Search Federal District Court filings
Party Name (optional):
Cases Filed In:
Lawsuit Type:
Show:
Cases Filed:
and

Intellectual Property - Trademark Cases filed in the Missouri Eastern District Court before David D. Noce [ Court Info ]

Results 1 - 4 of 4
Parties District Court Judge Type of Lawsuit Cause of Action
October 8, 2008
Builders Mutual Insurance Company v. Builders' Mutual Casualty Company MO Eastern Noce Trademark Federal Question
Plaintiff: Builders Mutual Insurance Company; Defendant: Builders' Mutual Casualty Company
 
March 10, 2008
Sensient Technologies Corporation et al v. SensoryEffects Flavor Company et al MO Eastern Noce Trademark Trademark Infringement
Plaintiff: Sensient Technologies Corporation, Sensient Technologies Corporation, Sensient Technologies Corporation, Sensient Technologies Corporation, Sensient Flavors LLC and others... Defendant: SensoryEffects Flavor Company, SensoryEffects Flavor Company, SensoryEffects Flavor Company, SensoryEffects Flavor Company, SensoryEffects Flavor Company and others...
 
March 9, 2007
St. Louis Cardinals, LLC v. Lewis
All eFiling documents (complaint, responses, associated filings) and court opinions & orders
court opinions & orders
MO Eastern Noce Trademark Trademark Infringement
Plaintiff: St. Louis Cardinals, LLC; Defendant: Douglas J. Lewis
 
May 12, 2005
Schroeder & Tremayne, Inc. v. Hunter Amenities International LTD MO Eastern Noce Trademark Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
         
Featured Case Includes court opinions, orders, and all eFiling documents (complaint, responses, associated filings).
Opinions Available Includes court opinions & orders.
Add to your RSS Reader Add to your Google Add to your My Yahoo Add to your My MSN Add to your My AOL Add to your Feedster Add to your Newsgator Add to your Bloglines Add to your NewsBurst Add to your Rojo Add to your Pluck
The Justia Federal District Court Filings & Dockets site republishes public litigation records retrieved from the US Federal District Courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Justia.