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.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
