最近更新：2026-03-30
2026-cv-01311
| 日期 | 描述 |
|---|---|
| 03/24/2026 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Based upon the representations in Plaintiff's supplemental report 29, Plaintiff may proceed on its amended complaint 22, and the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery 26. Mailed notice. |
| 03/18/2026 | Supplemental Report by Robert Bosch LLC |
| 03/17/2026 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, which drops four of the previously identified defendants and seeks to sue just two, see 22, 25. 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). In this regard, Plaintiff alleges that, even though Defendants operate under multiple fictitious names, "there are numerous similarities among the Defendant Internet Stores. The Defendant websites have virtually identical layouts, even though different aliases were used to register the respective online marketplace accounts. The counterfeit BOSCH HYDRO-BOOST products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores are identical, suggesting that the counterfeit BOSCH HYDRO-BOOST products were manufactured by and come from a common source and that Defendants are interrelated. The Defendant Internet Stores also include other notable common features, including use of the same online marketplace account registration patterns, unique shopping cart platforms, accepted payment methods, check-out methods, meta data, illegitimate SEO tactics, HTML user-defined variables, domain redirection, lack of contact information, identically or similarly priced items and volume sales discounts, similar hosting services, similar name servers, and the use of the same text and images." 22 18. Plaintiff further alleges that each Defendant Internet Store "uses the same product image, down to the exact orientation of the motor vehicle braking system parts relative to each other in that product image" and each Defendant "uses the same exact incomplete sentence for their infringing product description." Id. 19. "Taken together, the voluminous incomplete yet identical design elements used by each Defendant Internet Store clearly support the inference that the Defendants are interrelated." Id. These allegations support joinder. But before Plaintiff may proceed, it must file a supplemental report confirming whether it has previously named any of the 6 defendants identified in this case in a prior case asserting infringement of the same intellectual property. See Julie Stiebritz v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 1:25-cv-03459, at 19 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 9, 2025) (dismissing the case because plaintiff previously named defendants in a prior case and dismissed them to avoid an unfavorable joinder ruling, which constitutes forum shopping). Plaintiff shall file the report by 3/24/26. For now, the Court takes Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery 26 under advisement and strikes the 3/18/26 Notice of Motion date. Mailed notice. |
| 03/13/2026 | NOTICE of Motion by Michael A. Hierl for presentment of motion to expedite 26 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 3/18/2026 at 11:00 AM. |
| 03/13/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to expedite Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery |
| 03/13/2026 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Amended Schedule A |
| 03/13/2026 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Exhibit 2 regarding amended complaint 22 |
| 03/13/2026 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Exhibit 1 regarding amended complaint 22 |
| 03/13/2026 | AMENDED complaint by Robert Bosch LLC against The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto |
| 03/09/2026 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to extend time 19 and strikes the 3/11/26 Notice of Motion date. To the extent Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to allege facts to support the joinder of all defendants in this single action, it may do so by 3/13/26. If Plaintiff declines to amend, the Court will dismiss this case. Mailed notice. |
| 03/06/2026 | NOTICE of Motion by Michael A. Hierl for presentment of extension of time 19 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 3/11/2026 at 11:00 AM. |
| 03/06/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC for extension of time Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time to File Its Amended Complaint |
| 02/17/2026 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has filed an initial complaint, seeking to sue 6 separate defendants for trademark infringement, among other claims, see 1, 2. 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). In this regard, Plaintiff alleges that "some of the Defendant websites have virtually identical layouts," and the counterfeit products for sale in the Defendant Internet Stores "bear similarities and indicia of being related to one another, suggesting that the counterfeit products were manufactured by and come from a common source and that, upon information and belief, Defendants are interrelated." 1 18. Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant Internet Stores "also include other notable common features, including use of the same online marketplace account registration patterns, unique shopping cart platforms, accepted payment methods, check-out methods, meta data, illegitimate SEO tactics, HTML user-defined variables, domain redirection, lack of contact information, identically or similarly priced items and volume sales discounts, similar hosting services, similar name servers, and the use of the same text and images." Id. The allegations remain conclusory. In particular, that the internet stores look the same fails to suggest interrelatedness; 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 6 Defendants in this single action, it may do so by 3/6/26. If Plaintiff fails to comply, the Court will dismiss this case. If Plaintiff elects to amend its complaint, it should also consider 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."). Plaintiff must have a good faith factual and legal basis to allege that each defendant has in fact shipped infringing products to residents in Illinois, and not just in connection with Plaintiff's test buys for this case. See, e.g., Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) ("the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum"); Expeditee LLC v. Entities Listed on Exhibit 1, No. 21 C 6440, 2022 WL 1556381, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 17, 2022) ("Plaintiff claims that, as part of its preliminary investigation, it purchased infringing products from the Moving Defendants that the Moving Defendants shipped to Chicago. Such sales on their own are insufficient for the purposes of personal jurisdiction, for Plaintiff has not identified evidence of any transactions involving an allegedly counterfeit product between the Moving Defendants and Illinois customers, other than the 'test buys.'"). The Court denies without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery 16 and strikes the 2/18/26 Notice of Motion date. Mailed notice. |
| 02/13/2026 | NOTICE of Motion by Michael A. Hierl for presentment of motion to expedite 16 before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 2/18/2026 at 11:00 AM. |
| 02/13/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to expedite Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery |
| 02/13/2026 | SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Exhibit 2 to Paragoso Declaration regarding declaration 14 |
| 02/13/2026 | DECLARATION of Jay Paragoso 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
| 02/06/2026 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials |
| 02/06/2026 | MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. |
| 02/05/2026 | 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. |
| 02/05/2026 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Beth W. Jantz. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| 02/05/2026 | Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Robert Bosch LLC |
| 02/05/2026 | NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Robert Bosch LLC |
| 02/05/2026 | SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC Sealed Schedule A |
| 02/05/2026 | MOTION by Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal |
| 02/05/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Elizabeth Aubree Miller |
| 02/05/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by John Wilson |
| 02/05/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Robert Payton Mcmurray |
| 02/05/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by William Benjamin Kalbac |
| 02/05/2026 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC by Michael A. Hierl |
| 02/05/2026 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 02/05/2026 | COMPLAINT filed by Robert Bosch LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-24687802. 附件： 1:(Exhibit 1) |
