2024-cv-09053 +组团 近期案件➥ 订阅
原告律所：keener
品牌：射击训练装置。
小提示：专注TRO和解/应诉，需要起诉文件/被告名单/其他帮助可联系我们，微信右上角“···”可全文翻译/分享找队友/订阅可自动推送此案最新进展
微信扫码联系我们
| # | Date | Description |
| 70 |
09/29/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Plaintiff Laser Ammo, Ltd. brought suit against 125 defendants named on "Schedule A" to the Complaint, asserting claims for patent infringement, 35 U.S.C § 271 (Count I), unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, et seq. (Count II), and the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510, et seq. (Count III). R. [1], Compl. Plaintiff owns four U.S Patents for "Dry Fire Training Device" (the Patents). Compl. 10-13. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used the Patents on or in connection with advertising, marketing, distribution, offering for sale and sale of Counterfeit Products to cause confusion, mistake and deception among customers and harm Plaintiff. Id. 29. From Plaintiff's perspective, Defendants' Infringing Webstores listings appear to unknowing consumers to be legitimate webstores and listings, authorized to sell genuine products covered by the Patents. Id. 32. Defendants DARKFANG-US, BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, StrongTools, UR smart, theopot, Befbox, Tipfun, Defentac Direct, VOTATU, and cvlife (collectively, Moving Defendants) filed a motion to dismiss Count II pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). R. [98], Mot. Dismiss. Section 1125(a) "creates two distinct bases of liability: false association[/designation of origin], § 1125(a)(1)(A), and false advertising, § 1125(a)(1)(B)." Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 122 (2014). According to Plaintiff, it alleges both types of claims. See R. [102], Resp. Although not addressed by either party, the Court notes that generally, Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard should be applied to § 1125(a)(1) claims that sound in fraud. See VitalGo, Inc. v. Kreg Therapeutics, Inc., 2017 WL 6569633, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2017) (citing Gensler v. Strabala, 764 F.3d 735, 736 (7th Cir. 2014)). "To satisfy the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b), the circumstances [of the alleged misrepresentation] must be pleaded in detail. The who, what, when, where and how: the first paragraph of any newspaper story." VitalGo, Inc. v. Kreg Therapeutics, Inc., 370 F. Supp. 3d 873, 886 (N.D. Ill. 2019). Moving Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Lanham Act unfair competition claims amount to an allegation that Defendants simply fail to convey to buyers that Defendants' products were based on the Patents and were not authorized by Plaintiff, and therefore Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed because the Lanham Act does not extend to claims of that kind, pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 37 (2003). Mot. Dismiss at 3-7. In Dastar, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of the term "origin" under the Lanham Act, and held that a "reading the phrase 'origin of goods' in the Lanham Act in accordance with the Act's common-law foundations (which were not designed to protect originality or creativity), and in light of the copyright and patent laws (which were), we conclude that the phrase refers to the producer of the tangible goods that are offered for sale, and not to the author of any idea, concept, or communication embodied in those goods." 539 U.S. at 37. Starting with the false designation of origin claim, the Lanham Act prohibits a "false designation of origin" that is "likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association. or as to the origin" of "goods, services, or commercial activities." 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). A false designation of origin claim can be based on passing off or reverse passing off: passing off "occurs when a producer misrepresents his own goods or services as someone else's," whereas reverse passing off occurs when "[t]he producer misrepresents someone else's goods or services as his own." Dastar, 539 U.S. at 27 n.1. As to an alleged reverse passing off claim (to the extent that Plaintiff attempts to assert one), Moving Defendants argue that the Complaint does not allege that anyone aside from Defendants (or their suppliers) are the producers of the allegedly infringing products sold by Defendants, but rather the Complaint alleges that Defendants sold products that infringed the Patents. Mot. Dismiss at 4. The Court agrees with Moving Defendants that such a claim is barred under Dastar. Mot. Dismiss at 4-5 (citing, inter alia, Clark v. Walt Disney Co., 642 F. Supp. 2d 775, 786 (S.D. Ohio 2009) ("In this case, as in