2025-cv-03483 +组团 近期案件➥ 订阅
原告律所：HSP
品牌：HULA-HOOP 呼啦圈
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 |
| 50 |
07/21/2025
|
MAILED trademark report with order dated 7/21/2025 to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA 翻译 |
| 49 |
07/21/2025
|
ENTERED JUDGMENT Signed on 7/21/2025: Civil case terminated. 翻译 |
| 48 |
07/21/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for entry of default and for default judgment, 39, is denied. The Seventh Circuit has found the existence of specific personal jurisdiction in suits against online retailers, but only when the defendant has shipped the allegedly infringing products to the forum state. In NBA Properties v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614 (7th Cir. 2022), the Seventh Circuit held that specific jurisdiction exists where, "when an order was placed, [the defendant] filled the order, intentionally shipping an infringing product to the customer's designated Illinois address," id. at 624 (emphasis added); see also id. at 625 ("HANWJH knew it could be subject to the jurisdiction of Illinois when it shipped a counterfeit product to the forum."). In Curry v. Revolution Laboratories, LLC, 949 F.3d 385 (7th Cir. 2020), the Seventh Circuit "held jurisdiction proper where a defendant's website offered the forum state as a 'ship-to' option, the defendant sent a follow-up email confirming orders and shipping addresses, and the defendant sold and shipped products to over 700 residents in the forum," NBA Props., 46 F.4th at 622-23 (emphasis added) (summarizing Curry). Likewise, in Illinois v. Hemi Group, LLC, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010), the Seventh Circuit found purposeful availment where an online retailer shipped cigarettes to customers in the forum state. See id. at 758. In short, the Seventh Circuit's holdings in NBA Properties, Curry, and Hemi appear to rest on the fact that the defendants actually shipped the allegedly infringing products into the forum state. Plaintiff argues that defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the Illinois forum by accepting payment from Illinois customers and confirming orders that contained Illinois shipping addresses. That argument is unpersuasive. "The mere existence of a contract between an out-of-state defendant and an in-state plaintiff is insufficient, by itself, to justify personal jurisdiction." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 478 (1985). Relatedly, even crediting plaintiff's assertion that its investigator paid the balance due (which is contradicted by exhibits indicating that defendants are still "[w]aiting for payment," and that shipping would commence "7 days after full amount collected is credited," see [44-1] at 6-7, [44-2] at 8-9, [44-3] at 9-10), the fact that "the origin of the funds paid to the defendants" lies in the forum state is insufficient to satisfy purposeful availment. John Crane Inc. v. Shein Law Ctr., 2017 WL 1105490 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2017). If a contract is the asserted basis for personal jurisdiction-such as a contract for sale of merchandise-the court must conduct "a context-sensitive analysis of the contract, examining prior negotiations, contemplated future consequences, the terms of the contract, and the parties' course of actual dealing with each other." N. Grain Mktg., LLC v. Greving, 743 F.3d 487, 493 (7th Cir. 2014) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, defendants' only contact with Illinois is their alleged acceptance of payment from plaintiff's investigator, who provided Illinois shipping addresses for the orders. 44 at 4-5. That is not enough to establish purposeful availment. Absent shipment of a product into Illinois (which did not occur in this case, see id.), defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of the Illinois forum. The Supreme Court has long "emphasized the need for a highly realistic approach that recognizes that a contract is ordinarily but an intermediate step serving to tie up prior business negotiations with future consequences which themselves are the real object of the business transaction." Burger King, 471 U.S. at 479. Because none of the defendants made the deliberate step of shipping the allegedly infringing products into Illinois (as required under the parties' sales contracts), defendants did not purposefully avail themselves of the Illinois forum, and the court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendants. See Lexington Ins. Co. v. Hotai Ins. Co., Ltd., 938 F.3d 874, 880 (7th Cir. 2019) ("To conclude that personal jurisdiction exists, we need to see evidence that [defendants] reached out to [the forum state] during the formation and execution of these contracts." (emphasis added)). Because "this Court cannot enter a default judgment against a party over whom it lacks personal jurisdiction," Pardo v. Mecum Auction, Inc., No. 12 C 08410, 2014 WL 627690, at *8 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 18, 2014), plaintiff's motion for entry of default and for default judgment, 39, is denied. "When a court asked to enter default judgment against a party concludes that it lacks personal jurisdiction over the party, the appropriate procedure is to dismiss sua sponte for lack of personal jurisdiction." D'Onofrio v. Il Mattino, 430 F. Supp. 2d 431, 438 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (citing In re Tuli, 172 F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999)). Accordingly, the defendants named in the operative schedule A, 18, are dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. Having dismissed all of the defendants in this case, the court directs the Clerk of the Court to enter final judgment and terminate this case. 翻译 |
| 47 |
07/16/2025
|
MEMORANDUM by Intersport Corp. Supplemental Memorandum in Response to the July 2, 2025 Order [Dkt. No. 43] 翻译 |
| 46 |
07/02/2025
|
ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 7/2/2025: 翻译 |
| 45 |
06/30/2025
|
STATUS Report by Intersport Corp. 翻译 |
