TRO 案件

Superhype Tapes Limited|26-cv-7276

案件基础信息

完整案号
26-cv-7276
法院
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
立案日
2026-06-23
原告
Superhype Tapes Limited
原告律所
TME
权利类型
商标
案件状态
公开记录持续核验中
最后核验时间
2026-08-12 19:38:42

案件进程

编号日期案件进程
12026-06-22COMPLAINT filed by Superhype Tapes Limited; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25277280.
32026-06-22MOTION by Plaintiff Superhype Tapes Limited for Leave to File Certain Documents Under Seal
42026-06-22CIVIL Cover Sheet
52026-06-22NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Superhype Tapes Limited
62026-06-22Notice of Claims Involving Trademarks by Superhype Tapes Limited
72026-06-22ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Superhype Tapes Limited by Martin Francis Trainor
82026-06-22ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Superhype Tapes Limited by Alexander Whang
92026-06-22ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Superhype Tapes Limited by Victor Benjamin Chahin, Jr
2026-06-22CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2).
2026-06-22CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order.
102026-06-23MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: This case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman. Plaintiff has filed a complaint alleging infringement by 94 defendants. This case follows a pattern common to "Schedule A" cases where plaintiffs allege that defendants employ similar methods and "work in active concert" to infringe plaintiffs' intellectual property. But experience has shown that not all defendants named in a Schedule A case work together. More importantly, experience has shown that joinder under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 and 20 is rarely appropriate in Schedule A cases. Accordingly, the Court raises the propriety of joinder and requires the plaintiff to file a supplemental memorandum addressing the propriety of joinder at least 7 days before the filing of the motion for temporary restraining order. Alternatively, by the same date, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint and amended Schedule A reducing the number of defendants. However, if Plaintiff names multiple defendants, Plaintiff must show that joinder of those defendants is proper. The Court directs Plaintiff to this Court's standing order in Schedule A cases regarding joinder on the Court's website. The Seventh Circuit has clarified that establishing personal jurisdiction in Schedule A cases requires that plaintiffs show evidence, for each defendant, of actual sales to Illinois customers and of actual products shipped to Illinois. Liu v. Monthly, No. 25-2074, 2026 WL 880018, at *23 (7th Cir. Mar. 31, 2026). Mere evidence of being willing to ship to Illinois customers is insufficient. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint if additional evidence is needed to establish personal jurisdiction over each Defendant under this standard. Finally, the Seventh Circuit has also ruled that the Hague Convention does not permit service by email to defendants in China. Kangol LLC v. Hangzhou Chuanyue Silk Imp. & Exp. Co., 2026 WL 1502198, at *5 (7th Cir. May 29, 2026). If Plaintiff intends to move to effectuate service via email on defendants located in China, then Plaintiff's motion will need to provide individualized arguments for each such Defendant that the Hague Convention does not apply, supported by details of the good faith effort Plaintiff has taken to ascertain the address of each such defendant. Mailed notice.
112026-06-23MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA
122026-06-23MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials
2026-06-30NEW PARTIES: card-addicts-canada added to case caption. Terminating The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified On Schedule A
132026-06-30AMENDED complaint by Superhype Tapes Limited against card-addicts-canada
142026-06-30Notice of Withdrawal of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal by Superhype Tapes Limited
152026-06-30MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Pursuant to the notice of withdrawal [14], plaintiff's motion for leave to file certain documents under seal [3] is withdrawn. Mailed notice.
162026-08-25MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: An in-person status hearing is set for 9/1/2026 at 10:00 AM. Mailed notice.
172026-08-26NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Superhype Tapes Limited as to a certain defendant
182026-08-26MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this case is dismissed without prejudice. Status hearing set for 9/1/2026 is stricken. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice.
192026-08-27MAILED closing report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA

免费评估

如您已收到与本案件号相关的 TRO 邮件,可花 30 秒填写评估表,快速获取和解或应诉路径,并初步了解预计处理成本。

立即评估

案件咨询

如你已经收到平台冻结、律师函、TRO 通知或想进一步判断案件影响,可以直接联系我们团队做下一步咨询。

立即咨询

诉状与涉案权利

文件基于公开法院记录整理,仅供风险识别参考,不构成法律意见。

文件待补充

正在加载已核验信息…

该原告/品牌方起诉的其他案件

正在加载相关案件…

TRO查询 最新资讯 关于我们 联系我们