Duluth Holdings, Inc. v. JLB Marketing, Inc. et al
| Duluth Holdings, Inc. doing business as Duluth Trading Co. |
| JLB Marketing, Inc. doing business as Smith's Workwear and Penney OpCo LLC doing business as JCPenney |
| 3:2022cv00007 |
| January 4, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin |
| Stephen L Crocker |
| James D Peterson |
| Trademark |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1114 Trademark Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 24, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
** TEXT ONLY ORDER **ORDER granting #13 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Answer. JLB Marketing, Inc. and Penney OpCo LLC answer due 3/14/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 2/24/2022. (arw)
|
| Filing 13 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Answer by Defendants JLB Marketing, Inc., Penney OpCo LLC. (Rooney, Gavin) Modified on 2/24/2022: E-mail sent to counsel. (lak) |
|
Filing 12
** TEXT ONLY ORDER **ORDER granting #11 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer #1 Complaint. JLB Marketing, Inc. and Penney OpCo LLC answer due 2/28/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 2/14/2022. (jls)
|
| Filing 11 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Answer by Defendants JLB Marketing, Inc., Penney OpCo LLC. (Rooney, Gavin) Modified on 2/11/2022. (lak) |
|
Filing 10
** TEXT ONLY ORDER **ORDER accepting #8 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Answer . Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 1/25/2022. (voc)
|
| Filing 9 Notice of Appearance filed by Gavin J. Rooney for Defendants JLB Marketing, Inc., Penney OpCo LLC. (Rooney, Gavin) |
| Set/Reset Deadlines: JLB Marketing, Inc. answer due 2/14/2022; Penney OpCo LLC answer due 2/14/2022. (voc) |
| Filing 8 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Answer by Plaintiff Duluth Holdings, Inc.. (Gilpin, Brian) |
| Filing 7 Affidavit of Service by Plaintiff. JLB Marketing, Inc. served on 1/10/2022, answer due 1/31/2022. (Gregor, Jennifer) |
| Filing 6 Summons Returned Executed. Penney OpCo LLC served on 1/7/2022, answer due 1/28/2022. (Gregor, Jennifer) |
| Filing 5 Report on Filing of Patent or Trademark Action. Copy provided to the US Patent and Trademark Office electronically. (arw) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to JLB Marketing, Inc., Penney OpCo LLC. (Attachments: #1 Summons - Penney OpCo LLC) (arw) |
| Standard attachments for District Judge James D. Peterson required to be served on all parties with summons or waiver of service: # NORTC, #Corporate Disclosure Statement. (arw) |
| Case randomly assigned to District Judge James D. Peterson and Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker. (arw) |
| Filing 3 Notice of Appearance filed by Brian G. Gilpin for Plaintiff Duluth Holdings, Inc.. (Gilpin, Brian) |
| Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Plaintiff Duluth Holdings, Inc.. (Gregor, Jennifer) |
| Filing 1 TRADEMARK COMPLAINT against JLB Marketing, Inc., Penney OpCo LLC (Filing fee $402, receipt number 0758-2987181) filed by Duluth Holdings, Inc. TRADEMARKS AT ISSUE: Trademark # 2,838,487, issued 10/24/02, held by Duluth Holdings Inc. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Cease and Desist Demand Letter, #2 Exhibit B - Smith's Workwear Response to Demand Letter, #3 JS-44 Civil Cover Sheet, #4 Summons as to JLB Marketing, Inc. dba Smith's Workwear, #5 Summons as to Penney OpCo LLC dba JCPenney, #6 Report on Filing Patent/Trademark Action) (Gregor, Jennifer) |
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 Wisconsin Western 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.
