20
Nov/13

DJ: CRISPAW v CRISTAL


I don’t think any field is as litigated as dog chew toys that resemble luxury products. Here, CRISPAW v CRISTAL. This is not the first time this plaintiff brought a DJ against this defendant.

crispaw cristal

2 Responses to “DJ: CRISPAW v CRISTAL”

  1. Judy Schvimmer says:

    How odd. The complaints look exactly the same. Any idea what the difference is? Did they withdraw the earlier complaint and then refile – maybe after failed discussions?

  2. esqmarty says:

    Turns out that the complaint that was filed in April was never served. The 120 days ran out, the Court gave plaintiff some more time, that time ran out. Apparently plaintiff sees the need to re-file.