2025-cv-02499 AI分析
04/07/2025
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint, which seeks to assert trademark and copyright infringement claims, inter alia, against five separate defendants. The Court again dismisses the complaint [12]. Initially, joinder of multiple defendants in a single trademark or copyright 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). And Plaintiff's complaint does not address the issue and does not otherwise allege facts to support the joinder of the identified defendants in a single action. Nor does Plaintiff allege facts to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the identified defendants. Plaintiff alleges that this Court "has personal jurisdiction over Defendants in that they transact business in the State of Illinois and in the Northern District of Illinois." [12] 7. But this allegation remains conclusory. And, to be sure, 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."). Finally, Plaintiff's amended complaint attaches copyright registrations purporting to cover various artwork, but does not include depictions of the artwork, making it impossible to assess the sufficiency of Plaintiff's infringement claims or the likelihood that Plaintiff will succeed on those claims against the identified defendants. For all of these reasons, the amended complaint [12] is dismissed, and the Court denies Plaintiff's motions for temporary restraining order [13] and for leave to file excess pages [15] and strikes the 4/9/25 Notice of Motion date. The Court will give Plaintiff one last opportunity to amend if it can do so consistent with its obligations under Rule 11; any amended complaint shall be filed by 4/30/25. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to seal [16]. Mailed notice. 翻译
04/01/2025
NOTICE of Motion by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr for presentment of motion for leave to file excess pages[15], motion for temporary restraining order[13], motion to seal document[16] before Honorable John Robert Blakey on 4/9/2025 at 11:00 AM. 翻译
04/01/2025
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff CDE, Inc. Memorandum in Support of TRO Motion 翻译
附件：
1:(Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Declaration of David Gulbransen)
2:Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Declaration of David Gulbransen
3:Declaration Declaration of Plaintiff
4:Declaration Declaration of David Gulbransen
03/10/2025
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to seal [7] but dismisses the complaint [1] without prejudice based upon improper joinder. Plaintiff has sued 419 online merchants alleging trademark and copyright infringement, see [1], [2]. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single suit appears to run afoul of 35 U.S.C. § 299, which provides that "parties that are accused infringers may be joined in one action as defendants. only if-- (1) any right to relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused product or process; and (2) questions of fact common to all defendants or counterclaim defendants will arise in the action." Id. § 299(a). The statute specifically provides that "accused infringers may not be joined in one action as defendants. based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent or patents in suit." Id. § 299(b). Plaintiff's complaint, which lumps all Defendants together, alleges that "Upon information and belief, Defendants are an interrelated group of counterfeiters working in active concert to knowingly and willfully manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale, and sell Counterfeit Products." [1]. This assertion alone, however, fails to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 299, and Plaintiff offers no additional facts to support joinder. Moreover, the complaint suggests that Plaintiff seeks to sue all of the listed Defendants for trademark and copyright infringement; yet it merely provides the trademark and copyright registrations for its own products [1-2], [1-3]. Plaintiff has offered nothing to show that Defendants' products and websites are so alike that their conduct constitutes a single occurrence, thus Plaintiff's complaint fails to support this broad assertion of all claims. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the propriety of joining all 419 defendants in this single action and dismisses the complaint [1] without prejudice. If Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to allege facts to support joinder, it may do so by 4/10/25. If Plaintiff pursues an amended complaint and revised motions, it should ensure that its pleadings support joinder of all Defendants and that its submissions demonstrate a likelihood of success as to each Defendant on each asserted claim. Finally, it appears that counsel for Plaintiff is a member of the Court's general bar, but not the trial bar; counsel must ensure strict compliance with LR 83.12. Counsel is also reminded that all motions must be noticed for presentment. Mailed notice. 翻译
03/10/2025
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). 翻译
03/10/2025
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. 翻译
03/10/2025
MOTION by Plaintiff CDE, Inc. to seal document sealed document[2], sealed document[5], sealed document[4] 翻译
03/10/2025
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff CDE, Inc. Complaint, Ex. 1, Ex. 2, and Schedule A 翻译
附件：
1:Exhibit Exhibit 1
2:Exhibit Exhibit 2
3:(Appendix Schedule A)
案件最新进展，来源于美国联邦法院，下载文件请联系 18523047090 微信同号
被告名单文件：部分原告会选择隐匿发案，或者对提交的文件进行密封处理，因此包括被告信息在内的相关文件不会在前期公开（一般PI阶段左右才会公开）。
诉状：诉状通常包括原被告的基本信息、侵权行为、侵权类型，以及诉讼请求，如确认侵权、下架侵权产品、请求赔偿等，这个文件起诉就可以下载
案件每天自动更新，未及时更新的可点击 案件名称旁边 更新 按钮
