Cases 1 - 7 of 7
Luxottica Group S.p.A. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"
as 1:2016cv07667
Defendant:
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", Zhang Ziyi, Yiyi Zhang and others
Plaintiff:
Luxottica Group S.p.A, Luxottica Group S.p.A. and Oakley, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Luxottica Group S.p.A. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"
as 1:2016cv07254
Defendant:
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", cui quanjian, Chen Jun and others
Plaintiff:
Luxottica Group S.p.A, Luxottica Group S.p.A. and Oakley, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Luxottica Group S.p.A. et al v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A"
as 1:2016cv06468
Defendant:
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule "A", customerfirst2015, to-the-better and others
Plaintiff:
Luxottica Group S.p.A, Luxottica Group S.p.A. and Oakley, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
US v. Cheng Zhu
as 13-6573
Plaintiff - Appellant:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant - Appellee:
CHENG WEN ZHU
Wang v. Wang et al
as 5:2010cv01492
Plaintiff:
Zong Xiang Wang
Defendant:
Xiu Xing Wang, Fingerlakes Chinese Buffet Inc. and Cheng Wen Zhong
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Cheng Wen Zhu v. Michael Mukasey et al
as 2:2008cv08533
Respondent:
Lee Baca, Dennis Burns, Michael Chertoff and others
Petitioner:
Cheng Wen Zhu
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
Chanel, Inc. v. David Trading Co., Inc. et al
as 1:2008cv22365
Plaintiff:
Chanel, Inc.
Defendant:
David Trading Co., Inc., Ling Rong Lai Wen, Shih-Cheng Wen and others
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
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.
