RooR International BV et al v. Meert Tobacco, Inc et al
Sream Inc and RooR International BV |
Kevin Meert, Meert Tobacco, Inc. d/b/a Smoke Shop and Meert Tobacco Inc |
3:2019cv00095 |
February 15, 2019 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
Michael G Gotsch |
Philip P Simon |
Trademark |
15 U.S.C. ยง 1051 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on February 19, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Kevin Meert, Meert Tobacco Inc. NOTE:The attached document is accessible by court personnel only. Summons forms that were electronically submitted to the court for issuance will be returned to counsel via e-mail. (sct) |
Judge Philip P Simon and Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr added. (New Case) (sct) |
Filing 3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by RooR International BV, Sream Inc. (Chance, Jonathan) |
Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan Grant Chance on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Chance, Jonathan) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0755-3811657.), filed by RooR International BV, Sream Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Ex A to Complaint, #2 Exhibit Ex B. to Complaint, #3 Exhibit Ex. C to Complaint, #4 Exhibit Ex. D to Complaint, #5 Exhibit Ex. E to Complaint, #6 Civil Cover Sheet, #7 Supplement notice to PTO, #8 Proposed Summons, #9 Proposed Summons)(Chance, Jonathan) |
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 Indiana Northern 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.