| 44 |
06/30/2025
|
DECLARATION of Michael A. Hierl regarding motion for default judgment 39 翻译 |
| 43 |
06/30/2025
|
MEMORANDUM by Intersport Corp. in support of motion for default judgment 39 翻译 |
| 42 |
06/30/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. for default judgment as to Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default and Default Judgment Against the Defendants Identified in Amended Schedule A 翻译 |
| 41 |
06/30/2025
|
CERTIFICATE of Service by Elizabeth Aubree Miller on behalf of Intersport Corp. 翻译 |
| 40 |
06/10/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff is directed to file a status report by 6/30/2025, addressing how plaintiff seeks to proceed with this litigation. Mailed notice. 翻译 |
| 39 |
06/06/2025
|
STATUS Report by Intersport Corp. 翻译 |
| 38 |
06/06/2025
|
CERTIFICATE of Service by Elizabeth Aubree Miller on behalf of Intersport Corp. 翻译 |
| 37 |
06/06/2025
|
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Intersport Corp. as to The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto on 6/6/2025, answer due 6/27/2025. 翻译 |
| 36 |
06/06/2025
|
SUMMONS Issued (Court Participant) as to Defendant The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto (qrtr,) 翻译 |
| 35 |
05/30/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff is directed to file a status report by 6/6/2025, addressing the status of service and how plaintiff seeks to proceed with this litigation. 翻译 |
| 34 |
05/12/2025
|
ORDER Signed by the Honorable Martha M. Pacold on 5/12/2025: 翻译 |
| 33 |
05/12/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery, 26, is granted in part and denied in part. Enter Order. 翻译 |
| 32 |
05/06/2025
|
EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. Exhibit 2 to Rios Declaration 翻译 |
| 31 |
04/30/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: On 4/21/2025, the court explained that if plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 4/28/2025. 24. To date, plaintiff has not done so. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 5/7/2025. 翻译 |
| 30 |
04/28/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. to expedite Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Discovery 翻译 |
| 29 |
04/21/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages, 20, is granted. 2. Plaintiff's motion for electronic service of process, 21, is granted. The court finds that electronic service of process is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Electronic service of process does not violate any treaty and is consistent with due process because it effectively communicates the pendency of this action to defendants. To the extent that the motion requests service of process of any temporary restraining order in this case, service is not necessary because this court has already denied the motion for a TRO. 24. 翻译 |
| 28 |
04/21/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: Plaintiff's motions for leave tof ile under seal, 19, and for a temporary restraining order and for expedited discovery, 21, are denied. Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal so that plaintiff may obtain a temporary restraining order freezing the defendants' assets before revealing the defendants' identities. See 19. "The Supreme Court has made clear that courts lack the power to issue an asset freeze at the beginning of a case, unless that party is seeking equitable monetary relief." Zorro Productions, Inc. v. Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto, No. 23-cv-5761, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2023) (citing Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999)); see also Shenzhen Yihong Lighting Co., Ltd. v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A, No. 23-cv-1560, at Dkt. 15 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2023). Indeed, "[a]s a general matter [ ] prejudgment asset restraints are not proper simply to establish a fund from which a later award of money damages can be satisfied." Zorro, 2023 WL 8807254, at *4 (second alteration in original) (quoting Banister v. Firestone, No. 17-cv-8940, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 5, 2018)). In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs often initially demand equitable relief in the form of an accounting of profits, but after obtaining a temporary asset freeze, plaintiffs uniformly shift their focus to demanding statutory damages. Id. at *3-4. In substance, then, if not in form, Schedule A plaintiffs seek prejudgment asset restraints to establish a fund from which money damages may be awarded. So, despite the demand in plaintiff's amended complaint that it be awarded defendants' profits, the court is not persuaded that plaintiff will actually seek or obtain such equitable relief-as opposed to statutory damages-in this case. See id. Thus, even if plaintiff's initial demand for an accounting of profits could provide this court with the power to issue a prejudgment asset freeze, see Grupo Mexicano, 527 U.S. at 333; Banister, 2018 WL 4224444, at *9, the court is not persuaded that such a freeze is warranted. Because the court denies the motion for a temporary restraining order, there is no reason to seal plaintiff's filings pending such relief. Plaintiff's motions for leave to file under seal, 19, and for a temporary restraining order, 21, are therefore denied. Plaintiff's sealed exhibits, 8, 15, 18, 23, are stricken. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with this case, plaintiff must file its exhibits publicly on the docket by 4/28/2025. 翻译 |
| 27 |
04/17/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. Exhibit 2 to Rios Declaration 翻译 |
| 26 |
04/17/2025
|
MEMORANDUM by Intersport Corp. in support of motion for temporary restraining order, 21 翻译 |
| 25 |
04/17/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. for temporary restraining order Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Entry of a Temporary Restraining Order, Including a Temporary Injunction, a Temporary Asset Restraint, Expedited Discovery, and Service of Process by Email and/or Electronic Publication 翻译 |
