GUERLAIN, INC.,

v.

UNITED STATES; PARFUMS CORDAY, INC., V. UNITED STATES; AND LANVIN PARFUMS, INC., V. UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
  …r.1912). Cf. Saeman v. Everest & Jennings, Inc., 343 F.Supp. 457, 461-62 (N.D.Ill.1972) (action stayed pending foreign proceeding filed three years earlier). . See James v. Grand Trunk Western R.R. Co., 14 Ill.2d 356, 152 N.E. 2d 858, cert. denied, 358 U.S. 915, 79 S.Ct. 288, 3 L.Ed.2d 239 (1958). Compliance with interlocutory orders may be protected from foreign interference as well. Omnium Lyonnais D'Etancheite et Revetement Asphalte v. Dow Chemical Co., 441 F.Supp. 1385 (C.D.Cal.1977) (enjoining use of…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• Vivitar Corp. v. The United States, 761 F.2d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
  …w such exclusions of “genuine” goods and that the government would seek legislation to clarify that the products of an affiliate of the U.S. trademark owner were not subject to the exclusion remedy. The Supreme Court granted the government's motion. 358 U.S. 915 (1958). Efforts to obtain such legislation proved unfruitful. See H.R. 7234, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959). In 1959, apparently as a result of the Guerlain situation, Customs expressly went back to the more limited 1936 exception, i.e., importation…
• Coal. TO Preserve THE Integrity OF Am. Trademarks v. United States, 790 F.2d 903 (D.C. Cir. 1986)
  …the suit, noting the existence of intragovernmental conflict over the interpretation of Section 526 and suggesting that new legislation would be introduced to settle the controversy. Appellee’s Motion to Vacate at 7, Guerlain, Inc. v. United States, 358 U.S. 915, 79 S.Ct. 285, 3 L.Ed.2d 236 (1958). According to the Solicitor General, the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division considered Section 526 unavailable to American subsidiaries of foreign trademark owners, while Customs regarded itself as “legally…