Burberry Limited (US) et al v. John Doe 1 et al
| Burberry Limited (US) and Burberry Limited (UK) |
| John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, XYZ Companies and John Does 7-100 |
| 1:2011cv08306 |
| November 16, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of U.S. |
| Thomas P. Griesa |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 17, 2011. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 FIRST RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Corporate Parent Burberry Group PLC for Burberry Limited (US). Document filed by Burberry Limited (US).(Malki, Jonathan) |
Filing 4
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, SEIZURE ORDER, ASSET RESTRAINING ORDER, DOMAIN NAME TRANSFER ORDER, ORDER FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY, ORDER PERMITTING SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL, AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION: that Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all those in active concert or participation with them, are TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED in the manner that is set forth in this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs shall post a corporate surety bond, cash or certified or attorney's check in the amount of $1000 as security, determined adequate for the payment of such damages as any person may be entitled to recover as a result of a wrongful seizure or restraint hereunder; and the Defendants appear to show CAUSE on Dec 1, 2011 at 11 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, in Courtroom 26B of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York at 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY, why an Order pursuant to Rules 64 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 34 of the Lanham Act should not be entered granting Plaintiffs a Preliminary Injunction on the terms as set forth in this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Defendants' answering papers, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court and served upon the attorneys for Plaintiff by delivering copies thereof to the offices of the Gioconda Law Group PLLC, 1 Penn Plaza, 36th Floor, Attn: Joseph C. Gioconda, Esq., before noon on Nov. 29. Any reply shall be filed and served by Plaintiffs at the hearing. Additional relief as set forth in this Order. filed by Burberry Limited (UK), Burberry Limited (US). Show Cause Hearing set for 12/1/2011 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 26B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Thomas P. Griesa. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 11/16/11) (pl) Modified on 11/17/2011 (pl). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2011: # 1 Affidavit Declaration in support) (pl). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2011: # 2 Affidavit Memorandum in support) (pl). (pl). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2011: # 1 Affidavit Declaration in support) (pl). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/17/2011: # 2 Affidavit Memorandum in support) (pl).
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING ORDER IN RE PILOT PROJECT REGARDING CASE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR COMPLEX CIVIL CASES IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (See M-10-468 Order filed November 1, 2011). This case is hereby designated for inclusion in the Pilot Project Regarding Case Management Techniques for Complex Civil Cases in the Southern District of New York (the Pilot Project), unless the judge to whom this case is assigned determines otherwise. This case is designated for inclusion in the Pilot Project because it is a class action, an MDL action, or is in one of the following Nature of Suit categories: 160, 245, 315, 355, 365, 385, 410, 830, 840, 850, 893, or 950. The presiding judge in a case that does not otherwise qualify for inclusion in the Pilot Project may nevertheless designate the case for inclusion in the Pilot Project by issuing an order directing that the case be included in the Pilot Project. The description of the Pilot Project, including procedures to be followed, is attached to this Order. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 10/31/2011) (pl)
|
| Filing 2 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Identifying Corporate Parent Burberry Group PLC, Corporate Parent Burberry USA Holdings, Inc. for Burberry Limited (UK), Burberry Limited (US). Document filed by Burberry Limited (UK), Burberry Limited (US).(pl) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Does 7-100, XYZ Companies. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 465401022111)Document filed by Burberry Limited (US), Burberry Limited (UK).(pl) |
| SUMMONS ISSUED as to John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Does 7-100, XYZ Companies. (pl) |
| Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis is so designated. (pl) |
| Mailed notice to Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks to report the filing of this action. (pl) |
| ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO E-MAIL PDF. Note to Attorney Joseph Christopher Gioconda for noncompliance with Section 14.3 of the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions. E-MAIL the PDF for Document 2 Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement, 1 Complaint to: caseopenings@nysd.uscourts.gov. (pl) |
| Case Designated ECF. (pl) |
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 New York 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.
