Provell Inc v. 1703408 Ontario Inc Limited

Plaintiff: Provell Inc
Defendant: 1703408 Ontario Inc Limited
Case Number: 3:2010cv00013
Filed: February 16, 2010
Court: North Dakota District Court
Office: Southeastern Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Ralph R. Erickson
Referring Judge: Karen K. Klein
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
March 15, 2010 22 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER by Chief Judge Ralph R. Erickson granting 4 Motion for TRO and 14 Amended Motion for TRO. The Court also waives the posting of a bond. (SH)

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 North Dakota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Provell Inc v. 1703408 Ontario Inc Limited
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Provell Inc
Represented By: Michael T. Andrews
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: 1703408 Ontario Inc Limited
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.