Excel Dryer, Inc. v. Dyson, Inc.
Plaintiff: Excel Dryer, Inc.
Defendant: Dyson, Inc.
Case Number: 3:2012cv30211
Filed: December 5, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office: Springfield Office
County: Hampden
Presiding Judge: Michael A. Ponsor
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
September 5, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 176 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: ENDORSED ORDER entered. granting 175 Letter/Request. Construed as a motion for extension, this is ALLOWED. Counsel will have until Sept. 15, 2014 to move to reopen this case, which was closed on June 27, 2014, if settlement is not completed. So ordered. (Lindsay, Maurice)
June 27, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 172 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: ENDORSED ORDER entered. re: 171 Letter/request (non-motion). Construed as a motion to reopen, this is ALLOWED. (Lindsay, Maurice)
February 4, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 152 Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered: As follows: For the reasons stated in the attached memo and order, the court ALLOWS Dysons 124 motion with respect to the subpoena duces tecum served on NSF by Excel and the depositi on subpoena served on Davison by Excel, EXCEPT as to the permitted discovery set forth in this memo and order. For the reasons previously explained, however, Dysons motion is DENIED without prejudice to the extent it seeks to limit Excels discovery requests of other third-parties. SO ORDERED. See the attached memo and order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)
November 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 100 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: ENDORSED ORDER entered granting 98 Joint Motion to move status conference to a date consistent with amended schedule approved by the Court. ALLOWED. The clerk will re-schedule the status conference for some time after May 7, 2014, So ordered. (Lindsay, Maurice)
February 19, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 34 Judge Michael A. Ponsor: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION entered. As follows; for the reasons set forth by the court in detail orally following argument, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 2 ) was DENIED fro m the bench. The court has this day issued a Pretrial Scheduling Orderto govern the preliminary phase of this case over the next eight months, leading to a status conference to take place on December 4, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. See the attached order for complete details. (Lindsay, Maurice)
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 this case: Excel Dryer, Inc. v. Dyson, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Excel Dryer, Inc.
Represented By: Patrick J. Markey
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Dyson, Inc.
Represented By: Brendan J. O'Rourke
Represented By: Kevin J. Perra
Represented By: Jeffrey E. Poindexter
Represented By: Michael D. Roundy
Represented By: Lawrence Weinstein
Represented By: Andrew S. Wellin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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.


Why Is My Information Online?