Dastar, Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants purchased his Talking Posters, repackaged them, and sold them as their own. Therefore, Defendants' conduct does not constitute reverse passing off. To the extent that Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have misappropriated his intellectual property, his recourse lies in an action for patent infringement, not false designation of origin or deceptive trade practices"); Lighting Prods. Ltd. v. Robertson Transformer Co., 2015 WL 719521, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 17, 2015) (dismissing false designation of origin claim where the defendant was the manufacturer of the goods in question). As to a claim based on passing off (as opposed to a reverse passing off), Moving Defendants argue, and the Court agrees, that the Complaint is devoid of allegations that Moving Defendants' accused product listings contain any false or misleading statements concerning Plaintiff's approval or sponsorship, nor does it allege that Plaintiff or its patents are mentioned in Defendants' listings. Mot. Dismiss at 3. In response, Plaintiff retorts that the Complaint alleges that "Defendants have made false representations in connection with their goods that their products are compatible with numerous other systems, [which] would lead consumers to believe that the Defendants' lasers are compatible with Plaintiff's target system, when in fact they are not." Resp. at 3-4 (citing Compl. 32, 50). Therefore, argues Plaintiff, it has sufficiently stated a claim for false association. Id. Of note, Plaintiff does not substantively engage with Moving Defendants' arguments, nor respond to the numerous cases cited by Moving Defendants; Plaintiff also cites no authority, apart from cases standing for general propositions of law, in support of its argument, and therefore waives it. See White v. United States, 8 F.4th 547, 552 (7th Cir. 2021) ("perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, as well as arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived."). Waiver aside, the Court agrees with Moving Defendants that nowhere in the Complaint, including in the paragraphs cited by Plaintiff, does it allege that Defendants' listings stated that their products were compatible with Plaintiff's or that they were authorized by Plaintiff. R. [103], Reply at 6. To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to allege an inference that customers would believe Defendants' products were compatible with Plaintiffs' products simply because Defendants' products were based on the Patents, for the same reasons discussed above, such a claim is properly brought as a patent infringement claim, not a trademark infringement claim. See Dastar, 539 U.S. at 37. Accordingly, the Court grants Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's § 1125(a) claim for false association/false designation of origin. Turning to the claim for false advertising under § 1125(a)(1)(B), a plaintiff must allege: "(1) a false statement of fact by the defendant in a commercial advertisement about its own or another's product; (2) the statement actually deceived or has the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience; (3) the deception is material, in that it is likely to influence the purchasing decision; (4) the defendant caused its false statement to enter interstate commerce; and (5) the plaintiff has been or is likely to be injured as a result of the false statement, either by direct diversion of sales from itself to defendant or by a loss of goodwill associated with its products." Hot Wax, Inc. v. Turtle Wax, Inc., 191 F.3d 813, 819 (7th Cir. 1999). Moving Defendants argue that Plaintiff's false advertising claim fails for the same reasons; that is, in essence, Plaintiff alleges that "Defendants made false or misleading statements by failing to convey to buyers that their offerings were unauthorized and were based on Plaintiff's Patent." Mot. Dismiss at 5 (citing Compl. 49-57). Such claims, however, are also foreclosed by Dastar. Id. at 5-6 (citing, inter alia, Lighting Prod., 2015 WL 719521 at *7 (plaintiff's claim that defendant violated § 1125(a) "by misrepresenting [allegedly infringing products'] nature in commercial advertising without crediting [the plaintiff's] contribution" was foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Dastar); FNA Grp., Inc. v. Jiangsu Longteng-Pengda Elec. Mech. Co., 2020 WL 2840154, at *7 (D. Nev. May 31, 2020) ("Plaintiff's false description claim fails for the same reason - to the extent Plaintiff alleges [Defendant] has engaged in 'false or misleading descriptions of fact' because it failed to convey to buyers that its pumps were based on Plaintiff's patents and confidential information, the Lanham Act does not extend to claims of that kind"). Plaintiff against fails to substantively respond to Moving Defendants' arguments or authority, much less cite authority of its own (again, apart from cases standing for general propositions of law), and thus has waived a response. See White, 8 F.4th at 552. No matter, because the Court again agrees with Moving Defendants. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed herein, the Court grants Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss [98] and dismisses Count II of the Complaint against Moving Defendants. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 69 |