| 24 |
04/17/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. for leave to file excess pages Plaintiff's Motion to Exceed Page Limitation 翻译 |
| 23 |
04/17/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal 翻译 |
| 22 |
04/17/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. Amended Schedule A 翻译 |
| 21 |
04/17/2025
|
AMENDED complaint by Intersport Corp. against The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A Hereto 翻译 |
| 20 |
04/10/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: 1. In its response memorandum, plaintiff "requests leave to file an Amended Complaint to include a smaller subset for defendants." 13 at 3. The court therefore construes plaintiff's response memorandum as a motion for leave to amend. The motion for leave to amend is granted. An amended Schedule A is already filed on the docket. 15. 2. In light of the amended Schedule A, which names three defendants, 15, the court finds that plaintiff has discharged its obligation to show that joinder requirements have been met. See 12. 3. The amended Schedule A is filed on the docket under seal. 15. Plaintiff must, by 4/17/2025, file a properly supported motion to seal. 4. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages, 7, is granted. Plaintiff may file a brief (no longer than 30 pages) in support of a motion for temporary restraining order, motion for expedited discovery, and motion for alternative service. If plaintiff seeks to move on these grounds, these motions must be filed on the docket by 4/17/2025. 翻译 |
| 19 |
04/09/2025
|
SEALED EXHIBIT by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. Exhibit A regarding memorandum 14 翻译 |
| 18 |
04/09/2025
|
MEMORANDUM by Intersport Corp. Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Joinder 翻译 |
| 17 |
04/08/2025
|
RESPONSE by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. Memorandum in Response to Order of April 2, 2025 [Dkt. No. 12] 翻译 |
| 16 |
04/02/2025
|
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Martha M. Pacold: By 4/9/2025, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed or severed for improper joinder. Plaintiff is advised of the following: First, "[o]n motion or on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 21(a). Second, sua sponte review of the propriety of joinder in Schedule A cases is a regular practice of courts in this district because plaintiffs "routinely file these multi-defendant cases. using cookie-cutter complaints that allege in a conclusory manner that 'on information and belief' each infringing defendant is inter-connected with the others." Viking Arm AS v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 24-cv-1566, 2024 WL 2953105, at *1 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2024). Third, "[c]ourts generally find that claims against different defendants arose out of the same transaction or occurrence only if there is a logical relationship between the separate causes of action." Estee Lauder Cosms. Ltd. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", 334 F.R.D. 182, 185 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Fourth, courts have held that "to be part of the same transaction requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts." Id. (quoting In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Fifth, courts have held that the allegation that multiple defendants have infringed on the same copyright or trademark in the same way "does not create the substantial evidentiary overlap required to find a similar transaction or occurrence." Roadget Bus. Pte. Ltd. v. Schedule A Defs., No. 23-cv-17036, 2024 WL 1858592, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 29, 2024) (collecting cases). Finally, courts have held that the allegation that defendants "share unique identifiers, such as design elements and similarities of the unauthorized products offered for sale," is not sufficient to establish joinder. Ilustrata Servicos Design, Ltda. v. P'ships & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-05993, 2021 WL 5396690, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2021); Art Ask Agency v. Individuals, Corps., Ltd. Liab. Cos., P'ships, & Unincorporated Ass'ns Identified on Schedule "A", No. 21-cv-06197, 2021 WL 5493226, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2021). 翻译 |
| 15 |
04/02/2025
|
MAILED to plaintiff(s) counsel Lanham Mediation Program materials 翻译 |
| 14 |
04/02/2025
|
MAILED trademark report to Patent Trademark Office, Alexandria VA 翻译 |
| 13 |
04/01/2025
|
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. 翻译 |
| 12 |
04/01/2025
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Laura K. McNally. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). 翻译 |
| 11 |
04/01/2025
|
NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O 翻译 |
| 10 |
04/01/2025
|
SEALED DOCUMENT by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O Sealed Schedule A 翻译 |
| 9 |
04/01/2025
|
MOTION by Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O to seal document Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Under Seal 翻译 |
| 8 |
04/01/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O by John Wilson 翻译 |
| 7 |
04/01/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O by Robert Payton Mcmurray 翻译 |
| 6 |
04/01/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O by William Benjamin Kalbac 翻译 |
| 5 |
04/01/2025
|
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O by Michael A. Hierl 翻译 |
| 4 |
04/01/2025
|
CIVIL Cover Sheet 翻译 |
| 3 |
04/01/2025
|
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. 翻译 |
| 2 |
04/01/2025
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Martha M. Pacold. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Laura K. McNally. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). 翻译 |
| 1 |
04/01/2025
|
COMPLAINT filed by Intersport Corp. d/b/a WHAM-O; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23286885. 翻译 |