David Blachley v. Blinds to Go (US) Inc. et al
| David W. Blachley and David W Blachley |
| Blinds to Go (US) Inc., Blinds to Go Inc., Stephen Shiller and Nkere Udofia |
| 2:2024cv01632 |
| February 27, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Charles F Eick |
| Consuelo B Marshall |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1051 Trademark Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 25, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;REVIEW AND REVERSAL OF TTABDECISION; DECLARATORY JUDGMENTOF CANCELATION OF MORVIEW MARKREGISTRATION; INFRINGEMENT OFPATENTS; COMMON LAW TRADEMARKINFRINGEMENT OF THE MORVIEWMARK; FEDERAL UNFAIR COMPETITIONWITH RESPECT TO THE MORVIEW MARK; STATUTORY UNFAIR COMPETITION WITH RESPECT TO THE MORVIEW TRADEMARK; COMMON LAW INFRINGEMENT OF THE MORVIEW TRADE DRESS; BREACH OF CONTRACT; BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALINGS; TRADEMARK COUNTERFEITING AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL against Defendants Blinds to Go (US) Inc., Blinds to Go Inc., Stephen Shiller, Nkere Udofia amending Complaint - (Discovery), #1 , filed by Plaintiff David W Blachley(shb) |
Filing 12
ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: Granting #2 REQUEST to Proceed in Forma Pauperis: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: The Request is GRANTED. (bm)
|
| Filing 10 REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION Regarding a Patent or a Trademark (Initial Notification) filed by David W. Blachley. (rolm) |
| Filing 11 DEMAND for Jury Trial filed by plaintiff David W. Blachley.(rolm) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall: granting #4 APPLICATION for Pro Se Electronic Filing. The applicant must register to use the Courts CM/ECF System within five (5) days of being served with this order. Registration information is available at the Pro Se Litigant E- Filing web page located on the Courts website. Upon registering, the applicant will receive a CM/ECF login and password that will allow him/her to file non- sealed documents electronically in this case only. Any documents being submitted under seal must be manually filed with the Clerk. (lom)
|
|
Filing 8
STANDING ORDER upon filing of the complaint by Judge Consuelo B. Marshall. READ THIS ORDER CAREFULLY. It controls this case and may differ in some respects from the Local Rules. See order for details. (ys)
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE TO COUNSEL RE: Copyright, Patent and Trademark Reporting Requirements. Counsel shall file the appropriate AO-120 and/or AO-121 form with the Clerk within 10 days. (jtil) |
| Filing 6 Notice to Counsel Re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge. (jtil) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall and Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. (jtil) |
| Filing 4 APPLICATION for Pro Se Litigant to electronically file documents in a specific case filed by Plaintiff David W. Blachley. (jtil) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff David W. Blachley. (jtil) |
| Filing 2 REQUEST to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Declaration in Support filed by Plaintiff David W. Blachley. (jtil) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff David W. Blachley against Defendant Blinds to Go (US) Inc., Blinds to Go Inc. Case assigned to Judge Consuelo B. Marshall for all further proceedings. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick. (Attachments: #1 CV71) (jtil) |
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 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.
