Cases 1 - 8 of 8
ELYPRO, INC. v. Gan Zhou Shi Fa Cai Yang Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si et al
as 1:2023cv01023
Plaintiff:
ELYPRO, INC.
Defendant:
Gan Zhou Shi Fa Cai Yang Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si and Shenchunguo
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101 Copyright Infringement
YANG v. CONSCIENHEALTH
as 2:2019cv00939
Defendant:
CONSCIENHEALTH
Plaintiff:
STEPHEN YANG
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101
PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. v. PANDA CHINESE & JAPANESE RESTAURANT, LLC et al
as 2:2017cv11718
Plaintiff:
PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.
Defendant:
PANDA CHINESE & JAPANESE RESTAURANT, LLC, SAM YANG and ABC CORPS. 1-100, related entities whose names are unknown
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125
TET SYSTEMS GMBH& CO. KG v. GENECOPOEIA, INC., et al
as 2:2017cv00740
Plaintiff:
TET SYSTEMS GMBH& CO. KG
Defendant:
GENECOPOEIA, INC., SHUWEI YANG and FUN LU
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1338
PUM YANG LOGISTICS, INC. v. PUMYANG USA INC. et al
as 2:2016cv08487
Plaintiff:
PUM YANG LOGISTICS, INC.
Defendant:
PUMYANG USA INC. and PUM YANG SHIPPING CO., LTD
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 44
COACH, INC. et al v. 1488 RAHWAY AVENUE REALTY, LLC et al
as 2:2011cv00795
Plaintiff:
COACH, INC. and COACH SERVICES, INC.
Defendant:
1488 RAHWAY AVENUE REALTY, LLC , JOHN PETTY , WILLIAM PETTY and others
Cross_claimant:
JOHN PETTY , WILLIAM PETTY and 1488 RAHWAY AVENUE REALTY, LLC
Cross_defendant:
DOES 1 THROUGH 10, XIAO YUN WU, MIN YANG and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114
COACH, INC. et al v. YANG GIFT SHOP et al
as 2:2010cv06267
Plaintiff:
COACH, INC. and COACH SERVICES, INC.
Defendant:
YANG GIFT SHOP, XIAO WEI YANG and DOES 1 THROUGH 100
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A. v. AMMOSA ENTERPRISES, INC. et al
as 2:2010cv01200
Plaintiff:
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER, S.A.
Defendant:
AMMOSA ENTERPRISES, INC., RUSSELL S. YANG and FUNG CHIN YANG
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
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.
