Coravin, Inc. v. Hello Good Deal, Inc. et al
| Coravin, Inc. |
| Hello Good Deal, Inc. and Lucas Veloso Soares |
| 1:2023cv12024 |
| August 31, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
| M Page Kelley |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 44 Trademark Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 29, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 Copy re 8 Order on Motion for Entry of Default, #9 Notice: Clerk's Entry of Default, #10 Notice: Clerk's Entry of Default, #11 Standing Order re motions for default judgment, mailed to defendants, Hello Good Deal, Inc. and Lucas Veloso Soares on 9/29/2023. (Vieira, Leonardo) |
| Filing 11 Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley: ORDER entered. See attached STANDING ORDER on motions for default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). (Vieira, Leonardo) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE: Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) as to defendant Lucas Veloso Soares. See attached NOTICE OF DEFAULT. (Vieira, Leonardo) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE: Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) as defendant to Hello Good Deal, Inc. See attached NOTICE OF DEFAULT. (Vieira, Leonardo) |
| Filing 8 Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting #7 Motion for Entry of Default (Vieira, Leonardo) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Entry of Default by Coravin, Inc..(Chafe, Marie) |
| Filing 6 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Executed by Coravin, Inc.. Lucas Veloso Soares served on 9/5/2023, answer due 9/26/2023. Acknowledgement filed by Coravin, Inc.. (Chafe, Marie) |
| Filing 5 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE Executed by Coravin, Inc.. Hello Good Deal, Inc. served on 9/1/2023, answer due 9/22/2023. Acknowledgement filed by Coravin, Inc.. (Chafe, Marie) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Hello Good Deal, Inc., Lucas Veloso Soares. Counsel receiving this notice electronically should download this summons, complete one for each defendant and serve it in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and LR 4.1. Summons will be mailed to plaintiff(s) not receiving notice electronically for completion of service. (Pacho, Arnold) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of Case Assignment. Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley assigned to case. Plaintiff's counsel, or defendant's counsel if this case was initiated by the filing of a Notice of Removal, are directed to the Notice and Procedures regarding Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge which can be downloaded #here. These documents will be mailed to counsel not receiving notice electronically. Pursuant to General Order 09-3, until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 USC 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters and Report and Recommendations, but not for the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (Horvath, Courtney) |
| Filing 2 REPORT ON THE FILING OF AN ACTION REGARDING PATENT OR TRADEMARK. (Chafe, Marie) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Damages, Injunctive and Other Relief for Violations of 15 U.S.C. 1114; 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) and Related Claims; and Jury Demand against Coravin, Inc. Filing fee: $ 402, receipt number AMADC-10017387 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by Coravin, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Category Form)(Chafe, Marie) |
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 Massachusetts 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.
