RANN PHARMACY, INC. v. SHREE NAVDURGA LLC et al, No. 2:2016cv04908 - Document 22 (E.D. Pa. 2016)
Court Description: OPINION, JUDGMENT & ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOCUMENT NO. 3) IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS ON PLAINTIFF&# 039;S LANHAM ACT CLAIM. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF ON PLAINTIFF'S DEFAMATION AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE BERLE M. SCHILLER ON 11/22/16. 11/22/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE', UNREP AND E-MAILED. (ky, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
RANN PHARMACY, INC. v. SHREE NAVDURGA LLC et al Doc. 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RANN PHARMACY, INC., Plaintiff, v. SHREE NAVDURGA LLC d/b/a RAMS PHARMACY, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION No. 16-4908 JUDGMENT & ORDER AND NOW, this 22th day of November, 2016, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Document No. 3) and the response thereto, and following the hearing conducted on September 21, 2016 and the trial on the merits conducted on November 2, 2016, and for the reasons contained in the Court’s Memorandum dated November 22, 2016, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Document No. 3) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants Shree Navdurga LLC d/b/a Rams Pharmacy and Ramesh Kommineni from using the name “RAMS PHARMACY” for their pharmacy, located at 801 West Main Street in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. Defendants must comply with this order within sixty days of the date of this Order. 2. Judgement is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants on Plaintiff’s Lanham Act claim. 3. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s defamation and tortious interference with prospective contractual relationships claims. Dockets.Justia.com 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. BY THE COURT: Berle M. Schiller, J. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
