Meyer et al v. Mittal et al
| Argil DX LLC, Zap Technology Solutions LLC and Jason Meyer |
| ArgilDX Consulting Pvt Ltd, Ankur Mittal, ADX Consulting, Inc. and Accunity Software Pvt. Ltd. |
| Argil DX and ArgilDX |
| 3:2021cv00621 |
| April 23, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Marco A Hernandez |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1125 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 1, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 8
Amended Summons Issued Electronically as to Ankur Mittal. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. (ecp)
|
|
Filing 7
Amended Proposed Summons Ankur Mittal Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Harriman, Heather)
|
|
Filing 6
Waiver of Service of Summons Returned Executed by ADX Consulting, Inc. waiver sent on 5/6/2021. Filed by Jason Meyer. (Harriman, Heather)
|
|
Filing 5
Summons Issued Electronically as to ADX Consulting, Inc., ArgilDX Consulting Pvt Ltd, Ankur Mittal. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. (ecp)
|
|
Filing 4
Trademark Report: This report is being submitted pursuant to Title 15 Section 1116(c), which states that it shall be the duty of the clerks of such courts within one month after the filing of any action give notice thereof in writing to the Director setting forth in order so far as known the names and addresses of the litigants and the designating number or numbers of the registration or registrations upon which the action, suit, or proceeding has been brought, and in the event any other registration be subsequently included in the action, suit, or proceeding by amendment, answer, or other pleading, the clerk shall give like notice thereof to the Director, and within one month after the judgment is entered or an appeal is taken the clerk of the court shall give notice thereof to the Director, and it shall be the duty of the Director on receipt of such notice forthwith to endorse the same upon the file wrapper of the said registration or registrations and to incorporate the same as a part of the contents of said file wrapper.. (ecp)
|
|
Filing 3
Notice of Case Assignment to Judge Marco A. Hernandez and Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. Discovery is to be completed by 8/24/2021. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 9/23/2021. Pretrial Order is due by 9/23/2021. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (ecp)
|
|
Filing 2
Corporate Disclosure Statement . Filed by Argil DX LLC. (Ford, Charles)
|
|
Filing 1
Complaint. Filing fee in the amount of $402 collected. Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-8056058 Filer is subject to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1. Jury Trial Requested: Yes. Included patents/trademarks: 90494156--1/28/2021--ADX Consulting Inc. Filed by Jason Meyer, Argil DX LLC against All Defendants (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Trademark Application, #2 Exhibit Domain Names - Argil DX, #3 Exhibit Domain Names - Zap, #4 Civil Cover Sheet, #5 Proposed Summons Ankur Mittal, #6 Proposed Summons Accunity, #7 Proposed Summons ADX). (Ford, Charles)
|
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 Oregon 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.