09/18/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: Upon review of the docket, the Court noticed that two motions still appear as pending despite already having been resolved. Specifically, the Court ruled on defendant Daniel LeVoir's motion for extension of time [54] and defendants DARKFANG-US, BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, StrongTools, UR smart, theopot, Befbox, Tipfun, Defentac Direct, VOTATU, cvlife's motion to strike reply [73]. The Court terminates motions [54] and [73]. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 68 |
09/18/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court has reviewed the parties' stipulation of dismissal as to the "Pinty Direct Defendants" (Nantong Jingting Trading Co., Ltd., Shanghai Aoshen E-commerce Co., Ltd., Shanghai Fanchen Trading Co., Ltd., Shanghai Youting Trading Co., Ltd.) consisting of Doe Nos. 15, 33, 41, 50, 53, 54, 55, 59, 62, 64, 65, 77, 78, 83, 84, 93, and 100 [120]. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims against the Pinty Direct Defendants with prejudice. The Court also dismisses the Pinty Direct Defendants' counterclaims with prejudice [R. 45]. As to other pending motions involving the Pinty Direct Defendants, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the Pinty Direct Defendants' counterclaims as moot [63] and grants the Pinty Direct Defendants' request to withdraw their motion to recover bond [114]. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is instructed to terminate motions [63] and [114] as moot. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 67 |
09/17/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: On 7/30/2025, the Court granted Brian Swift and Adam E. Urbanczyk's motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendants BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, and UR smart [116]. In the order, the Court stated that failure of Defendants BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, and UR smart to obtain new counsel by 8/29/2025 may result in "the entry of an order of default and ultimately to the entry of a default judgment." To date, no new counsel has appeared on behalf of Defendants BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, and UR smart. Accordingly, by 9/24/2025, Plaintiff is instructed to file a motion for default as to Defendants BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, and UR smart, or alternatively, a status report as to recommended next steps concerning these defendants. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 66 |
08/11/2025
|
STIPULATION of Dismissal of Doe 15 Pinty Direct; Doe 33 aoligeialg/aoligei_ALG; Doe 41 candymall20; Doe 50 ekobyte_v; Doe 53 estrellaoc/estrella_oc; Doe 54 everjoy19; Doe 55 fahavorfhv/fahavor_fhv; Doe 59 hemlockimportsv/hemlockimports_v; Doe 62 incredibledeals2u; Doe 64 kingstore_kgs; Doe 65 lcmarket; Doe 77 pinty2021; Doe 78 pintyoutdoor/optics_Scope; Doe 83 saisonsucher_v; Doe 84 seriouswholesaler/Serious Wholesaler; Doe 93 techexpert4u; Doe 100 youngfit_yft 翻译 |
| 65 |
08/08/2025
|
STATUS Report joint status report by Laser Ammo Ltd. Presented before Magistrate Judge 翻译 |
| 64 |
07/30/2025
|
CERTIFICATE of Service by Defendants BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, UR smart regarding order on motion to withdraw as attorney, add and terminate attorneys, [117] 翻译 |
| 63 |
