NOCO Company v. Shenzhen Zhongyuanhong Electronics Technology Ltd.
Plaintiff: NOCO Company
Defendant: Shenzhen Zhongyuanhong Electronics Technology Ltd. doing business as Aspiring and Citus Technology LLC doing business as Aspiring
Case Number: 1:2022cv01025
Filed: June 14, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Presiding Judge: Bridget Meehan Brennan
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 Trademark Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on July 11, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
July 11, 2022 Filing 8 Return of Service by Clerk by certified mail executed upon Citus Technology LLC on 7/6/2022, filed on behalf of NOCO Company. Related document(s) #6 . (R,AP)
June 29, 2022 Service by Clerk. Summons and Complaint addressed to Citus Technology LLC placed in U.S. Mail. Type of service: certified mail. Receipt # 7021 0350 000 6440 3230. (W,Jo)
June 22, 2022 Filing 7 Report on the Filing of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark (AO120) filed by NOCO Company. (Kraus, Hannah)
June 21, 2022 Filing 6 Original Summons issued to counsel for service upon Citus Technology LLC, Shenzhen Zhongyuanhong Electronics Technology Ltd. (L,MI)
June 17, 2022 Filing 5 Praecipe for issuance of Original Summons filed by NOCO Company. Related document(s) #1 . (Attachments: #1 Summons to Defendant Citus Technology LLC dba Aspiring)(Pinney, Jon)
June 17, 2022 Filing 4 Praecipe for issuance of Original Summons filed by NOCO Company. Related document(s) #1 . (Attachments: #1 Summons to Defendant Shenzhen Zhongyuanhong Electronics Technology Ltd dba Aspiring)(Pinney, Jon)
June 14, 2022 Filing 3 Magistrate Consent Form issued. Summonses not provided and not issued. (H,Ch)
June 14, 2022 Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by The NOCO Company. (Pinney, Jon)
June 14, 2022 Filing 1 Complaint with jury demand against All Defendants. Filing fee paid $ 402, Receipt number AOHNDC-11470894. Filed by The NOCO Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1 Written Demand Letter, #2 Civil Cover Sheet). (Pinney, Jon)
June 14, 2022 Random Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker. (H,Ch)
June 14, 2022 Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan assigned to case. (H,Ch)

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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: NOCO Company v. Shenzhen Zhongyuanhong Electronics Technology Ltd.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: NOCO Company
Represented By: Alexander M. Welsh
Represented By: Derek P. Hartman
Represented By: Hannah J. Kraus
Represented By: Jon J. Pinney
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: Shenzhen Zhongyuanhong Electronics Technology Ltd. doing business as Aspiring
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: Citus Technology LLC doing business as Aspiring
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?