ROOR INTERNATIONAL BV et al v. MADISON STREET PHILLIPS 66 et al
| SREAM, INC. and ROOR INTERNATIONAL BV |
| MADISON STREET PHILLIPS 66, MR. JOHN DOE and JOHN DOE |
| 1:2018cv03950 |
| December 14, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Mark J Dinsmore |
| Tanya Walton Pratt |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1051 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 28, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF RELATED CASES, filed by Plaintiffs ROOR INTERNATIONAL BV, SREAM, INC. (Chance, Jonathan) |
| Filing 7 Corporate Disclosure Statement by SREAM, INC.. (Chance, Jonathan) |
| Filing 6 Corporate Disclosure Statement by ROOR INTERNATIONAL BV. (Chance, Jonathan) |
| Filing 5 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (HET) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to MADISON STREET PHILLIPS 66. (HET) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Initial Filing in lawsuit sent to Director of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (Attachments: #1 Complaint) (NAD) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan G. Chance on behalf of Plaintiffs ROOR INTERNATIONAL BV, SREAM, INC.. (Chance, Jonathan) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Filing fee $400, receipt number 0756-5198805) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 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 Southern 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.
