After a few minutes, officers had fired at the shooter and sent her to the hospital, and paramedics worked on the woman she’s accused of killing, said Louisville Metro Police Chief Steve Conrad. They eventually stopped and pulled a white sheet over her body.

Emotions were running high during the second shooting, but there appears to be no connection between the slayings, Conrad said.

“We had people at the scene yelling,” said Conrad, who spent his day in the neighborhood west of downtown working with officers in that precinct before the shootings. “I don’t know if that played a role or not. This level of violent behavior is unacceptable.”

The shootings made the day the bloodiest in Louisville since at least July 5, 2011, when four people were killed, and Oct. 6, 2008, when a mother stabbed her two children, then killed herself on the same day two other homicides took place.

The officer, who was not immediately identified, will be placed on paid administrative leave during the investigation, the chief said.

Police had not released any names of the victims from either shooting or a motive for the first shooting.

Police spokesman Dwight Mitchell said that along with the two dead men in the first shooting, a third person who had been shot made his way about eight blocks from the scene and was then transported to University of Louisville Hospital.

Tekeya Anderson identified the female victim in the second shooting as her cousin, but her identity was not immediately confirmed by police.

“I guess she was in the wrong place at the wrong time and she got shot,” Anderson said. “She came down here and she got shot.”

______

Associated Press reporter Brett Barrouquere is on Twitter: http://twitter.com/BBarrouquereAP

In a 19-page opinion affirming that decision, Judge Boyce F. Martin waxed poetic about the history of Kentucky’s most famous distilled spirit. Martin, who noted at oral arguments in December that “Maker’s Mark is not cheap,” displayed a detailed knowledge of the history and manufacture of bourbon, writing that “corn-based mash and aging in charred new oak barrels impart a distinct mellow flavor and caramel color.”

“Distillers compete intensely on flavor, but also through branding and marketing; the history of bourbon, in particular, illustrates why strong branding and differentiation is important in the distilled spirits market,” Martin wrote.

He even cited the bourbon brands preferred by 19th century statesmen such as Ulysses S. Grant and Daniel Webster.

The Samuels family, which created Maker’s Mark in 1958, trademarked the distinctive seal in 1985. The seal, perfected by Margie Samuels in the family’s deep fryer, doesn’t serve any practical purpose in keeping the bottle closed.

The trademark held by Maker’s Mark describes the seal as a “wax-like coating covering the cap of the bottle and trickling down the neck of the bottle in a freeform irregular pattern.” The trademark application doesn’t refer to a specific color, but Maker’s Mark told the court it has sought to enforce the trademark only as it applied to the red dripping wax seal.

Deerfield, Ill.-based Fortune Brands, which now owns Maker’s Mark, has since split its liquor business into a new company called Beam Inc.

Cuervo opted to include a dripping wax seal on bottles in 1997 as part of an effort to create an artisan look. The bottles of Reserva with the new seal entered the U.S. market in 2001 in a limited production of 3,000-to-4,000 bottles. The bottles remained on sale in the U.S. for about three years.

Maker’s Mark, bottled in Loretto in central Kentucky, spends about $22 million annually to market its bourbon and sells about 800,000 cases a year. It sued over the seal in 2003, claiming it violated the long-standing trademark. Cuervo dropped the dripping wax seal six years ago.

Martin wrote for the court that “there is more than one way to seal a bottle with wax to make it look appealing.”

“We conclude that there is a likelihood of confusion between the products and that Cuervo has infringed,” Martin wrote for judges Karen Nelson Moore and Deborah L. Cook.

The court also upheld Heyburn’s decision to award Maker’s Mark $66,749 in attorney’s fees.

Rob Samuels, chief operating officer of Maker’s Mark, said the decision is “a resounding affirmation” that the seal is “off limits to competitors.”

“We’ve been confident in our position all along, and today’s outcome confirming that our unique trade dress cannot be infringed is great news for fans of Maker’s Mark, those who handcraft our bourbon, and those who individually dip each bottle every day,” Samuels said.

Kelly Whitten, a spokeswoman for Diageo said the company was disappointed with the ruling.

“However, the decision will have no practical effect on either Diageo’s or Tequila Cuervo’s business going forward, since neither has sold Cuervo products with dripping red wax seals since 2004,” Whitten said.

At oral arguments in December, Maker’s Mark attorney Edward T. Colbert told the judges that Cuervo had no need to use the wax seal because it serves no purpose other than eye-catching looks.

Attorneys for Diageo and Cuervo argued that using a wax seal wouldn’t cause customers to confuse the company’s tequila with the bourbon or believe the two companies were affiliated.

Martin quoted the late Justice Hugo Black who wrote, “I was brought up to believe that Scotch whiskey would need a tax preference to survive in competition with Kentucky bourbon.”

Martin added, “While there may be some truth in Justice Black’s statement that paints Kentucky bourbon as such an economic force that its competitors need government protection or preference to compete with it, it does not mean a Kentucky bourbon distiller may not also avail itself of our laws to protect its assets.”

___

Online:

Beam Inc. (formerly Fortune Brands): http://www.beamglobal.com/

Maker’s Mark: http://www.makersmark.com

Diageo: http://www.diageo.com

____

Follow Associated Press writer Brett Barrouquere on Twitter: http://Twitter.com/BBarrouquereAP

Limbaugh has been criticized for attacking student Sandra Fluke over contraception. He apologized but has lost some advertisers in the backlash.

A message left for the Preval Group Thursday was not immediately returned.

Concentra Health Services, based in Addison, Texas, runs more than 320 medical centers in 40 states offering occupational medicine, urgent care, primary care and physical therapy. The Preval Group is a marketing company that sells the memory pills.

The dispute came to a head on Monday, when the Preval Group aired an ad for the memory pill on Limbaugh’s radio show. Humana doesn’t advertise on the radio show, but officials say the Preval Group’s ad has resulted in people contacting the health care company and criticizing it for supporting Limbaugh’s show.

Concentra Health Services Vice President for Marketing Nancy Buttyan said in an affidavit that the company has been subject to “universally negative” posts and Twitter comments about the ad. Buttyan also said she’s responded to 30-40 emails from the public, including a Kentucky customer who said “I will stop using your services.”

Concentra has posted a link to a statement on its website labeled “Not On Rush.”

“We are not affiliated with this company or this product in any way. We apologize for any confusion created by this event, but assure you that this advertising is not from our company,” the company said on the website.

______

Online: Preval Group website:

Concentra Health Services website:

______

Associated Press reporter Brett Barrouquere is on Twitter: