最近更新：2025-04-08
2025-cv-03555
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 05/14/2025 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff seeks to sue 54 separate defendants in this single lawsuit for infringement of multiple trademarks. See [1], [3]. But joinder of multiple defendants in a single trademark infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). Presumably to support joinder, Plaintiff alleges that, "even though Defendants operate under multiple fictitious names, there are numerous similarities among the Defendant Internet Stores. For example, some or all of the Defendant Internet Stores use substantially identical or equivalent language and/or imagery to sell infringing products," and that "the infringing products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores bear similarities and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the infringing products were manufactured by and come from a common source and that, upon information and belief, many Defendants are interrelated." [1] at 25, 26. But these allegations remain conclusory, and the Court thus need not accept them. Plaintiff also alleges that "many of the Defendants' storefronts include other notable common features, including common payment methods, lack of contact information, identically or similarly appearing products, identical or similarly priced items and volume sales discounts, and the use of similar text and/or images. For some Defendants, these commonalities suggest potential common ownership or coordination." Id. at 28. Initially, this allegation fails to support joinder as to all identified defendants; moreover, similar website layouts do not necessarily mean the defendants are related (it is equally possible that each online retailer set up shop in the same or similar manner). See, e.g., Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 188-89 (N.D. Ill. 2020). To the extent Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to allege facts to support the joinder of each and every defendant that Plaintiff wishes to sue in this single action, it may do so by 6/6/25. If Plaintiff fails to comply, the Court will dismiss this case. If Plaintiff elects to amend its complaint, it should also bolster its allegations relating to personal jurisdiction as to each defendant; the mere maintenance of a website accessible in Illinois remains insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Am. Bridal & Prom Indus. Ass'n, Inc. v. The Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 192 F. Supp. 3d 924, 93435 (N.D. Ill. 2016) (simply alleging the existence of purported counterfeiting via an interactive website is not enough, by itself, to confer personal jurisdiction); Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) ("Having an interactive website. should not open a defendant up to personal jurisdiction in every spot on the planet where that interactive website is accessible."); Rubik's Brand, Ltd. v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 20-CV-5338, 2021 WL 825668, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2021) (screenshot evidence showing that an order could be placed by an Illinoisan, "amounts to nothing more than maintaining an interactive website that is accessible in Illinois," and "that alone cannot confer personal jurisdiction."). The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to seal [4] but reminds counsel that all motions must be noticed for presentment or they may be stricken. Mailed notice. |
| 04/18/2025 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Toho Co., Ltd. by Erica J. Van Loon (Van Loon, Erica) |
| 04/09/2025 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Toho Co., Ltd. by Peter Krusiewicz |
| 04/03/2025 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials |
| 04/03/2025 | MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
| 04/02/2025 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Toho Co., Ltd. by Matthew A. Werber |
| 04/02/2025 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Toho Co., Ltd. |
| 04/02/2025 | CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. |
| 04/02/2025 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Laura K. McNally. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| 04/02/2025 | MOTION by Plaintiff Toho Co., Ltd. to seal document exhibit 3 |
| 04/02/2025 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Toho Co., Ltd. - Schedule A to Complaint - regarding complaint 1 |
| 04/02/2025 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 04/02/2025 | COMPLAINT filed by Toho Co., Ltd.; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23294118. 附件： 1:Exhibit 1 TM Registrations 2:Exhibit 2 CBP 3:(Exhibit 4 DHS) 4:Exhibit 3 IP Rights |
