A-1 Archery v. A1 Archery
 
SummaryLawsuit
Summary
  
Court DocumentsCourt
Documents
  
Docket TextDocket
Text
  
Lawsuit Tracker™Lawsuit
Tracker™
  
Docket TextRelated
Cases
  

Lawsuit Details
RFC Case Number: T-A12-517A
Court Case Number: 2:12-cv-00517-TC
File Date: Friday, June 01, 2012
Plaintiff: A-1 Archery
Plaintiff Counsel: Brett L. Foster, Mark A. Miller, Stephen M. Sansom of Holland & Hart
Defendant: A1 Archery
Cause: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement
Court: Utah District Court
Judge: Judge Tena Campbell
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
6/1/2012 1 Case has been indexed and assigned to Judge Tena Campbell. Plaintiff A-1 Archery is directed to E-File the Complaint and cover sheet (found under Complaints and Other Initiating Documents) and pay the filing fee of $ 350.00 by the end of the business day.NOTE: The court will not have jurisdiction until the opening document is electronically filed and the filing fee paid in the CM/ECF system. Civil Summons may be issued electronically. Prepare the summons using the courts PDF version and email it to utdecf_clerk@utd.uscourts.gov for issuance. (jds) (Entered: 06/01/2012)
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