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 | 2026-08-11 | COMPLAINT filed by Chung Ting Yu; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25513996. |
| 7 | 2026-08-12 | MOTION by Plaintiff Chung Ting Yu to seal document sealed document[4] |
| 10 | 2026-08-21 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff, a Chinese national residing in Hong Kong, sues Defendant, ostensibly located in China, for trademark infringement, see [1], based upon Defendant's operation of one or more "internet based e-commerce stores accessible in Illinois." [1] 2. 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), Plaintiff alleges only that Defendant "purposefully directed some portion of its illegal activities towards consumers in the State of Illinois through the advertisement, offer to sell, sale, and/or shipment of goods utilizing Plaintiff's federally registered Hollow Halloween Works in Illinois and Plaintiff's claims arise out of those activities." Id. 3. This allegation fails to support an inference of "deliberate and continuous exploitation of the market" here. As the Seventh Circuit cautioned in Advanced Tactical, if merely "having an interactive website were enough in situations like this one, there is no limiting principlea plaintiff could sue everywhere. Such a result would violate the principles on which Walden and Daimler rest. Having an 'interactive website' (which hardly rules out anything in 2014 [and less in 2026]) should not open a defendant up to personal jurisdiction in every spot on the planet where that interactive website is accessible. To hold otherwise would offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" Advanced Tactical Ordnance Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., 751 F.3d 796, 803 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Off. of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). See also 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) (holding that screenshot evidence showing that an order could be placed by a consumer located in Illinois "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 Defendant has, in fact, shipped infringing products to residents in Illinois, and not just in connection with Plaintiff's own test buys. 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.'"). For these reasons, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's complaint [1] and denies the motion to seal [7]. If Plaintiff can, consistent with its obligations under Rule 11, amend its complaint to cure the deficiencies noted in this order, it may do so by 9/21/26. If Plaintiff declines to amend, the Court will dismiss this case. If this case proceeds, Plaintiff must be prepared to serve Defendant in accordance with the Hague Convention or file an appropriate motion demonstrating that, after "reasonably diligent efforts to ascertain and verify the defendant's mailing address," the address remains unknown, see Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., No. 25-2205, 2026 WL 1502198, at *4 (7th Cir. May 29, 2026) (citing NBA Props., Inc. v. P'ships and Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified in Schedule "A", 549 F. Supp. 3d 790, 796 (N.D. Ill. 2021)). Finally, because it appears counsel for Plaintiff is a member of the Court's general bar, but not the trial bar, the Court reminds counsel that it expects strict compliance with LR 83.12. Mailed notice. |