Hyper Wear, Inc. v. Fitness 75247, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Hyper Wear, Inc.
Defendant: Fitness 75247, Inc, Fitness 75247, Inc., Fitness 77041, Inc. and Fitness Depot, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2017cv00230
Filed: March 13, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Texas
Office: Austin Office
Presiding Judge: Robert Pitman
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on February 14, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
February 14, 2018 Filing 18 Report on Patent/Trademark sent to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (klw)
September 6, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (ml)
August 30, 2017 Filing 16 NOTICE of Dismissal by Hyper Wear, Inc. (Gray, Joseph)
August 28, 2017 Filing 15 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond by Fitness 75247, Inc., Fitness 77041, Inc., Fitness Depot, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Schultz, George)
August 14, 2017 Reset Deadlines: Fitness 75247, Inc. answer due 8/28/2017; Fitness 77041, Inc. answer due 8/28/2017; Fitness Depot, Inc. answer due 8/28/2017. (ml)
August 14, 2017 Opinion or Order Text Order GRANTING #14 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Defendants Fitness 75247, Inc., Fitness 77041, Inc., and Fitness Depot, Inc. shall have through and including August 28, 2017 to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs Complaint.(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (as)
August 11, 2017 Filing 14 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond by Fitness 75247, Inc., Fitness 77041, Inc., Fitness Depot, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Schultz, George)
July 31, 2017 Reset Deadlines: Fitness 75247, Inc. answer due 8/14/2017; Fitness 77041, Inc. answer due 8/14/2017; Fitness Depot, Inc. answer due 8/14/2017. (ml)
July 31, 2017 Opinion or Order Text Order GRANTING #13 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Defendants' answer or otherwise responsive filing is due on or before August 14, 2017. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (as)
July 28, 2017 Filing 13 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond by Fitness 75247, Inc., Fitness 77041, Inc., Fitness Depot, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Schultz, George)
July 5, 2017 Reset Deadlines: Fitness 75247, Inc. answer due 7/31/2017; Fitness 77041, Inc. answer due 7/31/2017; Fitness Depot, Inc. answer due 7/31/2017. (ml)
July 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Text Order GRANTING #11 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Defendants Fitness 75247, Inc., Fitness 77041, Inc., and Fitness Depot, Inc.'s Answer or otherwise responsive filing is due on or before July 31, 2017.(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (as)
June 30, 2017 Filing 12 RULE 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Fitness Depot, Inc.. (Schultz, George)
June 30, 2017 Filing 11 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond by Fitness 75247, Inc., Fitness 77041, Inc., Fitness Depot, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Schultz, George)
May 31, 2017 Reset Deadlines: Fitness 75247, Inc. answer due 6/30/2017; Fitness 77041, Inc. answer due 6/30/2017. (ml)
May 31, 2017 Opinion or Order Text Order GRANTING #9 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Defendants Fitness 75247, Inc. and Fitness 77041, Inc.'s Answer or otherwise responsive pleading is due on or before June 30, 2017. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (as)
May 30, 2017 Filing 10 RULE 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Fitness 75247, Inc., Fitness 77041, Inc.. (Schultz, George)
May 30, 2017 Filing 9 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond by Fitness 75247, Inc., Fitness 77041, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Schultz, George)
May 11, 2017 Filing 8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hyper Wear, Inc.. Fitness 75247, Inc. served on 5/10/2017, answer due 5/31/2017. (Flores, Tecuan)
May 11, 2017 Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hyper Wear, Inc.. Fitness 77041, Inc. served on 5/10/2017, answer due 5/31/2017. (Flores, Tecuan)
May 5, 2017 Filing 6 Summons Issued as to Fitness 75247, Inc., Fitness 77041, Inc., Fitness Depot, Inc.. (ml)
May 4, 2017 Filing 5 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by Hyper Wear, Inc.. Fitness Depot, Inc. [Canada] (Gray, Joseph)
May 4, 2017 Filing 4 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by Hyper Wear, Inc.. of Fitness 75247, Inc. d/b/a Dallas Fitness Depot and Fitness 77041, Inc. d/b/a/ Fitness Depot Houston (Gray, Joseph)
March 14, 2017 Filing 3 Report on Patent/Trademark sent to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with copy of Complaint. (afd)
March 13, 2017 Case Assigned to Judge Robert Pitman. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (afd)
March 13, 2017 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Hyper Wear, Inc.. (afd)
March 13, 2017 Filing 2 RULE 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Hyper Wear, Inc.. (Gray, Joseph)
March 13, 2017 Filing 1 COMPLAINT ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0542-9387977). No Summons requested at this time, filed by Hyper Wear, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A - ISO Complaint, #3 Exhibit B - ISO Complaint, #4 Exhibit C - ISO Complaint, #5 Exhibit D - ISO Complaint, #6 Exhibit E - ISO Complaint, #7 Exhibit F - ISO Complaint)(Gray, Joseph)

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 Texas Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hyper Wear, Inc. v. Fitness 75247, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Fitness 75247, Inc
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: Fitness 75247, Inc.
Represented By: Nicole R. Marsh
Represented By: George R. Schultz
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: Fitness 77041, Inc.
Represented By: Nicole R. Marsh
Represented By: George R. Schultz
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: Fitness Depot, Inc.
Represented By: Nicole R. Marsh
Represented By: George R. Schultz
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 ]
Plaintiff: Hyper Wear, Inc.
Represented By: Joseph Daniel Gray
Represented By: Valerie Barker
Represented By: Tecuan Flores
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?