2008 OBSERVED | Google ↗ AI Mode ↗ | — | — | — | — | 1x of 1 | |
CJEU Christian Louboutin red sole trademark 2018 Van Haren judgment OBSERVED | Google ↗ AI Mode ↗ | — | — | — | — | 1x of 1 |