Boxabl Inc v. Box House Inc
| Boxabl Inc |
| Box House Inc |
| 2:2024cv00187 |
| March 11, 2024 |
| US District Court for the District of Utah |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1051 Trademark Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 11, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AUTDC-4995667) filed by Boxabl Inc. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Nickel, Mark) |
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 Utah 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
| Search for this case: Boxabl Inc v. Box House Inc | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Boxabl Inc | |
| Represented By: | Mark A. Nickel |
| 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: Box House 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 ] |
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.
