Cases 1 - 10 of 13
Everlast Roofing, Inc. v. Wilson et al
as 1:2024mc22098
Plaintiff:
Everlast Roofing, Inc.
Defendant:
Matthew Wilson, Peak Quality Products LLC and Hixwood Metal LLC
EVERLAST ROOFING, INC. v. WILSON et al
as 2:2024mc00033
Plaintiff:
EVERLAST ROOFING, INC.
Defendant:
MATTHEW WILSON, PEAK QUALITY PRODUCTS, LLC and HIXWOOD METAL LLC
EVERLAST ROOFING, INC. et al v. WILSON et al
as 2:2024mc00034
Plaintiff:
EVERLAST ROOFING, INC.
Defendant:
MATTHEW WILSON, PEAK QUALITY PRODUCTS, LLC and HIXWOOD METAL LLC
Interested Party:
INTERTEK
Everlast Roofing, Inc. v. Everlast Construction Group, LLC et al
as 1:2023cv04123
Plaintiff:
Everlast Roofing, Inc.
Defendant:
Everlast Construction Group, LLC and Everlast Roofing and Restoration, LLC
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Everlast Roofing, Inc. v. Wilson et al
as 1:2023cv00828
Plaintiff:
Everlast Roofing, Inc.
Defendant:
Matthew Wilson and Peak Quality Products LLC
Everlast Roofing, Inc. v. Everlast Roofing, Inc.
as 2:2022cv09190
Plaintiff:
Everlast Roofing, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement
Everlast Roofing, Inc. v. Tan
as 1:2021cv02213
Defendant:
Steven R, Tan, a/k/a "Calvin Michell" d/b/a Everlast Roofing & Tuckpointing, Steven R. Tan also known as Calvin Mitchell doing business as Everlast Roofing & Tuckpointing and Calvin Mitchell
Plaintiff:
Everlast Roofing, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114
Nestor v. Everlast Roofing, Inc.
as 3:2017cv00113
Defendant:
Everlast Roofing, Inc. and James Dunkel
Plaintiff:
Scott Nestor
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Nestor v. Everlast Roofing, et al.
as 1:2017cv00172
Plaintiff:
Scott Nestor
Defendant:
Everlast Roofing, Inc. and James Dunkel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Nestor v. Everlast Roofing, et al.
as 3:2017cv00093
Plaintiff:
Scott Nestor
Defendant:
Everlast Roofing, Inc. and James Dunkel
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
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.
