KM Mentor, LLC et al v. Knowledge Management Professional Society,Inc. et al
| 2:2006cv02381 |
| September 12, 2006 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Kansas City Office |
| James P. O'Hara |
| Kathryn H. Vratil |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 Trademark Infringement |
| Both |
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
129
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 87 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; granting in part and denying in part 90 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 96 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 98 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 111 Motion to Strike Declarations in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. See Order for details. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 5/13/2010. (cm)
|
|
Filing
109
ORDER granting 78 Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Plaintiff's Claims of Defamation; finding as moot 82 Motion to Strike Declarations filed in support of motion for partial summary judgement against claims of defamation. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 7/22/2009. (cm)
|
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 Kansas 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
| Search for this case: KM Mentor, LLC et al v. Knowledge Management Professional Society,Inc. et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
