Cases 101 - 110 of 406
D.B.C. Corporation v. Family Foods International, Inc.
as 3:2017cv00116
Plaintiff:
D.B.C. Corporation
Defendant:
Family Foods International, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1121
Haas Outdoors, Inc. v. NTA Enterprise, Inc.
as 3:2017cv00089
Plaintiff:
Haas Outdoors, Inc.
Defendant:
NTA Enterprise, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1114
Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Piggly Wiggly, LLC
as 4:2017cv00015
Plaintiff:
Hawk Technology Systems, LLC
Defendant:
Piggly Wiggly, LLC
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 183
Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc. v. Cox et al
as 1:2017cv00002
Plaintiff:
Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc.
Defendant:
James B. Cox, Catherine A. Cox, John Doe and others
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101
Altman v. University Press of Mississippi et al
as 3:2016cv00883
Plaintiff:
Suzi Altman
Defendant:
University Press of Mississippi and Haley R. Barbour
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101
Womens Choice Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al v. Rook Pharmaceuticals, Inc
as 3:2016cv00876
Plaintiff:
Womens Choice Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Edwards Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Defendant:
Rook Pharmaceuticals, Inc
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 44
Strickland v. Winfrey et al
as 2:2016cv00164
Plaintiff:
Otisa C. Strickland
Defendant:
Oprah Winfrey, Harpo Studios and John Does 1-10
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101
Cruisin' The Coast, Inc. v. Blessons, LLC
as 1:2016cv00356
Plaintiff:
Cruisin' The Coast, Inc.
Defendant:
Blessons, LLC
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 501
Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Goodwill Industries of Mississippi
as 3:2016cv00729
Plaintiff:
Hawk Technology Systems, LLC
Defendant:
Goodwill Industries of Mississippi
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 145
Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Natchez Casino OpCo, LLC et al
as 5:2016cv00080
Plaintiff:
Hawk Technology Systems, LLC
Defendant:
Natchez Casino OpCo, LLC and Premier Gaming Group, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1338
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.
