• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
5 results

Murray Colin Clarke et al v. TNSG Health Co., Ltd

Docket 3:24-cv-02950, California Northern District Court (May 15, 2024)
Judge Rita F. Lin, presiding
Trademark
DivisionSan Francisco
FlagsADRMOP, CLOSED
Cause15:1114 Trademark Infringement
Case Type840 Trademark
Tags840 Trademark, 840 Trademark
Plaintiff Murray Colin Clarke
Plaintiff Biozeal, LLC
Defendant TNSG Health Co., Ltd
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 277 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Set Aside Default Re: Clerks Entry of Default (CV-37) - optional ...

Document Murray Colin Clarke et al v. TNSG Health Co., Ltd, 3:24-cv-02950, No. 277 (N.D.Cal. May. 3, 2024)
Nor can a defendant’s conduct be culpable if he “offers a credible, good faith explanation negating any intention to take advantage of the opposing party, interfere with judicial decision making, or otherwise manipulate the legal process.
Here, Plaintiffs suggest that a purportedly false declaration of use submitted to the USPTO in connection with a trademark application constitutes the requisite fraud or injustice to justify piercing the corporate veil.
TCI Group, 244 F.3d at 701, citing to Bateman v. United States Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2000) (“no prejudice simply because a party loses a quick victory due to opponent's procedural default and must litigate on the merits.”).
As the Indigo America court recognized, when faced with such a significant potential financial liability, there is a compelling interest in ensuring that the defendant has an opportunity to present a defense and that the case is adjudicated based on a full consideration of the evidence.
Because Plaintiffs' alter ego claim is legally deficient for the reasons discussed in detail above, Defendants were never adequately served with the First Amended Complaint, and this request that their defaults be set aside should be granted.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 65 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Preliminary Injunction Hearing from July 1, 2022 to July ...

Document Murray Colin Clarke et al v. TNSG Health Co., Ltd, 3:24-cv-02950, No. 65 (N.D.Cal. Jun. 23, 2022)
Motion to Continue Hearing
Defendant’s counsel attempted to speak with Mr. Gold, Ms. Rahmanpour, and Ms. Torres, and left detailed voicemails with all three attorneys regarding the nature of this ex parte application, requesting a return call.
Laura Popp-Rosenberg, Defendant’s lead counsel, has a pre-existing obligation that conflicts with the new hearing date of July 1, 2022, and the other attorneys who have appeared for Defendant are equally unavailable to substitute in for Ms. Popp-Rosenberg.
Moreover, “requests for extensions of time made before the applicable deadline has passed should normally… be granted in the absence of bad faith on the part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.” Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 77 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citations omitted).
In refusing to consent to Defendant’s request to move the hearing date, Plaintiffs have argued that they will be prejudiced by any further delay and that another lawyer from Defendant’s counsel’s firm should appear instead.
Plaintiffs themselves delayed at least six weeks to file their initial motion for preliminary injunction after learning the facts that supposedly gave rise to this case.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 15 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Expedite Discovery Prior to Rule 26(f) Conference ; Memorandum of ...

Document Murray Colin Clarke et al v. TNSG Health Co., Ltd, 3:24-cv-02950, No. 15 (N.D.Cal. May. 25, 2021)
Motion to Expedite Discovery
Plaintiffs seek an order allowing expedited discovery in connection with their pending motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin ongoing irreparable harm resulting from Defendant TNSG Health Co., Ltd.’s (“Defendant”) trademark counterfeiting and infringement.
Good cause exists for the order allowing expedited discovery because Plaintiffs have a substantial interest in learning as soon as possible the source and extent to which such marks and products are being used in commerce and curtailing such use and sale.
As shown, the discovery is limited to facts relating to the source, participants, and extent of Defendant’s counterfeiting—issues directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and to Plaintiffs’ attempt to curtail continuing, irreparable injury 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Mar. 5, 2018) (though plaintiffs “already [had] extensive evidence in support of their claims”, the court nevertheless granted expedited discovery proper “to more fully develop the factual record on Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion”); Engelbrecht v. Experian Info.
Here, given that the counterfeiting and infringement will irreparably damage Plaintiffs’ goodwill as it continues, especially since the products involve nutritional supplements that are not under Plaintiffs’ strict quality control procedures, a regularly noticed motion will result in delay that could cause further injury to Plaintiffs.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 65-1 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue Preliminary Injunction Hearing from July 1, 2022 to July ...

Document Murray Colin Clarke et al v. TNSG Health Co., Ltd, 3:24-cv-02950, No. 65-1 (N.D.Cal. Jun. 23, 2022)
As none of them answered my call, I left each of them a detailed message, advising them of Defendant’s intention to file an ex parte application for continuance of the July 1, 2022, hearing, and asking each of them to return my call.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Can’t find a case you think should be here?

Use our supplemental search tool to find dockets that you may not see here. Information on Fees

Start a Supplemental Search