Cases 1 - 5 of 5
Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation et al
as 1:2014cv01142
Plaintiff:
D. Joseph Kurtz and Kurtz
Defendant:
Costco Wholesale Corporation and Kimberly-Clark Corporation
Interested Party:
Anthony Belfiore, The Procter & Gamble Company, Nice-Pak Products, Inc. and others
Not Classified By Court:
Theodore H. Frank
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 1109 Breach of Fiduciary Duties
American Sales Company, Inc. v. AstraZeneca AB et al
as 1:2010cv06062
Plaintiff:
American Sales Company, Inc.
Defendant:
AstraZeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hassle, AstraZeneca LP and others
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 25
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. et al v. The Procter & Gamble Company
as 1:2008cv08133
Plaintiff:
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. and others
Defendant:
The Procter & Gamble Company, The Procter & Gamble Company and The Procter & Gamble Company
Cause Of Action: Federal Question
The Procter & Gamble Company v. Xetal Inc. et al
as 2:2004cv02820
Defendant:
AM & Associates, AMG Communications, Corp., AMG Communications, Corp. and others
Cross Defendant:
AMG Communications, Corp., AMG Worldwide, Inc., AMG Worldwide, Inc. and others
Cross Claimant:
AMG Worldwide, Inc., Brothers Trading Co., Inc., Brothers Trading Co., Inc. and others
Interested Party:
EarthLink
212) 684-3999 (fax:
Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C.
Plaintiff:
The Procter & Gamble Company
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Philips Domestic Appliances and Personal Care Company v. Braun GMBH et al
as 1:2007cv11290
Plaintiff:
Phillips Domestic Appliances and Personal Care Company, Phillips Domestic Appliances and Personal Care Company and Phillips Domestic Appliances and Personal Care Company
Defendant:
Braun GMBH and The Procter & Gamble Company
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.