07/30/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated in the motion, Brian Swift and Adam E. Urbanczyk's motion to withdraw as counsel for Defendants BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, and UR smart is granted [116]. Defendants BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, and UR smart are granted 30 days, until 8/29/2025, to retain new counsel. The Court notes that corporations are not permitted to represent themselves in federal court. See 1756 W. Lake St. LLC v. Am. Chartered Bank, 787 F.3d 383, 385 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting the "requirement that a limited liability company be represented in litigation by a lawyer"); Philos Techs., Inc. v. Philos & D, Inc., 645 F.3d 851, 858 (7th Cir. 2011) ("[C]orporations must appear by counsel or not at all."). Failure to obtain substitute counsel by the date set forth above may subject the corporate Defendants BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, and UR smart to the entry of an order of default and ultimately to the entry of a default judgment. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, and UR smart's contact information to the address listed for each corporation in Docket No. 116. By 8/1/2025, withdrawing attorneys Brian Swift and Adam E. Urbanczyk must: (a) serve a copy of this order on a representative for Defendants BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, and UR smart; and (b) file a certificate of compliance on the Court's docket stating that counsel has done so. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 62 |
07/29/2025
|
MOTION by Attorney Brian Swift and Adam E. Urbanczyk to withdraw as attorney for BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, UR smart. New address information: Room 503, Unit 32, Building 16, Juxiu Qianhu Community, Dongqianhu Town, Yinzhou District Ningbo Zhejiang 315000 China (BOOLIT EYE); Room 202, No. 1, Building 3, No. 18 Anju Road, Xiaogang Subdistrict, Beilun District Ningbo Zhejiang 315822 China (SUN NEW); No. 242, Hongmian 3rd Road, Bao'an Community, Yuanshan Subdistrict, Longgang District, Building 2, Room 604 Shenzhen Guangdong 518115 China (UR smart) Presented before District Judge 翻译 |
| 61 |
07/25/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: As the Court continues to review briefing on the motion for preliminary injunction (doc. #[21]), and in view of certain defendants' motion for bond (doc. #[114]), as to which the magistrate judge is determining whether it falls within the referral (doc. #[108]), the Court views the 7/31/25 motion hearing as impractical. The hearing is stricken and will be reset upon review of a pair of joint status reports due at noon on 8/8/25. The first joint status report is to be filed on the docket, and shall contain an update on what defendants are in or out of the case, what defendants are or are not targets of the injunction motion, and what defendants are actively opposing the motion by appearing and joining in the opposition response. The second joint status report is not to be filed on the docket, but is to address settlement only and sent to the Court's settlement correspondence email box at Settlement_Correspondence_Fuentes@ilnd.uscourts.gov so that it may confidentially address which if any of the parties (including plaintiff) has any interest in a settlement of this case, global or non-global, before the Court rules on the preliminary injunction and thus affects the possible settlement value of the case. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 60 |
07/24/2025
|
MOTION by Defendants Nantong Jingting Trading Co., Ltd, Shanghai Aoshen E-commerce Co., Ltd, Shanghai Fanchen Trading Co., Ltd, Shanghai Youting Trading Co., Ltd for bond Presented before Magistrate Judge 翻译 |
| 59 |
07/18/2025
|
REPLY by Laser Ammo Ltd. to response in opposition to motion, [55], Response, [56] 翻译 |
| 58 |
07/17/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: The motion hearing and oral argument set for 1 p.m. on 7/25/25 is stricken and reset to 11 a.m. on 7/31/25 in Courtroom 1342 of the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse at the Court's instance. 翻译 |
| 57 |
07/10/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Gabriel A. Fuentes: This matter coming before the magistrate judge on referral (doc. #[110]) not of "all further proceedings" but of only plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (doc. #[21]) and certain defendants' motion to compel notice to Amazon (doc. #[61]), and the Court having observed from the docket that both of these motions are fully briefed (doc. #s [22], [35], [47], [55], [56], [77], [80]), the Court sets a hearing for oral argument on both referred motions for 1 p.m. on 7/25/25 in Courtroom 1342 of the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, in person. In the meantime, with the preliminary injunction reply (doc. #[71]) having been stricken (doc. #[77]) for including arguments argued for the first time on reply, plaintiff is granted leave to refile a version of that reply, with all impermissible new arguments removed, no later than 7/18/25. No further briefing is permitted without court order. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 56 |
07/03/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Executive Committee: Case referred to the Honorable Gabriel Fuentes for all further proceedings pursuant to Local Rule 72.1. Mailed notice 翻译 |
