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

KATZ v. RBI DEVELOPMENT LLC

(What's this?) What is the EasyEdit button? This website gets better when people like you add to it. Just click the EasyEdit button to start. (help)
Plaintiff:JAMES R. KATZ
Defendant:RBI DEVELOPMENT LLC
 
Case Number:2:2008cv00789
Filed:June 9, 2008
 
Court:Pennsylvania Western District Court
Office:Pittsburgh Office [ Court Info ]
County:Allegheny
Presiding Judge: David S. Cercone
 
Nature of Suit:Intellectual Property - Trademark
Cause:15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Jurisdiction:Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:Plaintiff
Search for this case: KATZ v. RBI DEVELOPMENT LLC
Search Blogs[ Justia BlawgSearch | BlawgSearch Google Co-op | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Feedster | Google Blogsearch | Technorati ]
Search News[ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web[ Legal Web | Google | MSN | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: JAMES R. KATZ
Search Dockets[ Dockets ]
Search Blogs[ Justia BlawgSearch | BlawgSearch Google Co-op | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Feedster | Google Blogsearch | Technorati ]
Search News[ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance[ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web[ Legal Web | Google | MSN | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: RBI DEVELOPMENT LLC
Search Dockets[ Dockets ]
Search Blogs[ Justia BlawgSearch | BlawgSearch Google Co-op | Blawg.com | Bloglines | Feedster | Google Blogsearch | Technorati ]
Search News[ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance[ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web[ Legal Web | Google | MSN | Yahoo | Ask ]


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.