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 | 2026-06-29 | COMPLAINT filed by Shimiao Huang; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25313338. |
| 2 | 2026-06-29 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 3 | 2026-06-29 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Shimiao Huang by Di Li |
| 4 | 2026-06-29 | MOTION by Plaintiff Shimiao Huang to seal document sealed document 6, sealed document 7, sealed document 5, sealed document 4 |
| 5 | 2026-06-29 | MOTION by Plaintiff Shimiao Huang to expedite discovery |
| 6 | 2026-06-30 | MAILED Trademark request letter to counsel of record |
| 7 | 2026-06-30 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials |
| 8 | 2026-06-30 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: Upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety of joining more than 30 defendants in a single action. By July 6, 2026, plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by July, 2026 with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why that smaller subset of defendants is properly joined. No motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order should be filed in this matter without counsel first consulting the opinion issued in Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025) (Alexakis, J.). Mailed notice. |
| 9 | 2026-07-02 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins:The order at docket entry 12 is amended as follows: Upon review of the complaint, the Court sua sponte raises the propriety of joining more than 30 defendants in a single action. By July 6, 2026, plaintiff must file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder. In the alternative, plaintiff has leave to file an amended complaint by July 6, 2026 with a smaller subset of defendants along with a memorandum explaining why that smaller subset of defendants is properly joined. No motion for an ex parte temporary restraining order should be filed in this matter without counsel first consulting the opinion issued in Wham-O Holding v. The Partnerships, 24 CV 12523, Dkt. 39 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2025) (Alexakis, J.). Mailed notice |
| 10 | 2026-07-02 | MEMORANDUM complaint, 1, set deadlines, 12, text entry, 13 by Shimiao Huang Plaintiff's supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder |
| 11 | 2026-07-06 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The court has reviewed Plaintiff's memorandum on joinder 14 and plaintiff has failed to satisfy its burden to show that joinder of more than a thirty defendants is proper in this matter under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). See Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2020) (noting that "[plaintiff] bears the burden of demonstrating that joinder is proper"). In evaluating the appropriateness of joinder, the court assesses whether a logical relationship exists between defendants through actual evidentiary overlap, not coincidence. Estee Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 185. Overall, the arguments fall short of establishing a logical relationship among the defendants. The court is not persuaded that the use of similar seller aliases (including the prefix "TYQ Direct"), identical logos, use of the same business name and contact email on the seller information page, and identical "about seller" profiles satisfies the requirements of Rule 20. [Dkt. 14 at 2, 4-6.] The court cannot see how any one defendant's alleged trademark infringement is linked to the next defendant's infringement sufficient to show they are part of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as required by Rule 20. Bailie v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations, 2024 WL 2209698 at *5 (May 15, 2024) ("[E]ven if defendants' webpages were all identical, joinder is improper because use of identical web pages would not overcome the likelihood that Defendants are just copycats, both of the [plaintiff's] style and of each other.") (cleaned up). The fact that infringers often coordinate actions to avoid detection and that some Seller Aliases may have common ownership does not change the analysis: those allegations fall short of establishing the named defendants are properly joined here "on the off chance that one of these situations apply." See Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, 24-cv-09401, Dkt. 23 at 34 (Oct. 18, 2024) Similarities between websites, prices, sales tactics, and unauthorized products do not suggest a logical relationship between defendants. Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021). Further a claim that defendants infringed on its trademark in the same way does not sufficiently link one defendant to another. Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Companies, P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A Hereto, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) ("Courts in this district generally agree that alleging that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright in the same way does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence."). Even if the court were mistaken in its joinder analysis, it exercises its discretion to not permit joinder in this case. See Dorsey v. Varga, 55 F.4th 1094, 1103 (7th Cir. 2022). Joining this many defendants in one case simply will not promote judicial economy. See Estee Lauder, 334 F.R.D. at 189 ("[P]resenting dozens or hundreds of defendants in one lawsuit actually undermines judicial economy, because this Court must evaluate the evidence submitted in support of liability and, eventually, damages. That is especially true in the ex parte setting of a temporary restraining order, as well as for default-judgment motions."); Art Ask Agency, 2021 WL 5493226, at *3 (noting that "joinder in this case may yield significant financial benefits to [plaintiff] at the judiciary's expense."). Accordingly, the court dismisses Defendant Nos. 2-32 without prejudice. The clerk shall update the case caption to reflect that the Defendant is "TYQ Direct 31." Mailed notice. |
| 12 | 2026-07-06 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: The motion to seal 8 is denied. Plaintiff has not established good cause under Local Rule 26.2 or Seventh Circuit precedent to justify sealing Defendant's name. "Secrecy makes little sense if the goal of the litigation is to protect rightsholders' IP interests by obtaining an injunction against defendants' sales of infringing or counterfeit goods." See Eicher Motors Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 794 F. Supp. 3d 543, 552 (N.D. Ill. 2025). More importantly, this presumption of sealing runs counter to the well-established authority of this Circuit holding that "[m]any a litigant would prefer that the subject of the case. be kept from the curious (including its business rivals and customers), but the tradition that litigation is open to the public is of very long standing." See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562, 567-568 (7th Cir. 2000). The Clerk of Court is directed, forthwith, to unseal the documents filed at 4, 5, 6 and 7. The motion for early discovery 9 is granted. Plaintiff is authorized to serve third-party discovery on an expedited basis, with responses due not less than 10 days after service. The requests shall be proportional to the immediate needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). For example, a request for "documents sufficient to show X" is better than a request for "all documents showing X." Plaintiff shall consider what documents it genuinely needs at this early stage and shall consider the burden on third parties. Plaintiff shall work cooperatively with third parties impacted by this Order and make reasonable, good faith efforts to ease the burdens imposed by Plaintiff's request for expedited discovery. Mailed notice. |
| 13 | 2026-07-08 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Shimiao Huang |
| 14 | 2026-07-09 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins: In light of the notice of voluntary dismissal, the case is dismissed without prejudice. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (jcc,) |