|
[+]
1
|
2026-07-22 |
COMPLAINT against SCHEDULE A DEFENDANTS (Filing fee, including Administrative fee, $405, receipt number APAWDC-9744163), filed by KHARA INC. |
|
|
Civil Cover Sheet |
|
|
(Exhibit 1 - Trademark Registrations) |
|
[+]
2
|
2026-07-22 |
MOTION for Leave to File Documents Under Seal by KHARA INC. |
|
|
(Proposed Order) |
|
[+]
3
|
2026-07-22 |
MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION to Expedite Discovery, MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should not Issue by KHARA INC. |
|
|
(Proposed Order) |
|
[+]
4
|
2026-07-22 |
BRIEF in Support re 3 Motion for TRO, Motion to Expedite Discovery, Motion for Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should not Issue filed by KHARA INC. |
|
|
Declaration of Jay Harvey Paragoso |
|
|
(Declaration of Keaton Smith) |
|
[+]
5
|
2026-07-22 |
MOTION for Alternative Service by KHARA INC. |
|
|
(Proposed Order) |
|
6
|
2026-07-22 |
BRIEF in Support re 5 Motion for Alternative Service filed by KHARA INC. |
|
[+]
7
|
2026-07-22 |
MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by KHARA INC. |
|
|
(Proposed Order) |
|
8
|
2026-07-22 |
Disclosure Statement identifying None as corporate parent or other affiliate by KHARA INC. Modified text on 7/22/2026 to remove citizenship. |
|
[+]
9
|
2026-07-22 |
NOTICE of Appearance by Keaton David Smith on behalf of KHARA INC. |
|
|
Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan added. |
|
[+]
10
|
2026-07-22 |
PATENT/TRADEMARK DOCUMENTS ISSUED. |
|
|
Complaint |
|
|
Exhibit 1 |
|
|
(Docket Sheet) (kss) |
|
11
|
2026-08-18 |
ORDER DENYING 55 Motion for Alternative Service without prejudice, and HEREBY HOLDING IN ABEYANCE all other pending motions (ECF [2,] 3, and 7) until service is made or, by renewed motion for alternative service, after Hague Service is attempted and fails. See Smart Study Co., Ltd v. Shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi, 164 F.4th 164, 17073 (2d Cir. 2025) (holding that Hague Service Convention prohibits service by email on defendants located in mainland China with known physical addresses, and that neither Rule 4(f)(2) nor Rule 4(f)(3) authorizes service by means that the Convention does not permit). The Clerk of Court is directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case; administrative closure is not a dismissal, and upon the filing of proof of service or renewed motion for alternative service, Plaintiff may move to reopen and the Court will restore the pending motions to the docket. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 8/18/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. |
