GREAT HARVEST FRANCHISING, INC. v. PANERA BREAD COMPANY

Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-00121-GCM.

GREAT HARVEST FRANCHISING, INC., ET AL, Plaintiff, v. PANERA BREAD COMPANY, ET AL., Defendant.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 44
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 44 Trademark Infringement
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Great Harvest Franchising, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Gregory Scott , Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC.

Great Harvest Franchising, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Casimir Walter Cook, II , Anvil Law PLC, pro hac vice & Jeffrey D. Patton , Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC.

Charlotte's Best Breads, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Gregory Scott , Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, Casimir Walter Cook, II , Anvil Law PLC, pro hac vice & Jeffrey D. Patton , Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC.

Our Daily Bread For Life, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Gregory Scott , Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC, Casimir Walter Cook, II , Anvil Law PLC, pro hac vice & Jeffrey D. Patton , Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC.

Panera Bread Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by David M. Kelly , Kelly IP, LLP, pro hac vice, Jason M. Joyal , Kelly IP, LLP, pro hac vice, Keith John Merritt , Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC, Stephanie H. Bald , Kelly IP, LLP, pro hac vice & Melanie Dawn Johnson Raubach , Hamilton Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC.

Panera, LLC, Defendant, represented by Keith John Merritt , Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC & Melanie Dawn Johnson Raubach , Hamilton Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC.

Pumpernickel Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Keith John Merritt , Hamilton Moon Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC & Melanie Dawn Johnson Raubach , Hamilton Stephens Steele & Martin, PLLC.


ORDER

GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulation to E-Discovery Procedures. Having considered the joint motion and reviewed the parties' Stipulation to E-Discovery Procedure (Doc. No. 53), the Court enters the following Order:

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulated E-Discovery Procedures (Dkt. 54) is GRANTED, and the Stipulation to E-Discovery Procedures (Dkt. 53) is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth and entered.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases