Critter Control, Inc. v. Critter Control of the Gulf Coast, LLC et al

Plaintiff: Critter Control, Inc.
Defendant: Critter Control of the Gulf Coast, LLC and Van Normand
Case Number: 1:2013cv00401
Filed: April 12, 2013
Court: Michigan Western District Court
Office: Southern Division (1) Office
County: Grand Traverse
Presiding Judge: Robert J. Jonker
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Trademark
Jury Demanded By: None

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Michigan Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Critter Control, Inc. v. Critter Control of the Gulf Coast, LLC et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Critter Control, Inc.
Represented By: Paul R. Fransway
Represented By: Bernard J. Fuhs
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 | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Critter Control of the Gulf Coast, LLC
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 | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Van Normand
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 | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.