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 | 2026-09-10 | COMPLAINT filed by Reebok International Limited; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25642039. |
| 2 | 2026-09-10 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Motion for leave to file under seal [5] is granted. Mailed notice |
| 3 | 2026-09-10 | MOTION by Plaintiff Reebok International Limitedfor electronic service of process. |
| 4 | 2026-09-10 | MOTION by Plaintiff Reebok International Limited for temporary restraining order |
| 5 | 2026-09-14 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process [13]. Plaintiff does not specify the countries in which any defendants are located; therefore, it is unclear whether the defendants are located in countries that are signatories to the Hague Convention and have objected to Article 10(a). Regardless, the results of searches using online mapping services (e.g., Google Maps, Baidu Maps, etc.) are insufficient to establish that an address "is not known" for purposes of jurisdiction under the Hague Convention. True, the Seventh Circuit has in the past taken judicial notice of "distance estimates" based on "images available on Google Maps." See Cloe v. City of Indianapolis, 712 F.3d 1171, 1177 n.3 (7th Cir. 2013). And some courts have taken judicial notice of whether an address is residential or commercial according to Google Maps. See, e.g., Atl. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Bayport Constr. Corp., 2026 WL 1295814, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2026). But while it may be proper to use online mapping services to identify the locations of addresses and geographical features, information about what entities or people occupy certain addresses is categorically different information. And some courts have found that online mapping services are "not conclusive as to the entities that occupy particular addresses." See Daniel v. Musleh Fitness Inc., 2024 WL 983751, at *3 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 7, 2024); see also GS Holistic, LLC v. Ashes Plus Nine, 2024 WL 2193362, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2024) (finding that taking judicial notice of distance using Google Maps "is different. from taking judicial notice of information available in Google Maps as to what businesses may be associated with any given address"). The Court acknowledges that the results of searches using online mapping services can be evidence of whether a party's address "is not known" for purposes of the Hague Convention. But such evidence cannot be conclusive on that issue without additional evidence of reliability, completeness, and potential for inaccuracies. This is particularly so when searching business addresses located outside the United States, and when the address in question may not be written in the Latin alphabet, which is the alphabet of the Court's language of English, but is written in a logographic language (such as Mandarin), with which the Court lacks familiarity and facility. Plaintiff vaguely references steps taken by its "investigation team" to connect a seller to a residential or commercial building identified on Google or Baidu maps. See Dkt. 13-2. Without knowing the steps taken, the Court cannot determine that the investigation is sufficient to grant electronic service. Plaintiff's motion [13] is denied without prejudice. Mailed notice. |
| 6 | 2026-09-14 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Ex parte motion for entry of a temporary restraining order, including a temporary injunction, a temporary asset restraint, and expedited discovery [14] is granted. Mailed notice. |
| 7 | 2026-09-14 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Motion for leave to file under seal [22] is granted. Mailed notice. |
| 8 | 2026-09-17 | MOTION by Plaintiff Reebok International Limitedfor electronic service of process. |
| 9 | 2026-09-22 | MOTION by Plaintiff Reebok International Limitedfor extension of the temporary restraining order. |
| 10 | 2026-10-02 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Motion to extend the Temporary Restraining Order [28] is granted. The TRO is extended for a period of fourteen (14) days until 10/12/2026. Mailed notice. |
| 11 | 2026-10-08 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin: Motion hearing held on 10/8/2026. Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) [26] is granted. A telephone hearing as to the anticipated motion for preliminary injunction is set for 10/13/2026 at 9:00 a.m. To join the telephone conference, dial (650) 479-3207, Access Code 180 815 7648. Throughout the hearing, each speaker will be expected to identify themselves for the record before speaking. Counsel must be in a quiet area while on the line. Please be sure to keep your phone on mute when you are not speaking. Persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. Mailed notice. |
| 12 | 2026-10-08 | MOTION by Plaintiff Reebok International Limited for preliminary injunction |
| 13 | 2026-10-13 | Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction |
| 14 | 2026-10-13 | Order |