⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

9 opinions for “Calista Enterprises Ltd. v. Tenza Trading Ltd”

District Court, D. Oregon · 2014-08-08 · Published · cited 0× · 43 F. Supp. 3d 1099; 2014 WL 3896076; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109509
OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge. This is a trademark dispute between two providers of Internet pornography. Plaintiff Calista Enterprises Ltd. (“Calista”) and Defendant Tenza Trading Ltd. (“Ten-za”) are businesses that operate websites in the adult-entertainment industry and stream sexually explicit videos. The parties’ claims and counterclaims concern U.S. trademark law under the La
District Court, D. Oregon · 2014-08-26 · Published · cited 6× · 40 F. Supp. 3d 1371; 89 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 577; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118775; 2014 WL 4214876
OPINION AND ORDER MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge. Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Tenza Trading Ltd. (“Tenza”) moves for alternative service on Counterclaim-Defendant Alexander Zhukov (“Mr. Zhukov”) pursuant to Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF 148.) Tenza requests an order permitting it to effect service of process on Mr. Zhukov through one or more of the following alte
District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 2017-04-20 · Published · cited 20× · 250 F. Supp. 3d 296; 97 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 807; 2017 WL 1424800; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60120
Memorandum Opinion & Order Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge This matter is before the Court on a motion to reconsider portions of the Court’s January 13, 2017 memorandum opinion and order by Defendants Capital Equipment & Trading Corporation, Corali-na Engineering, LLC, and Alexander Chudnovets (DN 60), as well as a motion for authorization of substituted service by Plaintiff Phoenix
District Court, District of Columbia · 2026-06-09 · Published · cited 0×
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 25-2313 (EGS) v. SHAHNAWAZ MATHIAS, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) has filed a Complaint against Defendants Sh
District Court, D. Nevada · 2015-02-09 · Published · cited 25× · 304 F.R.D. 594; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16145; 2015 WL 518870
Order re: Service on Jesse Niekles [Doc. 66] JENNIFER A DORSEY, District Judge. Plaintiff Neumont University sued Jesse Niekles and his company Little Bizzy for a *596series of allegedly defamatory statements. Doe. 1. After determining that Nickles was never properly served, I set aside the clerk’s default previously entered against him and ordered Neu
District Court, D. Maryland · 2017-02-21 · Published · cited 32× · 237 F. Supp. 3d 311; 2017 WL 679219; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23978
MEMORANDUM OPINION Paula Xinis, United States District Judge Pending is a Motion to Exclude the expert report and testimony of Peter Maga-Ihaes (ECF No. 82) and a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 71) filed by Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants JFJ Toys, Inc. and Fred Ramirez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). The issues are fully briefed and the Court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6 because no he
District Court, D. New Hampshire · 2014-03-20 · Published · cited 0× · 2014 DNH 060
Topek v. W.H. Silverstein 12-CV-494-SM 3/20/14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Topek, LLC, Plaintiff v. Case No. 12-cv-494-SM Opinion No. 2014 DNH 060 W.H. Silverstein, Inc., Defendant O R D E R Topek, LLC, brings this action against W.H. Silverstein, Inc. for trademark infringement, unfa
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · 2017-09-06 · Published · cited 0×
THIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Remand Hearing: Mailed: June 22, 2016 September 6, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ Frito-Lay North America, Inc.
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board · 2017-09-06 · Published · cited 0×
THIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Remand Hearing: Mailed: June 22, 2016 September 6, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____ Trademark Trial and Appeal Board _____ Frito-Lay North America, Inc.