Reserve Media, Inc. v. Efficient Frontiers, Inc.
| Reserve Media, Inc. |
| Does and Efficient Frontiers, Inc. |
| 2:2015cv05072 |
| July 6, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Dean D. Pregerson |
| Alicia G. Rosenberg |
| Trademark |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
385
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND NON-TAXABLE COSTS 375 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc)
|
|
Filing
368
JUDGMENT by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Judgment is entered on Defendant and Counter-Claimant Efficient Frontiers, Inc. (EFI) Counterclaims as follows:1. EFIs Counterclaims are all dismissed on the merits with prejudice;2. EFI shall take nothing by way of its Counterclaims; and 3. Reserve shall recover its costs as the prevailing party on EFIs Counterclaims. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that judgment is entered on Reserves Complaint for Declaratory Relief. (SEE FILE AS TO SPECIFIC TRADEMARKS AS LISTED). (lc)
|
|
Filing
359
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS THIRD MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 305 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The Court GRANTS Reserves Third Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that there is no triable issue of fact as to the infringement of the RESERVE Q marks. Further, having granted summary judgment in favor of Reserve on all of EFIs counterclaims for infringement, the court finds that judgment is also appropriate on Reserves declaratory claim for non-infringement. In light of this order, all pending motions are hereby vacated. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lc). Modified on 4/14/2017 .(lc).
|
|
Filing
296
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS SECOND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 252 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: The Court GRANTS Reserves Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in part.Specifically, the court concludes: 1) EFIs RESERVE IT, RESERVE IT 2.0, RE SERVE GATEWAY, and RESERVE CLOUD are not protectable as a matter of law; 2) there is no infringement of the RESERVE INTERACTIVE design mark or the RESERVE ANYWHERE mark; and 3) there is no willful infringement of any of EFIs marks. The court further orders the parties to file cross motions for summary judgment addressing whether there is a triable issue of fact as to trademark infringement of the RESERVE Q marks. The parties cross motions shall be due on January 30, 3017. Any oppositions thereto shall be filed by February 6, 2017. Any reply briefs shall be due by February 13, 2017. The motions shall be set for hearing on February 27, 2017. The final pretrial conference is hereby continued to March 13, 2017 and the trial date is hereby continued to March 21, 2017. (lc). Modified on 1/12/2017 .(lc).
|
|
Filing
235
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 106 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFICS). (lc). Modified on 11/29/2016. (lc).
|
|
Filing
163
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 106 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson.(SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFICS). (lc) Modified on 10/21/2016. (lc).
|
|
Filing
57
MODIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg re MOTION for Order for Modify Protective Order 36 . SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. ***** NOTE CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT. ***** (mp)
|
|
Filing
27
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. re Stipulation for Protective Order 26 . (See Order for Further Details) (kl)
|
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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