| 55 |
07/08/2025
|
MOTION by Defendants BOOLIT EYE, Befbox, DARKFANG-US, Defentac Direct, SUN NEW, StrongTools, Tipfun, UR smart, VOTATU, cvlife, theopot for extension of time to provide disclosures under LPR 3.1(b) 翻译 |
| 54 |
07/03/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court refers Defendants motion to compel [61] to the Magistrate Judge. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 53 |
07/03/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court strikes Defendant's motion for extension of time to respond [47]. In order to file any motion before the Court, Doe 47 must obtain counsel, as a corporation cannot appear in court pro se or be represented by a non-lawyer. Scandia Down Corp. v. Euroquilt, Inc., 772 F. 2d 1423, 1427 (7th Cir. 1985) ("A corporation must appear by counsel, or not at all."). Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 52 |
07/03/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court refers the motion for preliminary injunction [21] to the Magistrate Judge. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 51 |
03/31/2025
|
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Laser Ammo Ltd. with prejudice of Doe 8 DARKFANG-US; Doe 19 StrongTools; Doe 21 TaryagDefense 翻译 |
| 50 |
03/07/2025
|
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Laser Ammo Ltd. with prejudice of Doe 27 VOTATU Outdoor 翻译 |
| 49 |
03/04/2025
|
REPLY by Defendants BOOLIT EYE, Befbox, DARKFANG-US, Defentac Direct, SUN NEW, StrongTools, Tipfun, UR smart, VOTATU, cvlife, theopot to response in opposition to motion, [102] 翻译 |
| 48 |
02/18/2025
|
RESPONSE by Laser Ammo Ltd.in Opposition to MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendants DARKFANG-US, BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, StrongTools, UR smart, theopot, Befbox, Tipfun, Defentac Direct, VOTATU, cvlife [98] 翻译 |
| 47 |
02/08/2025
|
NOTICE OF TRO EXPIRATION by Nantong Jingting Trading Co., Ltd 翻译 |
| 46 |
02/03/2025
|
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Laser Ammo Ltd. with prejudice of Doe 75 oriad15; Doe 85 smarttree66 翻译 |
| 45 |
01/28/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court sets the following briefing schedule on Defendant's motion to dismiss [98]: Plaintiff's response due 2/18/2025; Defendant's reply due 3/4/2025. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 44 |
01/27/2025
|
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Defendants DARKFANG-US, BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, StrongTools, UR smart, theopot, Befbox, Tipfun, Defentac Direct, VOTATU, cvlife 翻译 |
| 43 |
01/27/2025
|
ANSWER to Complaint Counts I and III by DARKFANG-US, BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, StrongTools, UR smart, theopot, Befbox, Tipfun, Defentac Direct, VOTATU, cvlife 翻译 |
| 42 |
01/24/2025
|
NOTICE OF TRO EXPIRATION by Nantong Jingting Trading Co., Ltd 翻译 |
| 41 |
01/24/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Shanghai Fanchen Trading Co., Ltd by Clement Cheng 翻译 |
| 40 |
01/24/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Shanghai Youting Trading Co., Ltd by Clement Cheng 翻译 |
| 39 |
01/24/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Shanghai Aoshen E-commerce Co., Ltd by Clement Cheng 翻译 |
| 38 |
01/24/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Nantong Jingting Trading Co., Ltd by Clement Cheng 翻译 |
| 37 |
01/17/2025
|
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Laser Ammo Ltd. without prejudice of Doe 1 Accelerated Firearm Training 翻译 |
| 36 |
01/17/2025
|
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Laser Ammo Ltd. with prejudice of Doe 42 COCOBABYUSA; Doe 69 meinuousa; Doe 82 redstarus 翻译 |
| 35 |
01/10/2025
|
RESPONSE by Nantong Jingting Trading Co., Ltd, Shanghai Aoshen E-commerce Co., Ltd, Shanghai Fanchen Trading Co., Ltd, Shanghai Youting Trading Co., Ltdin Opposition to MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Counter Defendant Laser Ammo Ltd., Plaintiff Laser Ammo Ltd. [63] 翻译 |
| 34 |
01/07/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated in the motion, the Court grants Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time [86]. Defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by 01/27/25. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 33 |
01/07/2025
|
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Laser Ammo Ltd. with prejudice of Doe 51 ericy23 翻译 |
| 32 |
01/06/2025
|
MOTION by Defendants DARKFANG-US, BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, StrongTools, UR smart, theopot, Befbox, Tipfun, Defentac Direct, VOTATU, cvlife for extension of time UNOPPOSED 翻译 |
| 31 |
