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 |
|---|---|---|
| 9 | 2026-06-10 | MINUTES: MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Robert Blakey: Plaintiff seeks to sue 187 separate defendants in this single trademark infringement suit, see 1, 7. Joinder of multiple defendants in a single trademark infringement action remains appropriate only if the claims against the defendants are asserted "with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences," and a common question of law or fact exists as to all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)(A)-(B). In this regard, Plaintiff lumps all defendants together and alleges, in a conclusory manner, just that the "Defendant Online Stores share identifiers, such as using identical or slightly modified product photographs, and design elements and similarities of the counterfeit products offered for sale, establishing a logical relationship between them and suggesting that Defendants' counterfeiting operation arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences." 1 3. The allegations do not suffice to justify the joinder of the named defendants. Nor does Plaintiff's complaint support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over all 187 defendants. Plaintiff alleges that "this Court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendants because each Defendant directly targets its business activities toward consumers in the United States, including Illinois and this Judicial District. Defendants conduct business with residents of Illinois and this Judicial District by operating one or more Defendant Online Stores through which residents of Illinois and this Judicial District can purchase products being offered and sold under counterfeit versions of Plaintiff's federally registered trademark. Each Defendant offers shipping to addresses within Illinois and this Judicial District, accepts payment in U.S. dollars and/or through payment methods used by U.S. consumers, and, on information and belief, completed sales to U.S. consumers including consumers in Illinois." Id. 7. Plaintiff's allegation, made on information and belief, that "each Defendant has completed sales of Counterfeit Products to U.S. consumers including consumers in Illinois," 1 35, falls far short of establishing the "deliberate and continuous exploitation of the market in a forum state," necessary to establish specific personal jurisdiction. See uBID, Inc. v. The GoDaddy Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2010). As the Seventh Circuit cautioned in Advanced Tactical, "if 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 each defendant has, in fact, shipped infringing products to residents in Illinois, and not just in connection with Plaintiff's 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 without prejudice and denies as moot Plaintiff's motion to seal 4. 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 7/8/26. If Plaintiff declines to amend, the Court will dismiss this case. Mailed notice. |
| 8 | 2026-06-02 | MAILED Trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA. |
| — | 2026-05-29 | ADMIN: CLERK'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. (Text entry; no document attached.) |
| — | 2026-05-29 | ADMIN: CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Robert Blakey. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (Text entry; no document attached.) |
| 7 | 2026-05-29 | EXHIBIT: SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Tingting Xie regarding complaint 1 |
| 6 | 2026-05-29 | EXHIBIT: SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Tingting Xie regarding complaint 1 |
| 5 | 2026-05-29 | EXHIBIT: SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Tingting Xie regarding complaint 1 |
| 4 | 2026-05-29 | MOTION: MOTION by Plaintiff Tingting Xie to seal document Motion for Leave to File under Seal |
| 3 | 2026-05-29 | ADMIN: CIVIL Cover Sheet |
| 2 | 2026-05-29 | APPEARANCE: ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Tingting Xie by Qin Zhuang |
| 1 | 2026-05-29 | COMPLAINT: COMPLAINT filed by Tingting Xie; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-25182062. 2 attachments |