Cases 1 - 10 of 31
C&A MARKETING, INC. v. NOIA et al
as 2:2023cv20775
Plaintiff:
C&A MARKETING, INC.
Defendant:
MARK NOIA, RAGHNALL RAFI, BRAD CHAPMAN and others
SOCKEYE LICENSING TX LLC v. C&A MARKETING, INC., D/B/A C+A GLOBAL
as 2:2022cv00784
Plaintiff:
SOCKEYE LICENSING TX LLC
Defendant:
C&A MARKETING, INC., D/B/A C+A GLOBAL
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271
SOCKEYE LICENSING TX LLC v. C&A MARKETING, INC.
as 1:2022cv00784
Plaintiff:
SOCKEYE LICENSING TX LLC
Defendant:
C&A MARKETING, INC., D/B/A C+A GLOBAL and C&A MARKETING, INC. doing business as C+A GLOBAL
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Guinto v. C&K Market, Inc.
as 2:2021at00985
Plaintiff:
Maria Gloria F. Guinto
Defendant:
C&K Market, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Guinto v. C&K Market, Inc.
as 2:2021cv01925
Plaintiff:
Maria Gloria F. Guinto
Defendant:
C&K Market, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
In re Ex Parte Application of Telehealth Products Corporation Ltd. for an Order to Take Discovery For Use in Foreign Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782
as 2:2020cv12842
Respondent:
C&A MARKETING, INC.
Petitioner:
TELEHEALTH PRODUCTS CORPORATION LTD.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1782
C&A MARKETING, INC. v. PRINICS CO. LTD et al
as 2:2020cv01701
Plaintiff:
C&A MARKETING, INC.
Defendant:
PRINICS CO. LTD, ABC COMPANIES, INC. 1 THROUGH 5 and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 5
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2019cv17757
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Adlife Marketing & Communications Company, Inc. v. C & K Market, Inc.
as 1:2019cv01248
Plaintiff:
Adlife Marketing & Communications Company, Inc.
Defendant:
C & K Market, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2019cv00350
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 12101
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.
