Plaintiff's motion for contempt based on the allegation that defendants continued to use the original name of their pharmacy after it had been found to violate the Lanham act failed because the only evidence presented was an undated advertising postcard. Motion denied.
June 23, 2017 at 12:28 AM
1 minute read
Lanham Act • Service Mark • Contempt • Ancillary Jurisdiction • Evidence
Rann Pharmacy, Inc. v. Shree Navdurga, LLC, PICS Case No. 17-0961 (E.D. Pa. June 2, 2017) Schiller, J. (9 pages).
Plaintiff’s motion for contempt based on the allegation that defendants continued to use the original name of their pharmacy after it had been found to violate the Lanham act failed because the only evidence presented was an undated advertising postcard. Motion denied.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Truly exceptional Bergen County New Jersey Law Firm is growing and seeks strong plaintiff's personal injury Attorney with 5-7 years plaintif...
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
