墨婷跨境
MOT CROSS-BORDER
微信号: Mooting2018
墨婷跨境
MOT CROSS-BORDER
| 编号 | 日期 | 案件进程 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2026-07-15 | COMPLAINT filed by Rich Soon Apparel; JURY DEMAND. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25386483. |
| 3 | 2026-07-15 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 4 | 2026-07-15 | USPTO Cover Sheet by Rich Soon Apparel |
| 5 | 2026-07-15 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Rich Soon Apparel by David Lee Gulbransen, Jr |
| 6 | 2026-07-15 | MOTION by Plaintiff Rich Soon Apparel to seal document sealed document[2] |
| — | 2026-07-16 | CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Daniel P. McLaughlin. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). |
| 7 | 2026-07-16 | MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |
| 8 | 2026-07-16 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials |
| 9 | 2026-07-30 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff seek to sue two separate defendants in this single trademark infringement suit, see [1], [2]. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single 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, on information and belief, just that "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] 4. But the allegation remains conclusory. And the remainder of Plaintiff's allegations suggest "nothing more than separate instances of infringement attributable to different defendants, which will not suffice." Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Companies, Partnerships, & Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, 735 F. Supp. 3d 981, 98586 (N.D. Ill. 2024); see also Ilustrata Servicos Design, Ltda. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-CV-05993, 2021 WL 5396690, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2021) (collecting cases to support the observation that courts in this District have held that plaintiffs cannot satisfy Rule 20 by merely alleging that multiple defendants have infringed the same trademark). The Court thus dismisses Plaintiff's complaint for improper joinder. If Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend to allege facts to support joinder, it may do so by 8/31/26. If Plaintiff elects to amend, 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."). Although a "defendant's deliberate and continuous exploitation of the market in a forum state, accomplished through its website as well as through other contacts with the state, can be sufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction," uBID, Inc. v. The GoDaddy Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2010), the current complaint alleges no contacts other than the website and alleges no facts to support an inference that defendants deliberately and continuously exploited the market in Illinois. The Court denies as moot Plaintiff's motion for leave to seal [6]. Mailed notice. |
| 10 | 2026-08-13 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Rich Soon Apparel of All Doe Defendants |
| 11 | 2026-08-20 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Based upon the notice of voluntary dismissal [10], this case is dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a). If Plaintiff seeks to refile this matter against any of the named defendants, it must identify this case number as a related case on any new civil cover sheet. Mailed notice. |
| 12 | 2026-08-21 | MAILED Trademark report with certified copy of minute order dated 8/20/2026to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA |