A.Hak Industrial Services BV et al v. Techcorr USA, LLC
A.Hak Intank Services, LLC and A.Hak Industrial Services BV |
Techcorr USA, LLC |
3:2011cv00074 |
August 31, 2011 |
US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia |
Martinsburg Office |
Morgan |
John Preston Bailey |
Trademark |
15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 296 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 229 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART 229 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count One - Breach of Contract. The Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Two - Tortious Interference. The Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Four - Lanham Act Violations. The Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Five - Declaratory J udgment. The Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Six - Trade Secret Misappropriation.The Court DENIES the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Seven - Aiding and Abetting. The Court DENIES AS MOOT the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Eight - Cancellation of Trademark Registrations because TechCorr has withdrawn this claim. The Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Nine - Conspiracy. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 12/19/14. (njz) |
Filing 293 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 229 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND GRANTING IN PART 229 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count One - Breach of Contract. The Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Two - Tortious Interference. The Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Four - Lanham Act Violations. The Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Five - Declaratory Judgment . The Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Six - Trade Secret Misappropriation. The Court DENIES the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Seven - Aiding and Abetting. The Court DENIES AS MOOT the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Eight - Cancellation of Trademark Registrations because TechCorr has withdrawn this claim. The Court GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count Nine -Conspiracy. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 12/18/14. (njz) |
Filing 267 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING A.HAK'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER SEPTEMBER 2, 2014 ORDER REVERSING IN PART MAGISTRATE COURT ORDER denying 263 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 9/16/2014. (cwm) |
Filing 251 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REVERSING IN PART MAGISTRATE COURT'S JULY 21, 2014 ORDER. The Court SUSTAINS IN PART TechCorrs 243 Objections and REVERSES IN PART 239 Magistrate Judge Trumbles July 21, 2014 Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part TechCorrs 220 Fourth Motion to Compel. The Court ORDERS that the A.Hak parties comply with requests for production 12 and 14 no later than fourteen days of the filing of this Order. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 9/2/2014. (cwm) |
Filing 209 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SUSTAINING OBJECTION 196 AND REVERSING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE SEIBERT'S JUNE 9, 2014 180 ORDER. Signed by District Judge Gina M. Groh on 6/30/2014. (tlg) |
Filing 82 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY granting in part and denying in part 59 First Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert on 9/18/2013. (cwm) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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.