01/02/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated in the motion, the Court grants Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time [83]. Defendant must answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by 01/24/25. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 30 |
12/27/2024
|
ANNUAL REMINDER: Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 (Notification of Affiliates), any nongovernmental party, other than an individual or sole proprietorship, must file a statement identifying all its affiliates known to the party after diligent review or, if the party has identified no affiliates, then a statement reflecting that fact must be filed. An affiliate is defined as follows: any entity or individual owning, directly or indirectly (through ownership of one or more other entities), 5% or more of a party. The statement is to be electronically filed as a PDF in conjunction with entering the affiliates in CM/ECF as prompted. As a reminder to counsel, parties must supplement their statements of affiliates within thirty (30) days of any change in the information previously reported. This minute order is being issued to all counsel of record to remind counsel of their obligation to provide updated information as to additional affiliates if such updating is necessary. If counsel has any questions regarding this process, this LINK will provide additional information. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 12/27/2024: Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 29 |
12/24/2024
|
MOTION by Defendant Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint[1] (unopposed) 翻译 |
| 28 |
12/20/2024
|
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Laser Ammo Ltd. with prejudice of Doe 11 Eichholz; Doe 29 YADIMAi 翻译 |
| 27 |
12/17/2024
|
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Laser Ammo Ltd. with prejudice of Doe 14 LMLMD-US; Doe 38 bestdealusa; Doe 52 EROCK; Doe 67 Longbuy; Doe 98 WX6688 翻译 |
| 26 |
12/11/2024
|
RESPONSE by Counter Defendant Laser Ammo Ltd., Plaintiff Laser Ammo Ltd. to motion to compel[61] 翻译 |
| 25 |
12/10/2024
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated in the motion, the Court grants Defendants' motion for extension of time [76]. Defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by 12/27/24. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 24 |
12/10/2024
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated in the motion, the Court grants Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time [74]. Defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by 01/06/25. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 23 |
12/10/2024
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court grants Defendants' motion to strike [71]. Generally, the Court will not consider an argument or case, or exhibits, asserted for the first time in a reply. See Narducci v. Moore, 572 F.3d 313, 323 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court agrees with Defendants that arguments, authorities, and evidence raised for the first time in a reply brief should not be considered. Accordingly, the Court will not consider any new arguments, authorities, and evidence presented for the first time in Plaintiff's reply brief that could have been or should have been made in its opening brief. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 22 |
12/09/2024
|
MOTION by Defendants cocobabyusa, meinuousa, redstarus, smarttree66 for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint[1], UNOPPOSED 翻译 |
| 21 |
12/09/2024
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants cocobabyusa, meinuousa, redstarus, smarttree66 by Yong Chen 翻译 |
| 20 |
12/06/2024
|
MOTION by Defendants DARKFANG-US, BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, StrongTools, UR smart, theopot, Befbox, Tipfun, Defentac Direct, VOTATU, cvlife for extension of time UNOPPOSED 翻译 |
| 19 |
12/05/2024
|
MOTION by Defendants DARKFANG-US, BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, StrongTools, UR smart, theopot, Befbox, Tipfun, Defentac Direct, VOTATU, cvlife to strike reply, [71] (certain argument) 翻译 |
| 18 |
12/02/2024
|
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Laser Ammo Ltd. with prejudice of Doe 12 Extreme Tactics Shot; Doe 13 Indesign Special; Doe 18 Shooting Training Equipment; Doe 24 Top Shooter Zone; Doe 36 aviators_tactical; Doe 37 bangbestseller; Doe 66 ldp001; Doe 71 nuoya2012; Doe 72 nygcshop/nygc_61; Doe 73 nyliyan6688; Doe 74 nyzhan87/nyzhan_87; Doe 87 souforceofficalstore/souforce-offical-store; Doe 88 starshop201286/starshop*2012; Doe 89 sxy120/sxy1_20; Doe 94 tiktoktoys/newworld-23; Doe 97 won28; Doe 101 ysw114; Doe 102 Bai Gu office supplies; Doe 103 Beauty Boy Store; Doe 104 beijing zhong xin jie chuang Tech Co.,ltd; Doe 105 Beijing ZhongXinJieChang Technology Co., Ltd; Doe 106 bingyang; Doe 107 Building materials of Hui Jiaming waterproof coating; Doe 111 Hung Hsing clothes; Doe 113 JiaJia Liu Store; Doe 115 lehang2017; Doe 118 Panpan Gao; Doe 119 sunxiaoyue store; Doe 121 W HeYi; Doe 122 Wing Autumn Day; Doe 123 xuexiao2019; Doe 124 yufang2019 翻译 |
