Sunday, October 31, 2010

haunted

Drink and be scary.
Photo by: Cheeky form the blog Cheekyxoxo

6 comments:

  1. Oh my god. This is unbelievably amazing. Where did you find this??

    ReplyDelete
  2. I pulled it off of tunblr with no source....siiiick right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The pull of all your posts is the visual integrity and your honest potrayals of corners of art, fashion and culture that escape mainstream blogs. Nice.

    http://welovefriedeggs.blogspot.com/2010/12/dark-fetishsm.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. s inconsistent with trade mark protection under the Lanham Act. In the US colors per se can be registered as a trade mark if they have acquired a secondary meaning and if they are non-functional. That is to say that if a Christian Louboutin Outletcolor acts as a symbol that distinguishes a brand's goods and identifies their source, without serving any other significant function, then the mark is capable of being registered

    estive, arbitrary or fanciful. Generic marks are the only class of marks not protected under trademark law. The red outsoles of the Louboutin shoes qualify as a descriptive mark, as descriptive marks may include shapes, Christian Louboutin Flatssounds, smells and even colors. Descriptive marks are protectable, but only with proof of secondary meaning. The burden is on the owner of the mark to show that overtime consumers

    at the same time flirty and chic and young."I definitely keep it safe because I'm not that kind of girl. I'm not risque - I'm very normal and grounded. So I definitely don't want to get older when I have a lot of time to do that." – Bang MediaI am forced to pinch her christian louboutin sale shoulder, encouraging her:" I accompany you in."Uncle was still sound asleep. Quilt show he looks strange

    fashion unprotectable, with the presumption that a visually appealing mark is necessary for free competition since fashion is premised on aesthetic beauty. The Ninth Circuit recognized the implications of such a Christian Louboutin Daffodilstandard in Vuitton et Fils S.A. v. J. Young Enterprises, where it rejected the contention that Louis Vuitton's mark was aesthetically functional merely because it appealed to consumers.Sc

    ReplyDelete
  5. The image belongs to me! Can you please credit it?

    ReplyDelete