SC Johnson & Son Inc v. Nutraceutical Corporation et al
SC Johnson & Son Inc |
Nutraceutical Corporation and NutraMarks Inc |
2:2011cv00861 |
September 12, 2011 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Milwaukee Office |
Racine |
Rudolph T Randa |
Trademark |
15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 Trademark Infringement |
Both |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 151 ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 3/22/2019. 119 Defendants' motion for judgment consistent with the Seventh Circuit's opinion GRANTED. Defendants AWARDED $232,000 in disgorged profits. 130 Defendant's motion for attorney fees GRANTED; defendants AWARDED $630,449.82 in attorney fees. 148 Plaintiff's motion to restrict GRANTED; Clerk of Court to RESTRICT document at dkt. no. 149-1 to court and case participants until further order of the court. (cc: all counsel)(cb) |
Filing 143 ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 7/17/2018. By 8/17/2018 plaintiff to provide the court with proposed amount for damages award. See order for details. By 8/17/2018 parties to submit simultaneous, supplemental briefs on question of whether Octane Fitness applies to attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act and how its application impacts defendants' motion for attorneys' fees. (cc: all counsel)(cb) |
Filing 136 ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 9/29/2017 DENYING 124 Motion to Restrict Document, But Giving the Plaintiff An Opportunity to Show Cause. The clerk of courts shall restrict the briefs (Dkt. Nos. 120-1 and 125-1) such that only the parties and the court may view the un-redacted versions only until October 20, 2017. Please see order for further details. (cc: all counsel) (kgw) |
Filing 107 ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 9/22/2015 DENYING 98 Defendants' Motion to Alter Judgment/Relief from Judgment. (cc: all counsel) (cb) |
Filing 99 ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 9/25/2014. 91 Defendants' Motion to Stay DENIED as to paragraph 1 and GRANTED as to paragraph 2 of the injunction. See Order for details. (cc: all counsel) (cb) |
Filing 96 ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 9/18/2014. By 9/24/2014 Defendants' to file their Rule 59 motion and Plaintiff to file statement indicating appropriate terms for its security if injunction is stayed. (cc: all counsel)(cb) |
Filing 89 ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 8/29/2014. Plaintiff has prevailed on Lanham Act and common law unfair competition claims against Defendants; Defendants' counterclaims DISMISSED with prejudice; Plaintiff GRANTED a permanent injunction against Defendants (see Order for details); this action is TERMINATED. Plaintiff may file bill of costs with Clerk of Court. (cc: all counsel)(cb) |
Filing 65 ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 1/14/2014. 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment DENIED. 42 MOTION to Seal GRANTED as to [45-44] Exhibit U and DENIED as to other exhibits; Clerk of Court DIRECTED to unseal [45-39] Exhibit K, [45-40] Exhibit L Part 1, [45-41] Exhibit L Part 2, [45-42] Exhibit M, [45-43] Exhibit N, [45-45] Exhibit Y, [45-46] Exhibit BB, [45-47] Exhibit CC; [45-48] Exhibit EE, [45-49] Exhibit FF, [45-50] Exhibit GG, [45-51] Exhibit JJ and [45-52] Exhibit KK. 54 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment GRANTED; Clerk of Court DIRECTED to file [54-1] proposed sur-reply brief. (cc: all counsel)(cb) |
Filing 36 ORDER signed by Judge Rudolph T. Randa on 8/20/2013 DENYING 34 Motion to Seal Document. (cc: all counsel) (cb) |
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 Wisconsin Eastern 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.