James Simpson v. Coalition to Advance the Protection of Sports Logos et al
 
SummaryLawsuit
Summary
  
Court DocumentsCourt
Documents
  
Docket TextDocket
Text
  
Lawsuit Tracker™Lawsuit
Tracker™
  
Docket TextRelated
Cases
  

Lawsuit Details
RFC Case Number: T-J10-1637C
Court Case Number: 3:10-cv-01637-JLS -RBB
File Date: Thursday, August 05, 2010
Plaintiff: James Simpson
Plaintiff Counsel: Gary L. Eastman of Law Offices of Gary L Eastman
Defendant: Coalition to Advance the Protection of Sports Logos
Trademark Management
Does 1-10, Inclusive
Cause: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement
Court: California Southern District Court
Judge: Judge Janis L. Sammartino
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks
Notes:

Docket Text
This may not be the most complete up-to-date docket information.
For daily updates on this case, sign-up for a Lawsuit Tracker.
See the box on the right side of this page for details on the Lawsuit Tracker


Date # Docket Text
8/5/2010 2 REPORT on the filing or determination of an action regarding patent and/or trademark number(s) *See attached Complaint* (Attachments: # 1) (yeb) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
8/5/2010 1 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Coalition to Advance the Protection of Sports Logos, DOES, Trademark Management ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 16649.), filed by James Simpson.(yeb) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
Need more info about this lawsuit?
Court Documents Instantly access recently filed official court documents
Docket Text Review activity within the case
Lawsuit Tracker™ Get automatic notifications of any new information about this case.
Related Cases Review similar cases found across multiple criteria




Home   |   About   |   Lawsuits   |   Register   |   Login   |   Terms of Use   |   Privacy Policy   |   Sitemap   |   RSS Feed   |   Contact

© Copyright 2008-2013 RFC Express — All Rights Reserved — Presented By Intellectual Property Today

RFC Express provides access to public lawsuit filings retrieved from the U.S. Federal District Courts.
These lawsuits, and associated information should not be considered findings of fact or liability. Nor do they reflect the views of RFC Express or any of its employees.
extended validation certificate