| 17 |
11/27/2024
|
REPLY by Counter Defendant Laser Ammo Ltd., Plaintiff Laser Ammo Ltd. to response in opposition to motion, [55], Response, [56], motion for preliminary injunction[21] 翻译 |
| 16 |
11/27/2024
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court grants Defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time [69]. Defendant must answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by 12/27/2024. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 15 |
11/26/2024
|
MOTION by Defendant Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint[1] (unopposed) 翻译 |
| 14 |
11/22/2024
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: In light of the holiday season, the Court amends the briefing schedule as follows on Defendant's motion to dismiss [63]: Plaintiff's response due 1/10/2025; Defendant's reply due 1/25/2025. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 13 |
11/22/2024
|
REPLY by Defendants DARKFANG-US, BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, StrongTools, UR smart, theopot, Befbox, Tipfun, Defentac Direct, VOTATU, cvlife to motion to compel[61] 翻译 |
| 12 |
11/21/2024
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court sets the following briefing schedule on Counter Defendant's motion to dismiss [63]: Plaintiff's response due 12/12/2024; Counter Defendant's reply due 12/26/2024. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 11 |
11/21/2024
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to extend the temporary restraining order (TRO) [62]. The TRO [16] has already been extended by a period of 14 days [19] and expired on 11/01/24. Plaintiff has not argued that Defendants have consented to this extension. The Court declines to extend the TRO beyond the 28-day period, and denies the motion with prejudice. H-D Michigan, LLC v. Hellenic Duty Free Shops S.A., 694 F.3d 827, 844 (7th Cir. 2012) ("In our view, the language of Rule 65(b)(2) and the great weight of authority support the view that 28 days is the outer limit for a TRO without the consent of the enjoined party, regardless of whether the TRO was issued with or without notice.") Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 10 |
11/20/2024
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court sets the following briefing schedule on Defendant's motion to compel [61]: Plaintiff's response due 12/11/2024; Defendant's reply due 12/25/2024. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 9 |
11/20/2024
|
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Counter Defendant Laser Ammo Ltd., Plaintiff Laser Ammo Ltd. 翻译 |
| 8 |
11/19/2024
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Laser Ammo Ltd. for extension of time to temporary restraining order and initial response to motion to compel 翻译 |
| 7 |
11/18/2024
|
MOTION by Defendants DARKFANG-US, BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, StrongTools, UR smart, theopot, Befbox, Tipfun, Defentac Direct, VOTATU, cvlife to compel notice to Amazon 翻译 |
| 6 |
11/15/2024
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: For the reasons stated in the motion, the Court grants Defendants' unopposed motion for leave to file excess pages [58]. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 5 |
11/15/2024
|
NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Laser Ammo Ltd. with prejudice of Doe 49 ebojo/e-bojo; Doe 114 jinsehaiwan 翻译 |
| 4 |
11/14/2024
|
MOTION by Defendants DARKFANG-US, BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, StrongTools, UR smart, theopot, Befbox, Tipfun, Defentac Direct, VOTATU, cvlife for leave to file excess pages 翻译 |
| 3 |
11/14/2024
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Franklin U. Valderrama: The Court sets the following briefing schedule on Defendant's motion [54]: Plaintiff's response due 12/05/2024; Defendant's reply due 12/19/2024. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 2 |
11/13/2024
|
RESPONSE by Defendants DARKFANG-US, BOOLIT EYE, SUN NEW, StrongTools, UR smart, theopot, Befbox, Tipfun, Defentac Direct, VOTATU, cvlife to motion for preliminary injunction[21] 翻译 |
| 1 |
11/13/2024
|
RESPONSE by Shanghai Aoshen E-commerce Co., Ltd, Shanghai Youting Trading Co., Ltd, Nantong Jingting Trading Co., Ltd, Shanghai Fanchen Trading Co., Ltdin Opposition to MOTION by Plaintiff Laser Ammo Ltd. for preliminary injunction [21] 翻译 |