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 | 2026-06-23 | COMPLAINT filed by Ling Lin; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25282198. |
| 2 | 2026-06-23 | ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Ling Lin by Qin Zhuang |
| 3 | 2026-06-23 | CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 4 | 2026-06-23 | MOTION by Plaintiff Ling Lin to seal document Motion for Leave to File under Seal |
| 5 | 2026-06-24 | MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. |
| 6 | 2026-06-24 | MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials. |
| 7 | 2026-06-25 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: This case has been assigned to Judge LaShonda A. Hunt. Upon review of the trademark infringement complaint and other filings, the Court questions whether Plaintiff has established sufficient grounds for joinder of all 142 defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20. See Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule A, No. 24 C 1566, 2024 WL 2953105 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Indeed, Plaintiff filed a form complaint with generic allegations about coordinated counterfeiting activity between 142 defendants without any details whatsoever, which arguably violates the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. The Court also questions whether Plaintiff has adequately pleaded that the Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants. To do so, Plaintiff must sufficiently allege that the defendants actually sold the allegedly infringing product to a customer in Illinois. See Liu v. Monthly, 170 F.4th 1090, 1093-94 (7th Cir. 2026) (citing Curry v. Revolution Lab'ys, LLC, 949 F.3d 385, 400 (7th Cir. 2020)). Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges sales in this district, but those allegations are conclusory and Plaintiff did not provide proof of actual sales in this district. See id. (remanding with instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because plaintiff had not provided screenshot evidence of actual sales in Illinois). Finally, Plaintiff has not established good cause under Local Rule 26.2 or Seventh Circuit precedent to justify sealing names of defendants. "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). For these reasons, the motion for leave to file under seal 4 is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to unseal the document filed at 5. By 7/1/26, Plaintiff must file either a memorandum explaining why joinder and personal jurisdiction are proper, or an amended complaint specifically naming and identifying each defendant being sued and setting forth with more than conclusory statements the alleged infringing activity and grounds for personal jurisdiction. Failure to do so will result in the current complaint being dismissed without prejudice and this case being closed. Mailed notice (gel,) |
| 8 | 2026-06-26 | NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Ling Lin in Its Entirety Without Prejudice |
| 9 | 2026-06-29 | MINUTE entry before the Honorable LaShonda A. Hunt: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) and Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal 9, this action is being dismissed without prejudice. All pending motions and deadlines are terminated as moot. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (gel,) |